All the goal scoring greats start their career in 2005-06. Who outscores Ovechkin?

[Calderon]

Alex Ovechkin, recently crowned as the greatest goal scorer of all time by virtue of raw totals as well, got his NHL career started in 2005. We know he's been incredibly consistent and durable, almost scoring 50 in three different decades (paced for over 50 this season). The raw peak of 65 goals is good but not incredible. Then again, it's still estimated as the 2nd best OAT in adjusted goals (after Brett Hull, if my memory serves). Most people would likely agree Gretzky reached his peak of 92 and 87 (pace of 94) goals in pretty much optimal conditions and wouldn't gotten so high once goaltending and defensive schemes markedly improved. Maybe the same can be said of other snipers whose MO was slapshot. Mario Lemieux, probably the most talented and versatile goal scorer, stayed effective heading to the dead puck era and even torched the league in one of his comebacks in 2000-01, though the sample size wasn't ample. Pavel Bure seemed quite unphased by changes in league wide scoring but wasn't built for a long career. Brett Hull might've had the best peak but how much of it do we credit Adam Oates for, and how would that short-lived companionship have played out during the post lockout salary cap era? Do we even care to think of the early forefathers, the likes of Frank Nighbor and Joe Malone? This kind of thought excercise may raise more questions than answers but it's always fun to speculate.

For the purposes of this excercise I think it's fair to allow players reasonable health improvement, at least for the fact that they'd be able to enjoy the fruits of 2000s medicine including improved surgery techniques and rehab, changes in playing styles, rules (no red line, no clutch and grab), lifestyle (no-one smokes anymore etc.), advances in equipment and goaltending etc. Not sure about the effect of salary cap (unlikely Bossy gets to play with Trottier et al. his whole career).

I suspect Mario would be, perhaps rather narrowly but still clearly more prolific than Ovechkin in this scenario. Howe in 2000s environment might have even better longevity than Ovi and with a prime almost as good as Lemieux. Ovi might take third place. Bure would be close but he loses in longevity. Bobby Hull would be up there, maybe better than Brett whose peak was short. Not sure with Esposito here, does Orr play in the 2000s as well, lol. Bossy is a curious case as a great candidate for the oft-quoted demand for 20x45 goals (to get to 895). No idea with Rocket Richard. I think one clear loser here is Matthews who doesn't get any advantage of what if - if anything, his numbers would drop. Of other notables I'd see an increase in Teemu Selänne's numbers even though he'd be hard pressed to reach his career high of 76 goals. As for The Great One I don't know how to place him but I don't think he makes the top3 and it's unlikely he gets the single season record either, looking at how he used to get his goals in the 80s -- then again you're reminded how much better he was than everyone, including Bossy... But given how much more talent there's today I think he really goes wild as the best playmaker.

 

[MadLuke]

No one for sure, some like Mario could have a shot, Bobby Hull, Howe could, Bure, etc....

But it is not just career physical endurance and keeping your knees, mental as well. Even among the 2000s medicine peers, Ovechkin has been significantly robust and some or Mario health/mental issues could be the same.

Ovechkin would still be the favorite odd wise I think, maybe not over the whole field but maybe not far.

Because of their longevity B.Hull, Jagr and Howe are not bad candidate, Bobby Hull scoring 50pts on his 19 years old season in that era was being quite good, quite young and he was still producing at kind of elite pace in a lower league 21 years in. He was just a natural physical phenom, because of that, tempting to put him as the most likely to do it.

Richard having better ankle faith? hard to say, modern skate and stick work could help... thats another one that could have great longevity and drive to attempt it.

 

[WarriorofTime]

No idea what your middle paragraph is trying to get it, assume everyone has Ovechkin's longevity? Players roughly contemporaneous to Ovechkin didn't have Ovechkin's goalscoring longevity for one reason or another.

The only fair and reasonable answer to this question is nobody because the combination of Ovechkin's peak (one of the best adjusted goal scoring seasons ever), consistency (most times leading NHL in goals) and longevity (still 2nd in goals at age 39) is unrivaled in goal scoring hence why he broke the all the time goal scoring record playing primarily in a low scoring era. Take away any of those and there is no record, hence why it's a record.

Lemieux with health, Howe with higher scoring would be the most natural rivals of course. Guessing how someone like Mike Bossy plays in a "modern training" environment is way too speculative to really even begin because in real life he scored just 9 NHL goals after his 30th birthday. So I can't in good faith just project him out to have a Mike Gartner like goal scoring aging curve with whatever multiple attached to it.

 

[JackSlater]

I think it would be between Ovechkin, Lemieux, and Hull, with an outside shot to Howe. Many goal scorers have a great peak, but Ovechkin got there by aging extremely well as a goal scorer. Hull also aged very well - he was an elite goal scorer by the 1959-1960 season and was still an elite goal scorer as late as 1976-1977. Lemieux was still a high end goal scorer in 2003, not among the world's best though. It's probably easier to stay healthy in post-2014 hockey, but there are still questions about Lemieux staying healthy enough and being willing to put in the work. Hull probably has fewer injuries playing in this time frame, but he was reasonably healthy to begin with. Howe is Howe and the variable is how long he plays.

Overall I'd still favour Ovechkin to do it since he's less of a question mark.

 

[Overrated]

Lemieux & Bure provided that they stay healthy

 

[MadLuke]

I think outside Richard-Howe-Hull, a lot of the candidates started their career at a better time to break Gretzky record or at least equivalent to Ovechkin (say why Brett Hull would end up scoring more starting in 2006, maybe he would have been more serious younger or scouting better ?)

Why would make the Ovechkin-Bobby Hull-Lemieux type of order to me I think, Lemieux on a Hail Mary that he play 20 years 75 games a year scenario.

The first half ot the 2006 to now was not particularly easy for stars health (Bergeron-Crosby-Stamkos-Malkin-Savard-Gaborik-Lecavalier-Price-Parise), 70s style longevity still happened (Mike Richard, Toews, Price, Subban, Phaneuf, Horton)

 

[Calderon]

No idea what your middle paragraph is trying to get it, assume everyone has Ovechkin's longevity? Players roughly contemporaneous to Ovechkin didn't have Ovechkin's goalscoring longevity for one reason or another.

No, not Ovechkin's longevity but players' careers wouldn't be cut short by ordinary injuries (see Bobby Orr) but would overcome them in reasonable fashion and get an average elite player's career length if that makes sense. Sure if we're talking about a freak accident, congenital heart failure or something like that then it's unreasonable to assume the player would fare better in this era. However, even then we have examples of very good players like Phil Kessel, an iron man, who was out of the league just short of cracking 1000 games.

Having said that I concede Mario wouldn't necessarily get to play 1300+ games however we slice it. I guess with him it's a what if even in a what if scenario.

Edit. I continue to be undecided on the exact "rules" of the topic scenario but it's just cool to guesstimate how Lemieux would fare if he got to play in this era, be it 915 games or 1500+. Bure is another fascinating player with how his career was cut short and how he'd skate like the wind and be free of the old clutch and grab -- and didn't need elite playmaking that much.

 

[Calderon]

The first half ot the 2006 to now was not particularly easy for stars health (Bergeron-Crosby-Stamkos-Malkin-Savard-Gaborik-Lecavalier-Price-Parise), 70s style longevity still happened (Mike Richard, Toews, Price, Subban, Phaneuf, Horton)

This is a great point!

 

[Troubadour]

Bure with no two line pass rule would likely score insane goal totals. He also would have lasted longer had he begun his career in 2005.

 

[Matsun]

Ovechkin has set this record during a really low scoring period so most/all of the goal scoring greats would probably see their numbers drop if they started their career after the lockout. I don't see how they would outscore Ovechkin with the benefit of playing in a lower scoring era even if they are healthier. I think the consistent guys like Bossy and Bobby Hull have no shot because Ovechkin is the same kind of year in year old beast and I can't see his total being outdone like that. I think if Ovechkin would be outscored it would be by a huge peak like Brett Hull. Brett Hull only played 5 games before age 23 and today he would likely break out sooner, but even if you add 150 ish games to his career he would still lose a lot of goals due to not having Oates and the lower scoring league so the effect would cancel out. I think Mario has the best case of beating Ovechkin because he missed so many games that if he got an extra 300 games even in a lower scoring era I think he would've made it to 800+.

 

[tabness]

Lemieux, softer league would have suited him so well, that even if he still had a shortened career I think he just scores at a higher rate.

Bure as well if he can stay healthy tailor made for the era, although in Bure's case I think he doesn't do it in a shortened career like Lemieux might have.

Nobody else for sure, how does Bobby Hull age staying in the NHL? How does Brett Hull start out the gate? Does Bossy go longer without having the same back issues in the powderpuff era?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lemieux is the best answer here.

Bobby Hull is there too.

I'd have to think harder about others.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Brett Hull only played 5 games before age 23 and today he would likely break out sooner,

Still have those guys though, if, similar to Brett Hull, they weren't big draft prospects. The most notable draft prospects of the day were still shuffled into the NHL right away, same as today.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Lemieux, softer league would have suited him so well, that even if he still had a shortened career I think he just scores at a higher rate.

Bure as well if he can stay healthy tailor made for the era, although in Bure's case I think he doesn't do it in a shortened career like Lemieux might have.

Nobody else for sure, how does Bobby Hull age staying in the NHL? How does Brett Hull start out the gate? Does Bossy go longer without having the same back issues in the powderpuff era?

If you era adjust health in Lemieux's favor, you can do that to get a higher GP proportion, but I don't think you'd all of a sudden say era takes him from one of the least healthy players to one of the most healthy ones, as you still have players that don't play a relatively high proportion of games compared to others today, just as you had players that played a higher proportion of games relative to others then.

I'm actually not sure what sort of analysis on a league wide empirical basis (not just picking and choosing a few players) has been looked at as far as the effect and percentages of time missed across eras, as well as a really solid look at player longevity. 1984-85 through 2003-04 shows 96 skaters that appeared in over 1,000 games in that 20 year period. 2005-06 through 2024-25 shows 94 skaters that appeared in over 1,000 games in this 20 year period. This era has more teams but missed some time with lockout in 2012-13, COVID abridged seasons in 2019-20 and 2020-21 and the 90s had the 84 game season for a couple years.

Then Lemieux's contending with lower scoring league in general (especially as he only played a small sample of actual numbers in a low scoring DPE environment) which lowers stats across the board. Seems like you're at most getting wash and that already feels generous.

 

[rmartin65]

I'm going to go along with the majority here and say Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, and Bobby Hull seem like the most likely candidates.

A name that I don't think I've seen mentioned yet- Charlie Conacher, who seems to always be overlooked when talking about all-time great goalsscorers. Led the league and goals per game in 5 seasons over 6 years, then death with a couple bad injuries (that modern medicine probably help him recover from without issue) and is essentially done as a top level scorer after his age-26 season.

A name who is constantly overrated in these types of threads- Pavel Bure. Yeah, he was injured a lot, but he had exactly ONE (1) season leading the league in goals per game. He doesn't belong here.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Nobody.

Ovechkin has the all-time goals record, but in terms of all-time adjusted goals (which accounts for era), Ovie is substantially ahead of everyone else (and counting):

NHL & WHA Career Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

1. Alex Ovechkin (999), 2. Gordie Howe (925), 3. Jaromír Jágr (841), 4. Wayne Gretzky (758), 5. Teemu Selänne (741), 6. Brett Hull (738), 7. Jarome Iginla (706), 8. Sidney Crosby (688), 9. Brendan Shanahan (672), 10. Phil Esposito (671)

www.hockey-reference.com

Dropping players from the high scoring era into the current era would decrease their totals.

For players from lesser talented eras (like Howe and Hull), it's on the extreme end of unlikely that they would have led the NHL more times than they actually did, and Ovie led the NHL more than that.

So any which way you slice it - peak, prime, longevity - there simply isn't a case for anyone else as the best or greatest goal scorer in NHL history. The remaining reasonable argument is over who is #2.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Lemieux is 19th all-time in adjusted goals. Ovie is 1st.

Lemieux led the NHL in goals 3 times. Ovie led the NHL 9 times.

Lemieux's GPG was .33 after age 35. Ovie's is ~ .56 in more than double the games played. If Lemieux's goal scoring talent was truly so amazing, it sure is odd that it evaporated so easily despite his penchant for soaking up 22-23 minutes per game.

Lemieux consistently threatened to quit, and did quit. Ovechkin was a player that could always be counted on.

Lemieux had his people publicly asserting that there should be a separate set of rules for him and Gretzky vs the other players in the NHL. Ovechkin got suspended out of an additional Hart/Ross/Rocket (on a fairly ticky tack hit) and sucked it up and kept plugging away.

Lemieux had great players removed from his team if they didn't do precisely what he wanted (Zubov, Jagr). Ovechkin embraced every player who ever dawned a Capitals jersey (with the exception of perhaps Samsonov who was an uncommitted butthead who squandered his talent).

Mario Lemieux lacks the leadership, commitment, drive, durability, and the goal-scoring talent to be in this discussion. Transplant the actual aspects of the real Lemieux (as opposed to the vastly superior imaginary Lemieux that so often dawns these pages) and there is no reason to think anything changes in 2005 relative to 1985 aside from Lemieux's raw goal totals significantly reducing to well under 600 (to Ovechkin's 896 and counting).

The idea that Lemieux could ever challenge for longevity-based records reflects a severely misguided understanding for what commitment is and a massive devaluation for what it means for a team. It is pure fantasy.

 

[MadLuke]

Lemieux was .45 gpg after turning 35, .49 before the lock-out, which was top 10 at the time (outside Bure no one was scoring more than that):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

I think 77 millions contract on a poor team is more what removed Jagr than Lemieux.

But yes I agree that going from what Lemieux did in the real world in one that he challenge longevity record if he is 20 years younger feel like a stretch, maybe some back surgery issues goes better and the way referee work now he would prefer, but it would be something else at the end, probably.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Lemieux was .45 gpg after turning 35, .49 before the lock-out, which was top 10 at the time (outside Bure no one was scoring more than that):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

It wouldn't qualify by any reasonable games played floor. It's not even half the games.

 

[MadLuke]

Yes 144 games is little (that not me that brought it up too....)

 

[WarriorofTime]

Lemieux is 19th all-time in adjusted goals. Ovie is 1st.

Lemieux led the NHL in goals 3 times. Ovie led the NHL 9 times.

Lemieux's GPG was .33 after age 35. Ovie's is ~ .56 in more than double the games played. If Lemieux's goal scoring talent was truly so amazing, it sure is odd that it evaporated so easily despite his penchant for soaking up 22-23 minutes per game.

Lemieux consistently threatened to quit, and did quit. Ovechkin was a player that could always be counted on.

Lemieux had his people publicly asserting that there should be a separate set of rules for him and Gretzky vs the other players in the NHL. Ovechkin got suspended out of an additional Hart/Ross/Rocket (on a fairly ticky tack hit) and sucked it up and kept plugging away.

Lemieux had great players removed from his team if they didn't do precisely what he wanted (Zubov, Jagr). Ovechkin embraced every player who ever dawned a Capitals jersey (with the exception of perhaps Samsonov who was an uncommitted butthead who squandered his talent).

Mario Lemieux lacks the leadership, commitment, drive, durability, and the goal-scoring talent to be in this discussion. Transplant the actual aspects of the real Lemieux (as opposed to the vastly superior imaginary Lemieux that so often dawns these pages) and there is no reason to think anything changes in 2005 relative to 1985 aside from Lemieux's raw goal totals significantly reducing to well under 600 (to Ovechkin's 896 and counting).

The idea that Lemieux could ever challenge for longevity-based records reflects a severely misguided understanding for what commitment is and a massive devaluation for what it means for a team. It is pure fantasy.

Yes, I think if saying "would a healthy, motivated, etc. Lemieux challenge for records?" then yeah, sure, pretty straightforward. But the question posed is a bit odd, as it seems to perhaps pre-suppose that Ovechkin came into an era well situated for breaking Gretzky's record. When the opposite is really true. If Lemieux had his same talent and ability but was a different guy in term of staying healthy, that's not the same as if Lemieux is still the same guy just being transported into a lower scoring era, in which case the natural assumption would be he'd score less, not more.

Since Ovechkin was born in 1985, it's easy enough to just check anyone born in 198x to see where they rank in career goal scoring (ignore any lack of T-x) as I'm just going on where they're listed.

1) Ovechkin
18) Crosby
42) Malkin
51) Kane
57) Pavelski
64) Staal
69) Perry
71) Kovalchuk
72) Carter
76) Kopitar
79) Nash
80) Parise
87) Bergeron
90) Marchand
93) Lecavalier
100) Kessel

The active guys may creep up a little more from here but even the young end of that age range is pretty close to done.

Since Lemieux was born in 1960, it's enough to do the same exercise with anyone born in 196x.

2) Gretzky
5) Brett Hull
9) Messier
10) Yzerman
11) Lemieux
13) Robitaille
14) Shanahan
15) Andreychuk
16) Sakic
20) Ciccarelli
21) Kurri
23) Recchi
26) Nieuwendyk
31) Francis
32) Goulet
39) Verbeek
40) Hawerchuk
41) Turgeon
46) Bondra
49) Anderson
54) Bellows
56) Fedorov
58) Nicholls
59) Mogilny
60) Savard
61) Lafontaine
63) Fleury
67) Gilmour
74) Larmer
75) Tocchet
77) Roberts
81) Damphousse
92) Richer
94) Thomas
99) MacLean

Seems like this would only really be a thought exercise involving players from Original Six. Anyone born in 1960s was born at the perfect point in history to rack up big career goal totals.

 

[tabness]

Lemieux is 19th all-time in adjusted goals. Ovie is 1st.

Lemieux led the NHL in goals 3 times. Ovie led the NHL 9 times.

Lemieux's GPG was .33 after age 35. Ovie's is ~ .56 in more than double the games played. If Lemieux's goal scoring talent was truly so amazing, it sure is odd that it evaporated so easily despite his penchant for soaking up 22-23 minutes per game.

Lemieux consistently threatened to quit, and did quit. Ovechkin was a player that could always be counted on.

Lemieux had his people publicly asserting that there should be a separate set of rules for him and Gretzky vs the other players in the NHL. Ovechkin got suspended out of an additional Hart/Ross/Rocket (on a fairly ticky tack hit) and sucked it up and kept plugging away.

Lemieux had great players removed from his team if they didn't do precisely what he wanted (Zubov, Jagr). Ovechkin embraced every player who ever dawned a Capitals jersey (with the exception of perhaps Samsonov who was an uncommitted butthead who squandered his talent).

Mario Lemieux lacks the leadership, commitment, drive, durability, and the goal-scoring talent to be in this discussion. Transplant the actual aspects of the real Lemieux (as opposed to the vastly superior imaginary Lemieux that so often dawns these pages) and there is no reason to think anything changes in 2005 relative to 1985 aside from Lemieux's raw goal totals significantly reducing to well under 600 (to Ovechkin's 896 and counting).

The idea that Lemieux could ever challenge for longevity-based records reflects a severely misguided understanding for what commitment is and a massive devaluation for what it means for a team. It is pure fantasy.

I agree that Lemieux has some of these knocks associated with him, but the question is specifically asking about if careers began in 2005-2006.

Feel like we can keep Lemieux's non training related health issues, even the training related ones as issues to his longevity.

At the very least his commitment and dedication face a much easier test not having to deal with the "garage league" context of the later nineties, rather than quitting, he could cruise together in the most star friendly league the NHL has seen nowadays and rack up easy goals year after year. Empty net opportunities galore, 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3 OT, coincidental minors not being played at 5 on 5 like Lemieux's entire prime in the late eighties/early nineties, the list goes on regarding the contextual factors that would only serve a player like Lemieux.

Lemieux is just a better goal scorer shift by shift play by play than Ovechkin, so yes he probably can't touch Ovechkin being able to play almost 1500 games, but it's likely he wouldn't need nearly as many games to score 897.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I agree that Lemieux has some of these knocks associated with him, but the question is specifically asking about if careers began in 2005-2006.

Feel like we can keep Lemieux's non training related health issues, even the training related ones as issues to his longevity.

At the very least his commitment and dedication face a much easier test not having to deal with the "garage league" context of the later nineties, rather than quitting, he could cruise together in the most star friendly league the NHL has seen nowadays and rack up easy goals year after year. Empty net opportunities galore, 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3 OT, coincidental minors not being played at 5 on 5 like Lemieux's entire prime in the late eighties/early nineties, the list goes on regarding the contextual factors that would only serve a player like Lemieux.

Lemieux is just a better goal scorer shift by shift play by play than Ovechkin, so yes he probably can't touch Ovechkin being able to play almost 1500 games, but its likely he wouldn't need nearly as much to score 897.

No matter how many times people pretend otherwise, it was far easier to score in Lemieux’s day than it was over the course of the Ovechkin/Crosby era.

 

[tabness]

No matter how many times people pretend otherwise, it was far easier to score in Lemieux’s day than it was over the course of the Ovechkin/Crosby era.

What reason do you say this? If you are going to quote leaguewide goals per game and use that to make a simplistic value judgement that it was "far easier to score" because the number is higher, then quite frankly we aren't even on the same level axiomatically to be able to avoid talking past each other.

One of the things I like to look at is how star players of the past consider how'd they do in the era of today.

Early era players almost always deferred to the contemporary game and stars (so like Frank Foyston discussing hockey in the thirties and fourties)

Pre original six players generally deferred to the original six (Art Coulter notable exception).

Original six is where it got a little muddy, so for Wings players, Sid Abel saying that the game and players as of 1987 had surpassed when he was playing, whereas Ted Lindsay holding fast to it was better when he played.

But like of players from Lemieux's age, they usually always say they'd crush it in this league. Recently Fedorov was interviewed about this no hesistation he said he'd do great.

Finally, in a reminder of his trademark swagger, Fedorov said, asked about how a 25-year-old version of himself would fare in the modern NHL, "I think I’d do great. The rules have changed—less physical play, more focus on speed and skill; that suits me. Back then, I skated well and had speed, so I think I could compete easily."

 

[WarriorofTime]

No matter how many times people pretend otherwise, it was far easier to score in Lemieux’s day than it was over the course of the Ovechkin/Crosby era.

No there are just 5X the number of top 50 goal scorers born in the 60s because there were 5X as many good scorers