Are you comfortable with a claim of OV being the GOAT goalscorer?

[daver]

My top 4 goal scorers all time are Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux and Ovi in some order. Howe/Richard make up top 6. Who said Hull isn't on my radar?

For top peak/ability - I simply prefer Lemieux + Gretzky.

Where is the statistical case for Mario to back this up?

Mario is not close to having the best peak season (even measured in GPG), or multiple peak seasons (based on GPG), and you cannot not make a case for his GPG over his prime being superior to anyone else.

If you are implying that he, like Wayne, was simply an GOAT offensive force that overrides (or marginalizes) qualifying that into goalscoring and playmaking, I would agree with that sentiment.

 

[TheGuiminator]

I have mixed feeling about this, cause I think Lemieux was better than both Gretzky and Ovechkin in goal scoring.

However, I think Gretzky remains the greatest goal scorer, considering his peak and his total career goals that back it up, but I’m okay with people saying Ovechkin took the thrown.

By the end of his career, Ovechkin will likely have the body of work to make that claim as the undisputed GOAT goalscorer.

 

[VanIslander]

Tom Brady is clearly NOT the most skilled thrower of the football in terms of range of abilities (not great at bootlegging, scrambling or the long ball) but he is the greatest in terms of accomplishments (due to team AND in great part: preparedness, clutch play, short-range accuracy, positioning in the pocket).

Gretzky is the Brady of goal scorers in hockey. His accomplishments dwarf others due to team AND in great part: hockey sense, threat to pass on every shot opportunity (imagine what goalies had to expect) and decision making. He didn't have the hardest shot, the quickest shot or the best deke moves to maneuver netside.

 

[sr edler]

When I say the hardest era to score I meant from when he entered the league throughout. It is not conjecture to say that amongst the all time great goal scorers, Ovechkin has had the most difficult era to score goals in, that is a fact.

That's not a fact that's your opinion.

The year Ovi entered the league they specifically opened the game up from the murky depths of the DPE and for a few years there Phaneuf and McCabe looked like world beaters from the blueline, working the PP.

 

[sr edler]

Ovechkin has about 37% of his career goals [ ... ] on the power play. Mario, around 34%

My point with Mario, beyond the fact that he's a less dependent career goal scorer than Ovi from the PP ( ), is that he was way more versatile. He had two seasons in a row where he scored double digits shorthanded goals (10, 13). He was probably the most dangerous player ever coming in one-on-one with the goalie (breakaway). Ovechkin is average in the shootout. He scored goals floating through defenses in crunch time (Minnesota 91), he scored goals with a Quebec player literally riding rodeo on his back from the redline and in.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Tom Brady is clearly NOT the most skilled thrower of the football in terms of range of abilities (not great at bootlegging, scrambling or the long ball) but he is the greatest in terms of accomplishments (due to team AND in great part: preparedness, clutch play, short-range accuracy, positioning in the pocket).

Gretzky is the Brady of goal scorers in hockey. His accomplishments dwarf others due to team AND in great part: hockey sense, threat to pass on every shot opportunity (imagine what goalies had to expect) and decision making. He didn't have the hardest shot, the quickest shot or the best deke moves to maneuver netside.

I disagree. 99 had the best arsenal of shots ever until 66 came along. His shot was hard enough, tricky and incredibly accurate. He was also deceptively fast or fast enough and very elusive in his ability to avoid checks. When he lost his elusiveness, his goal totals were more than cut in half.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

That's not a fact that's your opinion.

The year Ovi entered the league they specifically opened the game up from the murky depths of the DPE and for a few years there Phaneuf and McCabe looked like world beaters from the blueline, working the PP.

No it's a fact because we have numbers that explicitly state it as such. Also it's damn common sense.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

If you are implying that he, like Wayne, was simply an GOAT offensive force that overrides (or marginalizes) qualifying that into goalscoring and playmaking, I would agree with that sentiment.

This touches on why I'm having some problem with OV being given that crown. Gretzky (and Lemieux) was a complete offensive force on the ice, able to create goals many, many different ways. On his own or using teammates. Even strength or PP or SH.

If Ovechkin becomes the greatest goal scorer (in either number or consensus opinion) it is only because Gretzky allowed him to do so. I have little doubt that if Gretzky had been as narrowly focused on being a scorer of goals then he would have upwards of 1000 regular season goals to his name. However that would have robbed his team of some of his genius and he would have been less effective as an offensive force as a result.

I'm not saying this to imply that Ovechkin is selfish, only that he does not have as much to offer as a Bringer of Offense. So to crown Ovechkin as the GOAT goal scorer is simply to acknowledge that Gretzky had other, better ways to create goals than being the finisher.

 

[Zuluss]

I'm not saying this to imply that Ovechkin is selfish, only that he does not have as much to offer as a Bringer of Offense.

That seems beside the point though, you are just stating that Gretzky was a better player, and this is not what the thread is about.
The thread is about goal-scoring; surely there is a way to compare players to Gretzky in different areas without reducing the discussion to "but Gretzky was a better player".
Because if arguments "what if Gretzky had decided to focus on ____" are allowed, at which point do we stop because it gets ridiculous? "If Gretzky had decided to focus on defensive play, he would have won 10 Selkes and would have been the best defensive forward ever". "If Gretzky had decided to focus on defense even more, he would have been a better defenseman than Harvey or Lidstrom". I mean, really, where do we stop if we go this route?

So to crown Ovechkin as the GOAT goal scorer is simply to acknowledge that Gretzky had other, better ways to create goals than being the finisher.

Which to me just means that Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer. Gretzky, especially after turning 28-30, could not be as good of a finisher as Ovechkin and decided to do other things.
Likewise, young Joe Thornton was a legit 30-goal player, but then he morphed into mostly a playmaker and had a lot of success.
Can we make an argument that Marleau was a better goal-scorer than Thornton just because Thornton "allowed him to" and "had other, better ways to create goals"?
Would the same argument apply to Kovalchuk or Heatley?
Do we have to keep Thornton in mind when we are discussing the best goal-scorers of late 2000s - because, you know, he could have been if he had decided to narrowly focus on goal-scoring?

 

[McGuillicuddy]

That seems beside the point though, you are just stating that Gretzky was a better player, and this is not what the thread is about.
The thread is about goal-scoring; surely there is a way to compare players to Gretzky in different areas without reducing the discussion to "but Gretzky was a better player".
Because if arguments "what if Gretzky had decided to focus on ____" are allowed, at which point do we stop because it gets ridiculous? "If Gretzky had decided to focus on defensive play, he would have won 10 Selkes and would have been the best defensive forward ever". "If Gretzky had decided to focus on defense even more, he would have been a better defenseman than Harvey or Lidstrom". I mean, really, where do we stop if we go this route?

Which to me just means that Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer. Gretzky, especially after turning 28-30, could not be as good of a finisher as Ovechkin and decided to do other things.
Likewise, young Joe Thornton was a legit 30-goal player, but then he morphed into mostly a playmaker and had a lot of success.
Can we make an argument that Marleau was a better goal-scorer than Thornton just because Thornton "allowed him to" and "had other, better ways to create goals"?
Would the same argument apply to Kovalchuk or Heatley?
Do we have to keep Thornton in mind when we are discussing the best goal-scorers of late 2000s - because, you know, he could have been if he had decided to narrowly focus on goal-scoring?

Simply because you can extrapolate an argument to an absurd conclusion does not invalidate the original argument.

Anyways, it's obviously a legitimate claim to make that Ovechkin is a better goal scorer. But I find it overly reductive to talk about goal-scoring in isolation because Ovechkin brings almost nothing else to the table where Gretzky brought *so* much. In terms of dominance over peers I'm pretty sure Gretzky had a stronger goal-scoring peak/prime than Ovechkin did. However Ovechkin has certainly aged better as a scorer and so has led the league in goals more times. So in this subjective discussion it depends on what you prioritize: peak or longevity. When the argument is that close based on goal-scoring alone I'm inclined to give the nod to the guy who, on top of being the all-time goals leader, was in general the most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen.

 

[Zuluss]

In terms of dominance over peers I'm pretty sure Gretzky had a stronger goal-scoring peak/prime than Ovechkin did. However Ovechkin has certainly aged better as a scorer and so has led the league in goals more times. So in this subjective discussion it depends on what you prioritize: peak or longevity.

The first one is true, but it is limited to the best 2-3 seasons. If you look at their % leads over #10 goals, it goes like this

Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-41-30-26-24-15-6
Gretzky: 85-85-59-48-48-17-15-13-9

So Gretzky has larger leads (by roughly 8-10 goals) in the best two seasons, the next three years are a wash, and after that Gretzky has a small collection of top10 finishes vs. 6 Rocket-worthy campaigns by Ovechkin (26% and 24% are his leads from 17/18 and 18/19).
I am all for putting extra weight on peak years, but 6 extra Rocket-worthy seasons are just too much to keep clinging to 2-3 year peak. Because if peak is that important, here are Brett Hull's leads

Hull Jr.: 91-67-60-24-12-0-0-0

Do we anoint Brett Hull a top5 goal-scorer ever based on peak alone? Do we make arguments like "Ovechkin is a greater goal-scorer, but Brett Hull was better?"

When the argument is that close based on goal-scoring alone I'm inclined to give the nod to the guy who, on top of being the all-time goals leader, was in general the most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen.

The argument is not really close, that's the thing. If we were talking about Ovechkin vs. Howe, maybe giving Howe extra credit for being a double threat would make sense. But then again, it is close between Bobby Hull and Howe in terms of goal-scoring, much closer than it is between Ovechkin and Gretzky, but I do not see anyone picking Howe's goal-scoring over Bobby Hull's with the argument you propose. Somehow only Ovechkin gets this kind of treatment.

 

[VanIslander]

I disagree. 99 had the best arsenal of shots ever until 66 came along. His shot was hard enough, tricky and incredibly accurate. He was also deceptively fast or fast enough and very elusive in his ability to avoid checks. When he lost his elusiveness, his goal totals were more than cut in half.

Gretzky disagreed with you!

He lamented his shot. He worked on it INCESSANTLY. Tons of people have been quoted on his obsession to try and improve his shot. He did NOT have a great release, and he hated his slapper.

I would compare his SHOT (only his released shot) to Marleau's: great decision making, eye-hand coordination and timing, but lacking velocity with accuracy. Much more dangerous up close than from the point.

If i were an offensive dman gaining the offensive blueline, pulling up, facing a pass to Ovechkin for a shot (at the left circle) or a pass to Gretzky (at the right circle)... and a shot MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY (no further passing or skating), then I'm dishing to OV.

But how often is that assuredly the situation?

 

[sr edler]

No it's a fact because we have numbers that explicitly state it as such. Also it's damn common sense.

It was 100 times easier to stay healthy post lockout for obvious reasons which matters a ton for accumulation which a lot of people seems to put enormous emphasis on. The numbers are also not that different from the DPE. It dipped back a bit after a few years, but Ovi's peak seasons pretty much coincided with the years Phaneuf and McCabe looked like God's gift to hockey. When it dipped, Ovi transformed his game.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Simply because you can extrapolate an argument to an absurd conclusion does not invalidate the original argument.

Anyways, it's obviously a legitimate claim to make that Ovechkin is a better goal scorer. But I find it overly reductive to talk about goal-scoring in isolation because Ovechkin brings almost nothing else to the table where Gretzky brought *so* much. In terms of dominance over peers I'm pretty sure Gretzky had a stronger goal-scoring peak/prime than Ovechkin did. However Ovechkin has certainly aged better as a scorer and so has led the league in goals more times. So in this subjective discussion it depends on what you prioritize: peak or longevity. When the argument is that close based on goal-scoring alone I'm inclined to give the nod to the guy who, on top of being the all-time goals leader, was in general the most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen.

Being the greatest power forward of all time, 13th amongst active players in assists and a 3 time MVP does not come by bringing nothing else to the table other than scoring goals. Gretzky was 170lbs and played against pylon dmen. I was born and raised in Gretzky's home town of Brantford, I love the man but c'mon, half of his goals were on ice dribblers against goalies that would be lucky to be on AHL rosters today. It isn't disingenuous to limit the discussion to goal scoring WHEN THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION.

It was 100 times easier to stay healthy post lockout for obvious reasons which matters a ton for accumulation which a lot of people seems to put enormous emphasis on. The numbers are also not that different from the DPE. It dipped back a bit after a few years, but Ovi's peak seasons pretty much coincided with the years Phaneuf and McCabe looked like God's gift to hockey. When it dipped, Ovi transformed his game.

This is called moving the goal posts.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

That seems beside the point though, you are just stating that Gretzky was a better player, and this is not what the thread is about.
The thread is about goal-scoring; surely there is a way to compare players to Gretzky in different areas without reducing the discussion to "but Gretzky was a better player".
Because if arguments "what if Gretzky had decided to focus on ____" are allowed, at which point do we stop because it gets ridiculous? "If Gretzky had decided to focus on defensive play, he would have won 10 Selkes and would have been the best defensive forward ever". "If Gretzky had decided to focus on defense even more, he would have been a better defenseman than Harvey or Lidstrom". I mean, really, where do we stop if we go this route?



Which to me just means that Ovechkin is a better goal-scorer. Gretzky, especially after turning 28-30, could not be as good of a finisher as Ovechkin and decided to do other things.
Likewise, young Joe Thornton was a legit 30-goal player, but then he morphed into mostly a playmaker and had a lot of success.
Can we make an argument that Marleau was a better goal-scorer than Thornton just because Thornton "allowed him to" and "had other, better ways to create goals"?
Would the same argument apply to Kovalchuk or Heatley?
Do we have to keep Thornton in mind when we are discussing the best goal-scorers of late 2000s - because, you know, he could have been if he had decided to narrowly focus on goal-scoring?

The discussion that players just suddenly give up on goal scoring to do other things is asinine and untrue. Players do what comes naturally for them, they don't have time to make that decision, they simply make it because they've practiced and trained to make it. Gretzky made the natural plays and when he could no longer be as effective as a goal scorer any longer later in his career that part receded.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

My point with Mario, beyond the fact that he's a less dependent career goal scorer than Ovi from the PP ( ), is that he was way more versatile. He had two seasons in a row where he scored double digits shorthanded goals (10, 13). He was probably the most dangerous player ever coming in one-on-one with the goalie (breakaway). Ovechkin is average in the shootout. He scored goals floating through defenses in crunch time (Minnesota 91), he scored goals with a Quebec player literally riding rodeo on his back from the redline and in.

A difference of era is all this is attributed to because Lemieux was viewed as an even worse defender than Ovechkin is now. In the modern era there is no way Lemieux would be playing on the PK.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The insistence that PKers are good/useful defenders continues...Lemieux had a tougher road as a result of playing on a weaker team and being a more versatile player. Which isn't a knock on Ovechkin, it's just the nature of talking about probably the most technically skilled player in history compared to him.

To answer the OP's question: Yes, of course Ovechkin has a claim at best goal scorer of all time. He throws them into the net whenever he wants and has one of the best shots in history. Whether he's actually #1 is another story, but he can lay a valid claim, certainly...

 

[Vilica]

It was 100 times easier to stay healthy post lockout for obvious reasons which matters a ton for accumulation which a lot of people seems to put enormous emphasis on. The numbers are also not that different from the DPE. It dipped back a bit after a few years, but Ovi's peak seasons pretty much coincided with the years Phaneuf and McCabe looked like God's gift to hockey. When it dipped, Ovi transformed his game.

I don't think the numbers agree with your premise, because Lemieux never really played in the actual dead puck era. Here's the actual team numbers for Lemieux and Ovechkin on the Power Play.

	GP	GF	GF/G	PPG	PPO	PPG/G	PPO/G	PP%	Lemieux GP	PPG	PPA	PPP	PPG%	PPP%
84-85	80	276	3.450	63	363	0.79	4.54	0.174	73	11	22	33	0.175	0.524
85-86	80	313	3.913	93	425	1.16	5.31	0.219	79	17	49	66	0.183	0.710
86-87	80	297	3.713	74	378	0.93	4.73	0.196	63	19	19	38	0.257	0.514
87-88	80	319	3.988	110	500	1.38	6.25	0.220	77	22	58	80	0.200	0.727
88-89	80	347	4.338	119	491	1.49	6.14	0.242	76	31	48	79	0.261	0.664
89-90	80	318	3.975	86	403	1.08	5.04	0.213	59	14	35	49	0.163	0.570
90-91	84	342	4.071	89	388	1.06	4.62	0.229	26	6	7	13	0.067	0.146
91-92	84	343	4.083	92	423	1.10	5.04	0.217	64	12	35	47	0.130	0.511
92-93	82	367	4.476	105	440	1.28	5.37	0.239	60	16	39	55	0.152	0.524
93-94	82	299	3.646	76	404	0.93	4.93	0.188	22	7	8	15	0.092	0.197
95-96	82	362	4.415	109	420	1.33	5.12	0.260	70	31	48	79	0.284	0.725
96-97	82	285	3.476	74	339	0.90	4.13	0.218	76	15	22	37	0.203	0.500
00-01	82	281	3.427	76	375	0.93	4.57	0.203	43	16	16	32	0.211	0.421
01-02	82	198	2.415	47	335	0.57	4.09	0.140	24	2	12	14	0.043	0.298
02-03	82	189	2.305	66	360	0.80	4.39	0.183	67	14	31	45	0.212	0.682
Total	1222	4536	3.712	1279	6044	1.05	4.95	0.212	879	233	449	682	0.182	0.533
	892	3416		991	4542	1.11	5.09		764	202	406	608	0.204	0.614

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The first Total includes all games, while the second line excludes 90-91, 93-94, 00-01 and 01-02 as seasons where Lemieux missed too much time to be able to use the full-season numbers as a realistic basis. However, the crucial number to follow for your premise year-by-year is PPO/G. Now look at Ovechkin's totals in the same categories for his career.

	GP	GF	GF/G	PPG	PPO	PPG/G	PPO/G	PP%	PPG	PPA	PPP	PPG%	PPP%
05-06	82	230	2.805	72	490	0.88	5.98	0.147	21	31	52	0.292	0.722
06-07	82	234	2.854	67	408	0.82	4.98	0.164	16	21	37	0.239	0.552
07-08	82	238	2.902	65	346	0.79	4.22	0.188	22	15	37	0.338	0.569
08-09	82	268	3.268	85	337	1.04	4.11	0.252	19	27	46	0.224	0.541
09-10	82	313	3.817	79	313	0.96	3.82	0.252	13	23	36	0.165	0.456
10-11	82	219	2.671	46	263	0.56	3.21	0.175	7	17	24	0.152	0.522
11-12	82	218	2.659	41	245	0.50	2.99	0.167	13	10	23	0.317	0.561
12-13	48	146	3.042	44	164	0.92	3.42	0.268	16	11	27	0.364	0.614
13-14	82	225	2.744	68	291	0.83	3.55	0.234	24	15	39	0.353	0.574
14-15	82	237	2.890	60	237	0.73	2.89	0.253	25	9	34	0.417	0.567
15-16	82	248	3.024	55	251	0.67	3.06	0.219	19	5	24	0.345	0.436
16-17	82	261	3.183	57	248	0.70	3.02	0.230	17	9	26	0.298	0.456
17-18	82	256	3.122	55	244	0.67	2.98	0.225	17	14	31	0.309	0.564
18-19	82	274	3.341	49	236	0.60	2.88	0.208	18	10	28	0.367	0.571
	1114	3367	3.022	843	4073	0.76	3.66	0.207	247	217	464	0.293	0.550

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Don't need to adjust any totals because Ovechkin doesn't miss games, but look at his PPO/G compared to Lemieux. Ovechkin's peak would normally be given as 07-08 through 09-10, and the 07-08 4.22 PPO/G is lower than all but 1 of Lemieux's full seasons. You can also see the stylistic choice Washington made by switching to the 1-3-1 in 12-13 - Ovechkin's PPA numbers dropped and his PPGs rose, but Washington had the most PPGs in the NHL over that span, and the highest PP%. [FWIW, Pittsburgh tied Washington in PPGs over that 12-13 through 18-19 period, but had 41 more opportunities, so their success rate was slightly lower.]

 

[Midnight Judges]

Anyways, it's obviously a legitimate claim to make that Ovechkin is a better goal scorer. But I find it overly reductive to talk about goal-scoring in isolation because Ovechkin brings almost nothing else to the table...

Ovechkin is top 10 in assists since the lockout, top 3 in hits.

 

[sr edler]

because Lemieux was viewed as an even worse defender than Ovechkin is now.

By whom? You're making all kinds of claims left and right with no actual tangibility. And who said anything about defense to start with? I thought this thread was about goalscoring? You know players can have different roles on the PK, right? I doubt Lemieux was out there on the kill to muck around his own crease Chris Chelios style.... A lot of PK goals are scored on breakaways and Ovechkin is average on breakaways whereas Lemieux was top 3 ever.

In the modern era there is no way Lemieux would be playing on the PK.

Ahah?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lemieux played on the PK in 2005-06...if that's not the modern era...whoa boy...

 

[JasonRoseEh]

By whom? You're making all kinds of claims left and right with no actual tangibility. And who said anything about defense to start with? I thought this thread was about goalscoring? You know players can have different roles on the PK, right? I doubt Lemieux was out there on the kill to muck around his own crease Chris Chelios style.... A lot of PK goals are scored on breakaways and Ovechkin is average on breakaways whereas Lemieux was top 3 ever.



Ahah?

I'm not going to dig up articles and pieces from decades ago when you're capable of doing so, but Lemieux was absolutely lamented for poor, disinterested defensive play for much of his early career. Your comment was in relation to goalscoring on the PK which in the modern era Lemieux would not be playing. My point directly related to your original point. Modern PK's do not included subpar defenders.

Ovechkin was a better skater than Lemieux in his prime and was always a threat to blow the zone, I guess he would have been playing the PK in the late 80/90's as well but deficiencies of an era don't necessarily beget a more versatile goal scorer. It's a fallacy for a comparison.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Lemieux played on the PK in 2005-06...if that's not the modern era...whoa boy...

And he didn't score a point and finished a -16 on the season. +/- is basically useless but I just wanted to bring it up to solidify my point that Lemieux playing consistently on the PK during his era and scoring was more due to era deficiencies than his versatility as a goal scorer.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Your point was Lemieux's use on the PK wasn't due to his goal scoring? I mean, sure...

Based on other follow-up comments, I can see there's little upside here anyhow. You can have the last word if you want it...

 

[sr edler]

I'm not going to dig up articles and pieces from decades ago when you're capable of doing so, but Lemieux was absolutely lamented for poor, disinterested defensive play for much of his early career. Your comment was in relation to goalscoring on the PK which in the modern era Lemieux would not be playing. My point directly related to your original point. Modern PK's do not included subpar defenders.

Ovechkin was a better skater than Lemieux in his prime and was always a threat to blow the zone, I guess he would have been playing the PK in the late 80/90's as well but deficiencies of an era don't necessarily beget a more versatile goal scorer. It's a fallacy for a comparison.

Lol. You think something revolutionary happened past the 2nd lockout and now players have to be all-round defensive geniuses/wizards to play on the PK? Bure was a mainstay on the PK all through his career, even post knee injuries: Van, Florida, national team, even in NYR when he skated in bubble gum. And he would still be today because nothing tangible has happened with the game that says otherwise. This discussion's getting way too mainboard-ish right now though, people posting long tables and stuff. Reminds me of the crowd who couldn't see Draisaitl's talent 2 years ago and claimed he was a product of McDavid.