Better Goal Scorer.....66 or 8?

[qc14]

Iginla 7th all time, my goat.

Maybe the most underrated HoFer of all time

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

That's cool. We covered this a few posts ago – durability/longevity doesn't carry the same value for you as it does for me. I'm in awe of Gordie Howe for similar reasons. Howe would be considered a great player if he'd played only a decade. However, he's generally considered among the top-4 players of all time because he sustained his excellence into his 40s, and then rebooted at 50. Obviously, Howe and Ovechkin are very different players from totally different eras, but they share an extremely rare longevity that factors into their legacies. I don't know your thoughts on Howe, but you've expressed your opinion on Ovechkin clearly and fairly, even if I disagree.

For me, Howe is in the top-4 because he was was top 3 in the Hart voting pretty much every year for 15 years and won the Ross 6 times. Led the NHL in points, assists, goals, etc. multiple times during that stretch. Overall, there's no question he's up there. But in terms of just goal scoring, Howe needed about 200 extra games to beat Richard's record, so it makes sense to me that the goal scoring trophy is the Rocket instead of the Howe. The guy who did it with so many fewer chances seems like the better scorer to me, not the guy who lasted longer to be able to accumulate more overall.

 

[qc14]

I'd also point out that from 2005-06 until 2015-16, OV took 4228 shots, over 1300 shots ahead of 2nd place. Only about 30 guys has more than half of OVs shot totals during that time. Is it really that impressive that the guy doubling almost everyone else's shot totals gets more to go in?

Of all of the awful arguments to discredit Ovechkin I've seen "his goals shouldn't count because he shot so much more than everyone else" is one of the worst lol

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Of all of the awful arguments to discredit Ovechkin I've seen "his goals shouldn't count because he shot so much more than everyone else" is one of the worst lol

Then maybe you should stop building strawmen to make that argument.

What I'm actually saying is that efficiency matters when it comes to being the greatest. Trying twice as many times doesn't mean you're actually better.

 

[cheechoo]

Maybe the most underrated HoFer of all time

His raw numbers are already impressive, 600+ goals - largely in the heart of the DPE and missed a season smack dab in the middle of his peak due to the '05 lockout.

Best center he played with was Conroy? Daymond Langkow?

Total warrior.

 

[filinski77]

Then maybe you should stop building strawmen to make that argument.

What I'm actually saying is that efficiency matters when it comes to being the greatest. Trying twice as many times doesn't mean you're actually better.

Bad take.

You are inherently equating that a shot on new is a bad thing if it doesn’t go in the back of the net. That is a huge flaw and anyone that actually thinks that does not understand hockey at all. This isn’t basketball.

Shots on net are a good thing one way or another. Ovechkin is elite at generating shots from anywhere on the ice.

And despite this, you also have to consider the distance that Ovechkin shoots from. Ovi shoots from significantly further away than other elite players do.

 

[filinski77]

For the same reason that people say Jordan was a better scorer than LeBron.

Not a comparable situation at all…

Yes LeBron has more points, and Jordan has more scoring titles. That leaves an opening for debate.

In this debate, Ovechkin has BOTH more overall goals (28% more), AND 3 times as many goal scoring titles (9 for Ovi vs 3 for Mario).

 

[filinski77]

It's not even about Lemieux. To me, saying OV is the greatest goal scorer is like saying Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back. They're both very good players who will hold the accumulation record mostly because they played so many more games and got so many more attempts than the guys who were clearly better, but I wouldn't pick either one of them if I needed someone to play that role for one game/season/playoffs/whatever. So I'm trying to understand how longevity = greatest, because it makes zero sense to me. If the answer is just that you have a differently definition what "greatest" means, then I'm probably not going to get an answer that helps it make sense.

How is Ovi like Emmitt Smith?

Yes, both will be the #1 raw accumulator leaders.

But Emmitt smith is in a FIVE way tie for 2nd for the most rushing titles. Jim Brown has literally double the amount of rushing titles (8 vs 4).

Ovechkin on the other hand is Emmitt Smith and Jim Brown combined. Ovi will have nothing the most raw goals AND already has won the goalscoring title more times than anyone in NHL history (9 vs 7 for #2).

You have to remember that Ovi’s claim to the greatest goal scorer came years and years ago as soon as he won his 7th Rocket.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

How is Ovi like Emmitt Smith?

Yes, both will be the #1 raw accumulator leaders.

But Emmitt smith is in a FIVE way tie for 2nd for the most rushing titles. Jim Brown has literally double the amount of rushing titles (8 vs 4).

Ovechkin on the other hand is Emmitt Smith and Jim Brown combined. Ovi will have nothing the most raw goals AND already has won the goalscoring title more times than anyone in NHL history (9 vs 7 for #2).

You have to remember that Ovi’s claim to the greatest goal scorer came years and years ago as soon as he won his 7th Rocket.

You should go back and read all my posts about how there were only like 3 elite offensive players in league for most of OVs prime, and Stamkos was the only person during his prime that was ever more than just very good at scoring goals, and that was only until he got hurt. Winning because of lack of quality competition isn't impressive to me. Neither is accumulating the most because you tried twice as many times.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Bad take.

You are inherently equating that a shot on new is a bad thing if it doesn’t go in the back of the net. That is a huge flaw and anyone that actually thinks that does not understand hockey at all. This isn’t basketball.

Shots on net are a good thing one way or another. Ovechkin is elite at generating shots from anywhere on the ice.

And despite this, you also have to consider the distance that Ovechkin shoots from. Ovi shoots from significantly further away than other elite players do.

It's more like comparing a guy with a machine gun and a guy with a bolt action rifle, and claiming the machine gunner is the better shooter because he hit the target 50 times with his 500 rounds, while the guy with rifle hit the target 30% of the shots he took.

 

[authentic]

How is Ovi like Emmitt Smith?

Yes, both will be the #1 raw accumulator leaders.

But Emmitt smith is in a FIVE way tie for 2nd for the most rushing titles. Jim Brown has literally double the amount of rushing titles (8 vs 4).

Ovechkin on the other hand is Emmitt Smith and Jim Brown combined. Ovi will have nothing the most raw goals AND already has won the goalscoring title more times than anyone in NHL history (9 vs 7 for #2).

You have to remember that Ovi’s claim to the greatest goal scorer came years and years ago as soon as he won his 7th Rocket.

Without lockouts he’s have over 1000 goals, very easily the greatest goal scorer ever especially to do it in this era.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Without lockouts he’s have over 1000 goals, very easily the greatest goal scorer ever especially to do it in this era.

How many does Mario score without cancer or the back injuries? 1200? 1300?

 

[TheLegend27]

Then maybe you should stop building strawmen to make that argument.

What I'm actually saying is that efficiency matters when it comes to being the greatest. Trying twice as many times doesn't mean you're actually better.

You’re ignoring the degree of difficulty when it comes to goal scoring. A rebound tap in is a high percentage play, but it doesn’t equal generating your own shot from far out. Last year, Reinhart shot 6% better than Matthews, but we all know Matthews was a better goal scorer that year. Point is shooting 21.6% compared to 11.8% for Pastrňák. Is Point a definitively better goal scorer when both are at 32 goals?. I’d take Pastrňák. Picking and choosing spots shouldn’t be used as a big argument over who’s the better scorer. I don’t see other players taking the amount of shots Ovi takes and winning rockets… maybe because they can’t score consistently from the places Ovi scores.

 

[qc14]

It's more like comparing a guy with a machine gun and a guy with a bolt action rifle, and claiming the machine gunner is the better shooter because he hit the target 50 times with his 500 rounds, while the guy with rifle hit the target 30% of the shots he took.

This is exactly why I have always thought that Craig Simpson is the greatest goal scorer of all time

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You’re ignoring the degree of difficulty when it comes to goal scoring. A rebound tap in is a high percentage play, but it doesn’t equal generating your own shot from far out. Last year, Reinhart shot 6% better than Matthews, but we all know Matthews was a better goal scorer that year. Point is shooting 21.6% compared to 11.8% for Pastrňák. Is Point a definitively better goal scorer when both are at 32 goals?. I’d take Pastrňák. Picking and choosing spots shouldn’t be used as a big argument over who’s the better scorer. I don’t see other players taking the amount of shots Ovi takes and winning rockets… maybe because they can’t score consistently from the places Ovi scores.

A - Backstrom feeding you the puck for a one timer at the left circle isn't the same as generating your own shot.

B - Reinhart and Matthews, over their careers, they are both 15.9% shooters. But Matthews has attempted 1150 more shots in 200 fewer games. Is he actually a better goal scorer, or is he just better at getting off more shots? Getting off shots is a different skill than scoring goals, right?

C - If you want to take Pasta, that's great for you. I'd pick the guy who put up 51 goals in 393 attempts instead of the guy who needed 727 shot attempts to score 10 more goals that year.

D - Maybe we don't see people taking that many shots because most other players can contribute offensively in more ways than just shooting the puck. Or maybe it's because the other teams could put together a powerplay strategy that wasn't just "give OV the puck as many times as it takes for the goalie to finally miss one".

E - 13% career shooting percentage doesn't really suggest OV was consistently scoring from those places either. He just tried twice as many time as the other guys, because what else was he going to do?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

This is exactly why I have always thought that Craig Simpson is the greatest goal scorer of all time

And this is why building strawmen is so attractive to people who can't actual refute the point being made. It's so much easier than actually presenting evidence that supports what they want to be true.

 

[bobbyking]

Does Ovi's tape match that? I don't know.

peak ovi would crush it but ok

 

[TheLegend27]

Reinhart and Matthews, over their careers, they are both 15.9% shooters. But Matthews has attempted 1150 more shots in 200 fewer games. Is he actually a better goal scorer, or is he just better at getting off more shots? Getting off shots is a different skill than scoring goals, right?

The ability to get shots off is part of the goalscoring skillset. By the way, the sheer amount shots Ovi takes directly affects his shooting percentages. Reinhart's 15.9 is most certainly bound to go down if he were to absorb Ovi's shot volume.

If you want to take Pasta, that's great for you. I'd pick the guy who put up 51 goals in 393 attempts instead of the guy who needed 727 shot attempts to score 10 more goals that year.

That's fine if you value efficiency above all, but when great defense is being played and those high-value looks dry up, I want someone who isn't afraid to shoot from lesser-quality looks to generate offense. What does Point do when he doesn't shoot? Lose the puck or pass it to someone to make something happen. Let's not act like shots that are saved are empty possessions. part of the explanation for why Mack's shooting % is lower than his shooting talent is because of deliberate attempts of shooting low for a high-value rebound.

Maybe we don't see people taking that many shots because most other players can contribute offensively in more ways than just shooting the puck. Or maybe it's because the other teams could put together a powerplay strategy that wasn't just "give OV the puck as many times as it takes for the goalie to finally miss one".

This used to be one of the biggest fallacies on HF. The idea that Ovi being the focal triggerman on the power play, was an inefficient strategy, and hurt the Capitals isn't accurate in the slightest. I'm sure @Midnight Judges can provide a more thorough analysis but I'll bite anyway. The Caps have the 5th best PP% in the last 10 years(2015-2024) at 21.7%, and the best in the last 15 years, at 21.8%. Perhaps "give Ovi the puck as many times" is the most effective powerplay strategy and directly contributed to president trophies and staying consistently relevant for the playoffs. Why would Ovi or the Caps pass it to someone with a worse shot, a slower release, worse timing, and power behind the shot?. Yeah, other players don't want to shoot the puck as much, they don't want to win Conn Smythe, Rockets, get massive contacts, and make history.


Summary: Shots on net that are saved are good - They lead to high-danger rebounds and offensive zone faceoffs.

 

[centipede2233]

How many does Mario score without cancer or the back injuries? 1200? 1300?

Also, what if Mario played in ovie’s era where there wasn’t copious amounts of clutching and grabbing and hanging off lemieux’s back to the point where he couldn’t even tie his skates on the back half of his career.

 

[Mobiandi]

We’ve reached bitter old man levels of anger in this thread.

If the fate of the world came down to someone scoring a goal, you pick Ovechkin even at 40 years old. Chances are that a peak Lemieux wouldn’t even be healthy to take the shot

 

[paracord]

Not a comparable situation at all…

Yes LeBron has more points, and Jordan has more scoring titles. That leaves an opening for debate.

In this debate, Ovechkin has BOTH more overall goals (28% more), AND 3 times as many goal scoring titles (9 for Ovi vs 3 for Mario).

BUT, Mario missed tons of time in prime seasons between 89 and 94. You don't think he would have led the league in goals several more times had he not missed all of 94, and tons of 90, 91, 92 and 93? Even 93 when he scored 69 in 60 games. You don't think if he played high 70s, he would have beaten 76 goals that year? I think he would have managed to squeak out 7 more goals in 20+ games, no?

And this from a player who was also a mega elite playmaker. He's leading the league or high in the league in goals while also being the primary playmaker on the team, too. Ovi never really was worried about that.

If Michael Jordan missed a quarter of the season in 1992, but came back and did all the same things and won the finals that year, would he have been less of a player? No, he's still Michael Jordan. Still the best player on the planet, regardless of how many regular season games he played.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

We’ve reached bitter old man levels of anger in this thread.

If the fate of the world came down to someone scoring a goal, you pick Ovechkin even at 40 years old. Chances are that a peak Lemieux wouldn’t even be healthy to take the shot

I love when we can simplify an unanswerable question because the discussions can get pretty silly.

Unfortunately I want to know the scenario for “scoring a goal” in this “fate of the world scenario.” Is it player vs goalie only? One on one? Is it a neatly shot type scenario or a stand still and pick your spot situation? Are there opponents on the ice? Teammates?

 

[paracord]

I love when we can simplify an unanswerable question because the discussions can get pretty silly.

Unfortunately I want to know the scenario for “scoring a goal” in this “fate of the world scenario.” Is it player vs goalie only? One on one? Is it a neatly shot type scenario or a stand still and pick your spot situation? Are there opponents on the ice? Teammates?

For me, it doesn't matter what the answer to ANY of those questions is.

If I need a goal to win game 7 of the finals, to save my life, or to save the world, and 66 is available, he's the first guy in, regardless of who else is on the bench in NHL history.

That's why I voted Lemieux in this thread.

 

[filinski77]

BUT, Mario missed tons of time in prime seasons between 89 and 94. You don't think he would have led the league in goals several more times had he not missed all of 94, and tons of 90, 91, 92 and 93? Even 93 when he scored 69 in 60 games. You don't think if he played high 70s, he would have beaten 76 goals that year? I think he would have managed to squeak out 7 more goals in 20+ games, no?

And this from a player who was also a mega elite playmaker. He's leading the league or high in the league in goals while also being the primary playmaker on the team, too. Ovi never really was worried about that.

If Michael Jordan missed a quarter of the season in 1992, but came back and did all the same things and won the finals that year, would he have been less of a player? No, he's still Michael Jordan. Still the best player on the planet, regardless of how many regular season games he played.

I do think Mario would have lead the league in goals more times if he was healthier. But that does not refute my argument that the comparison to Jordan makes no sense.

Ovechkin has more raw goals, more times leading the league in goals, more times leading the league in goals/gp.

If we want to give Mario all of the advantages in a hypothetical what-if scenario, we can imagine he doubles his Rockets and gets 6 goal scoring titles to represent his 6 times leading the league in goals. Ovechkin would still have 50% more goal scoring titles (9 to 6).

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

The ability to get shots off is part of the goalscoring skillset. By the way, the sheer amount shots Ovi takes directly affects his shooting percentages. Reinhart's 15.9 is most certainly bound to go down if he were to absorb Ovi's shot volume.

The sheer amount of shots OV takes is literally why he scores so many goals. Reinhart scored 57 goals on 233 shots on net last year. That's 100+ fewer shots than OV has ever had during a 50+ goal season, and less than half as many shots as OV needed to get to 56 back in 08-09.

That's fine if you value efficiency above all, but when great defense is being played and those high-value looks dry up, I want someone who isn't afraid to shoot from lesser-quality looks to generate offense. What does Point do when he doesn't shoot? Lose the puck or pass it to someone to make something happen. Let's not act like shots that are saved are empty possessions. part of the explanation for why Mack's shooting % is lower than his shooting talent is because of deliberate attempts of shooting low for a high-value rebound.

It's also fine that you value throwing every puck on net until something finally goes in, but when great defense is being played, I'm not expecting there to be nearly as many chances in the first place. That's why I want the guy who can produce with a limited number of chances. In that scenario, I don't want to have to give a guy 8-9 low quality chances to try to score, I want a guy who can score a goal with only 4 or 5 chances.

And, sure, some of those hundreds of extra shots do end up being rebounds that can help make something happen, and that probably helps add to OVs assist totals. But passing to a teammate seems like a much more effective way to get an assist than hoping a teammate can do something with the rebound.

This used to be one of the biggest fallacies on HF. The idea that Ovi being the focal triggerman on the power play, was an inefficient strategy, and hurt the Capitals isn't accurate in the slightest. I'm sure @Midnight Judges can provide a more thorough analysis but I'll bite anyway. The Caps have the 5th best PP% in the last 10 years(2015-2024) at 21.7%, and the best in the last 15 years, at 21.8%. Perhaps "give Ovi the puck as many times" is the most effective powerplay strategy and directly contributed to president trophies and staying consistently relevant for the playoffs. Why would Ovi or the Caps pass it to someone with a worse shot, a slower release, worse timing, and power behind the shot?. Yeah, other players don't want to shoot the puck as much, they don't want to win Conn Smythe, Rockets, get massive contacts, and make history.

Where did I say it was inefficient? I'm saying that was literally the Caps strategy, and helped drive OVs shot totals. What else were they going to do, pass it to Brooks Laich? OV was their only option who didn't suck, so that's what they did. Other teams had more options and didn't need to just feed it to their best shooter and hope for the best.

Summary: Shots on net that are saved are good - They lead to high-danger rebounds and offensive zone faceoffs.

I never said otherwise. I said taking a lot more shots to achieve the same result does not mean you're actually a better goal scorer.