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

[paracord]

You do realize "better"(this topic) and "greater" are different words with different meanings? Seems to be quite hard for people in general in here to understand which is abit weird considering it's even in most posters mother tongue.

Do you also believe that, say, Gartner was a better goalscorer than Bure? Regardless of if you do or not where do you draw the line between actual ability and career numbers? Like if someone scores 30g a year for a decade(and not doing much else) is he a better goalscorer than someone who scores 35 a handful of times while being a totally superior player?

Exactly. If "Greatest Goal Scorer" simply means the guy with the most goals, then there is no debate.

I think most of the Ovechkin votes here are simply using that metric.

"Who would you have take a penalty shot to save your life" is different. And I doubt people would choose Ovi over lemieux.

 

[Lshap]

You believe OV would have stayed healthy. As an old person who actually watched the NHL back in the 80s and 90s, I have serious doubts that anyone would have definitely survived that era unscathed. Especially a big guy like OV who likes to play somewhat physically. Pretending I'm wrong because I asked you to show your work and defend your laughable claim isn't doing much to convince me you're right.

Adjusting for different eras works for some things, but not others. There's a credible formula for adjusting numbers. A lot more goals were scored in the 1980's/90's than in the 2010's. That's a measurable fact, and it's fair to say it would have some affect on an individual's scoring totals.

However, you can't adjust for DNA. I don't think it's fair to overlay non-existent injuries on Ovechkin, and then use it against him in a debate.

As a thought-experiment, sure, it's interesting to imagine how Lemieux and Ovechkin's legacies would change if their durability changed. But it's unfair to demand others imagine it the same way you do, and then call them wrong when they don't.

 

[Acallabeth]

Ovi has a far better claim at the 'greatest' (or 'most accomplished') goal scorer ever than the 'best'. Raw totals, longevity, league dominance, amount of high-volume seasons, reliability all play in his favor.
The question is phrased as 'better', which I understand as the peak overall ability to put the puck on net.
I'm honest with myself and think that Lemieux was better at that than Ovechkin because of his creativity and versatility.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You do realize "better"(this topic) and "greater" are different words with different meanings? Seems to be quite hard for people in general in here to understand which is abit weird considering it's even in most posters mother tongue.

Yes, I'm well-aware that Lemieux fans can't win the actual category that matters (results) and so there is an attempt to manipulate the criteria into a nonsensical area that is untethered to evidence.

Do you also believe that, say, Gartner was a better goalscorer than Bure? Regardless of if you do or not where do you draw the line between actual ability and career numbers? Like if someone scores 30g a year for a decade(and not doing much else) is he a better goalscorer than someone who scores 35 a handful of times while being a totally superior player?

Bringing up Gartner here is absurd because Ovechkin's peak goal scoring is on par with or better than Lemieux's, whereas Gartner's peak is nowhere near Bure's (Gartner's peak adjusted goal scoring season is 44. Bure's is 65 - a whopping 48% difference). So you are like 48% (wildly) off the mark with your analogy.

Basically you are arguing that results aren't part of the criteria of "better." That way of thinking is for people who desire to be untethered to evidence.

If Lemieux was in fact "better" at scoring goals due to ability, then his ability would have likely carried him into his later years better than it did for Ovie. It didn't:

Age 36-40 Lemieux:
.33 GPG. (42 goals across 4 seasons)

Age 36-39 Ovie
.56 GPG. (156 goals across 4 seasons)

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Adjusting for different eras works for some things, but not others. There's a credible formula for adjusting numbers. A lot more goals were scored in the 1980's/90's than in the 2010's. That's a measurable fact, and it's fair to say it would have some affect on an individual's scoring totals.

However, you can't adjust for DNA. I don't think it's fair to overlay non-existent injuries on Ovechkin, and then use it against him in a debate.

As a thought-experiment, sure, it's interesting to imagine how Lemieux and Ovechkin's legacies would change if their durability changed. But it's unfair to demand others imagine it the same way you do, and then call them wrong when they don't.

If the formula is credible, then how do I check that the answers it provides are actually correct? If you can't test it for accuracy and repeatability, then there's zero reason to trust it.

Sure, a lot more goals were scored in the 1980s and 1990s. But, where's the measurable fact that shows it was actually harder to score, like so many people assume? From what I can very clearly see and have repeatedly pointed out, there always a lot more high end talent in the league when scoring is up. Every time scoring averages go up, there's always new young talent that can outclass most of the other players in the league. When scoring goes down, I always find elite guys dropping off due to age/injury. And elite guys score more than non-elite guys, that's what makes them elite.

So now "DNA" is what gave OV the freedom to skate mostly unimpeded for his entire career and not be abused and slashed and cross checked, and not the protective rules of his era and a near total lack of big mean defensemen abusing him with impunity? Is there any chance they've identified the actual protein strings in his DNA that control his ability to not get hurt, and published their peer reviewed scientific research in a respected journal? Or is this just more pretending to make OV look better?

I'm also not the one insisting OV would definitely stay healthy during Mario's era, or that it's his genetics that kept him healthy and not the era he played in. Nor am I the one claiming that the untestable era adjusted numbers must be trusted. I'm saying all of these claims and numbers are bullshit until there's measurable evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[Lshap]

So now "DNA" is what gave OV the freedom to skate mostly unimpeded for his entire career and not be abused and slashed and cross checked, and not the protective rules of his era and a near total lack of big mean defensemen abusing him with impunity? Is there any chance they've identified the actual protein strings in his DNA that control his ability to not get hurt, and published their peer reviewed scientific research in a respected journal? Or is this just more pretending to make OV look better?

You created a non-existent state of health to support your opinion. You used the different styles of hockey as a premise to claim that today's uninjured Ovechkin would somehow become injured back then. That's beyond unmeasurable, it's pure imagination.

Not that health can't sometimes be measurable. You can argue that Bobby Orr would likely be LESS injured today, thanks to huge advancements in arthroscopic surgery. But you can't argue the reverse – creating injuries that never existed, especially for someone as amazingly durable as Ovechkin.

Nothing wrong with bringing it up as a concept, but it has zero weight if you're trying to 'prove' a point.

That said, I agree adjusting goals for different eras isn't an exact science. The people you're arguing with can't use adjusted goals to 'prove' their point, either. However, it does carry some value. You CAN measure how many goals were scored when, and you CAN apply a very rough estimate that a player would score more or fewer goals in a different year.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You created a non-existent state of health to support your opinion. You used the different styles of hockey as a premise to claim that today's uninjured Ovechkin would somehow become injured back then. That's beyond unmeasurable, it's pure imagination.

Not that health can't sometimes be measurable. You can argue that Bobby Orr would likely be LESS injured today, thanks to huge advancements in arthroscopic surgery. But you can't argue the reverse – creating injuries that never existed, especially for someone as amazingly durable as Ovechkin.

Nothing wrong with bringing it up as a concept, but it has zero weight if you're trying to 'prove' a point.

That said, I agree adjusting goals for different eras isn't an exact science. The people you're arguing with can't use adjusted goals to 'prove' their point, either. However, it does carry some value. You CAN measure how many goals were scored when, and you CAN apply a very rough estimate that a player would score more or fewer goals in a different year.

My opinion is that we can't know whether or not OV stays healthy during that era, so there's no reason to assume he definitely would. I'm using the different style of hockey and the fact that it's unmeasurable to explain why I have doubts, not claim that OV would definitely get hurt. It's impressive that he's stayed healthy in the era he's in, but it's also pretty obviously the safest era to play NHL hockey due to the rules changes they've implemented to stop so many guys from having their careers ended prematurely from preventable injuries.

I'm also not creating injuries that never existing, I'm doubting that he'd avoid all injuries during that era and providing examples of the potential hazards that could cause injuries, that he didn't face in his era. I'm also allowed to argue whatever I want. If you disagree, that's great, but you need to explain why and not just pretend my argument can't be made.

The adjusted goals for different eras isn't even science. Science requires testing your hypothesis for accuracy, which is impossible with the untestable made up adjusted numbers people want to pretend are right. The era adjusted numbers are bullshit stats made up by people who want a simple answer even if it's totally wrong.

I can also measure the number of elite players scoring well above the average every year, dragging the scoring averages up. This is why I don't understand why people insist on clinging to the wholly unsupported claim that it was somehow "harder to score". It's almost like you all believe scoring averages determine the players performances in a given year, and not the other way around.

 

[psycat]

Exactly. If "Greatest Goal Scorer" simply means the guy with the most goals, then there is no debate.

I think most of the Ovechkin votes here are simply using that metric.

"Who would you have take a penalty shot to save your life" is different. And I doubt people would choose Ovi over lemieux.

I mean the thing is we are not even arguing about the greatest? The topic is literally "better", NOT greater. Ovi is arguably the greatest, I have no urge arguing that even if I am not 100% certain he clears Gretzky for me in that sense either but he is certainly in the discussion if not frontrunner, but I don't believe he was/is the best at per game basis/peak and I don't really see how this is not the majority opinion tbh given that his peak, as a goalscorer, is not clearly better than atleast 3 players currently in the league.

 

[psycat]

Yes, I'm well-aware that Lemieux fans can't win the actual category that matters (results) and so there is an attempt to manipulate the criteria into a nonsensical area that is untethered to evidence.



Bringing up Gartner here is absurd because Ovechkin's peak goal scoring is on par with or better than Lemieux's, whereas Gartner's peak is nowhere near Bure's (Gartner's peak adjusted goal scoring season is 44. Bure's is 65 - a whopping 48% difference). So you are like 48% (wildly) off the mark with your analogy.

Basically you are arguing that results aren't part of the criteria of "better." That way of thinking is for people who desire to be untethered to evidence.

If Lemieux was in fact "better" at scoring goals due to ability, then his ability would have likely carried him into his later years better than it did for Ovie. It didn't:

Age 36-40 Lemieux:
.33 GPG. (42 goals across 4 seasons)

Age 36-39 Ovie
.56 GPG. (156 goals across 4 seasons)

Maybe not the best analogy but think it, still, gets my point about separating ability and career(when it comes to discussing "better", not greater) clearly. As did my hypotheical player scenario,which I am sure you can find corresponding real life players.

Ovi's longevity is freakish and unmatched as a goalscorer no debate there, which is why I also believe he got a strong case for greatest goalscorer of all time. Why is that so? Some parts luck, some parts skill, likely some part due to improvements in medicine(and doping). I suspect we will have quite a few players doing well into their late 30s going forward, can just look at scoring leaders over the past few years and see that older seems to be better nowadays. This is rather off topic though.

Of course Mario having 3 years off hockey, beating cancer etc hardly helped his later career and also the norm for goalscorers is to peak early, that's the(arguably "only") thing that makes Ovi all that special, because he is it's just that I don't for a second believe, per eye test, stats(adjusted stats are meh for me) etc that he was better than Mario at their best. Then take into account that he shoots before passing pretty much all the time, and does little of anything else.

Is Matthews also on par with Lemieux as a goalscorer, Stamkos?, McDavid?, Pastrnak? Because they all are pretty much up their with Ovechkin in terms of peak.

Will end this here since I doubt neither of us, or anybody else really, will change their opinion. Let's just say if they someone ever invents a time machine I would rather have Lemieux out there than Ovi if one goal is needed even if both players are forbidden to pass the puck.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovi's longevity is freakish and unmatched as a goalscorer no debate there, which is why I also believe he got a strong case for greatest goalscorer of all time. Why is that so? Some parts luck, some parts skill, likely some part due to improvements in medicine(and doping). I suspect we will have quite a few players doing well into their late 30s going forward, can just look at scoring leaders over the past few years and see that older seems to be better nowadays. This is rather off topic though.

In this thread you've asserted that Ovechkin is a compiler, Ovechkin is like Mike Gartner, and now he's lucky, and doping.

This is not a good discussion dude.

 

[Lshap]

My opinion is that we can't know whether or not OV stays healthy during that era, so there's no reason to assume he definitely would. I'm using the different style of hockey and the fact that it's unmeasurable to explain why I have doubts, not claim that OV would definitely get hurt. It's impressive that he's stayed healthy in the era he's in, but it's also pretty obviously the safest era to play NHL hockey due to the rules changes they've implemented to stop so many guys from having their careers ended prematurely from preventable injuries.

I'm also not creating injuries that never existing, I'm doubting that he'd avoid all injuries during that era and providing examples of the potential hazards that could cause injuries, that he didn't face in his era. I'm also allowed to argue whatever I want. If you disagree, that's great, but you need to explain why and not just pretend my argument can't be made.

The adjusted goals for different eras isn't even science. Science requires testing your hypothesis for accuracy, which is impossible with the untestable made up adjusted numbers people want to pretend are right. The era adjusted numbers are bullshit stats made up by people who want a simple answer even if it's totally wrong.

I can also measure the number of elite players scoring well above the average every year, dragging the scoring averages up. This is why I don't understand why people insist on clinging to the wholly unsupported claim that it was somehow "harder to score". It's almost like you all believe scoring averages determine the players performances in a given year, and not the other way around.

When evaluating Ovechkin, injuries shouldn't factor in at all, because he's remained notoriously injury-free. Yet you keep forcing imaginary injured-Ovechkin into this discussion, not because this version of him exists in any reality, but because a less-healthy Ovechkin supports your argument. That's not really a fair position to take in a back-and-forth discussion.

Yes, you can argue whatever you want, but when you impose conditions on Ovechkin that don't match any version of reality, the discussion becomes circular and frustrating. How is someone supposed to reply to, "Ovechkin might be injured in the 1990's"?

"Well... Lemieux might be addicted to video games in the 2010's".

As for adjusted goals, they're also imaginary. But at least they start with real data based on real goals. It's a predictive science, which can't be directly tested because, obviously, you can't observe or touch a prediction. But at least it's a model comparing two versions of reality, albeit very roughly.

 

[psycat]

In this thread you've asserted that Ovechkin is a compiler, Ovechkin is like Mike Gartner, and now he's lucky, and doping.

This is not a good discussion dude.

Nope never said he is like Mike Gartner(Bure ain't like Lemieux either for what it's worth), of course staying healthy for that many games while looking like a blob is mostly due to luck be it genetics or avoiding freak injuries.

Ovechkin is a compiler compared to someone like Mario yes, a generational goalscoring compiler but a compiler nontheless. I am sure you agree that Francis isn't the 5th best player of all time for example so I don't see why the same can't apply here. Maybe Jagr is the second best player, forward atleast, in your book?

As for doping? I am certain there is better stuff available now than 30 years ago yes. Same for "medicine" in grey area etc.

 

[paracord]

Nope never said he is like Mike Gartner(Bure ain't like Lemieux either for what it's worth), of course staying healthy for that many games while looking like a blob is mostly due to luck be it genetics or avoiding freak injuries.

Ovechkin is a compiler compared to someone like Mario yes, a generational goalscoring compiler but a compiler nontheless. I am sure you agree that Francis isn't the 5th best player of all time for example so I don't see why the same can't apply here. Maybe Jagr is the second best player, forward atleast, in your book?

As for doping? I am certain there is better stuff available now than 30 years ago yes. Same for "medicine" in grey area etc.

And Ronnie Francis has 200+ more assist than Mario and is 2nd all time behind Gretzky. Was Francis a better playmaker? Not a chance.

Crosby now has more assists than Lemieux, but less than Francis. He's a better playmaker than Francis, but not in Lemieux's league.

Durable guys who are elite DO INDEED compile. Doesn't mean they are the "best." Francis was elite and durable. He played a ton of games and piled up tons of assists. He played with Lemieux in his prime and was nowhere near his level.

 

[Midnight Judges]

And Ronnie Francis has 200+ more assist than Mario and is 2nd all time behind Gretzky. Was Francis a better playmaker? Not a chance.

Francis was never even top 5 in Hart voting.

These comparisons are really bad.

 

[Midnight Judges]

When evaluating Ovechkin, injuries shouldn't factor in at all, because he's remained notoriously injury-free. Yet you keep forcing imaginary injured-Ovechkin into this discussion, not because this version of him exists in any reality, but because a less-healthy Ovechkin supports your argument. That's not really a fair position to take in a back-and-forth discussion.

Out of all the people to pick on who wouldn't last in the 80s, Ovechkin should be near the bottom of the list. He's been durable and physical his entire career.

This is classic politics - take a strength and twist it into a weakness. It's got little to do with accuracy.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

As for doping? I am certain there is better stuff available now than 30 years ago yes. Same for "medicine" in grey area etc.

I strongly suggest not hinting that specific people are doping unless you have a credible source to back it up.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

When evaluating Ovechkin, injuries shouldn't factor in at all, because he's remained notoriously injury-free. Yet you keep forcing imaginary injured-Ovechkin into this discussion, not because this version of him exists in any reality, but because a less-healthy Ovechkin supports your argument. That's not really a fair position to take in a back-and-forth discussion.

Yes, you can argue whatever you want, but when you impose conditions on Ovechkin that don't match any version of reality, the discussion becomes circular and frustrating. How is someone supposed to reply to, "Ovechkin might be injured in the 1990's"?

"Well... Lemieux might be addicted to video games in the 2010's".

As for adjusted goals, they're also imaginary. But at least they start with real data based on real goals. It's a predictive science, which can't be directly tested because, obviously, you can't observe or touch a prediction. But at least it's a model comparing two versions of reality, albeit very roughly.

Having doubts that he'd be able to do the same thing in Mario's era isn't forcing imaginary injured OV into the discussions, it's questioning whether his longevity really matters when compared to guys who didn't last as long if it's a result of the rules changes and evolution of the game to be more finesse than brute force. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that OV remaining notoriously injury-free isn't a direct result of playing in this era with so many protections in place for the stars. If OVs softer era has played any role in keeping him healthy, it's also not fair to discount Mario because he got injured playing during a more dangerous era.

I also haven't seen any reason to believe any of the era adjustment models are even necessary, let alone accurate. From what I've ever been able to find, it seems like there were just significantly more elite players making it look easy, but that's different than it actually being easier. During OVs era, there's only 3 or 4 guys who could ever make it look easy, and only OV focused solely on goal scoring. Everyone else couldn't make it look easy, because they were mostly non-elite 1st liners like Benn and Getzlaf and Carter. So, why should those guys get extra adjusted points as a reward for not being good enough to score more to keep the averages up?

 

[BallardEra]

Ovechkin has 56 goals in his last 84 games at the age of 38-39 and some people are calling him a compiler.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There could be a nostalgia bias factor in play for those who grew up during Lemieux just like recency bias for those who grew up during Ovi’s era. I mean someone here said that Ovi would be considered the 8th best forward on 1956 Canadians by HOH board and I’m not sure that’s an exaggeration. It’s simple, you value per game numbers then you go with Mario, otherwise it’s Ovi.

As a participant in the Top 100 project - there was one voter (who since passed away, so he's no longer here to defend his position) who ranked Ovechkin something like 58th all-time (behind many players from the 1950's Canadiens). This was more than five years ago. His rankings were widely criticized by other HOH participants. He was a contrarian and had a lot of bizarre rankings that didn't reflect the consensus of the board - but you need people like that because it forces you to re-examine, and then either accept or reject, novel ideas.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That said, I agree adjusting goals for different eras isn't an exact science. The people you're arguing with can't use adjusted goals to 'prove' their point, either. However, it does carry some value. You CAN measure how many goals were scored when, and you CAN apply a very rough estimate that a player would score more or fewer goals in a different year.

Agreed. It's similar to calculating inflation. The way it's determined is based on a "basket" of goods, which is intended to reflect what a typical consumer spends. Different assumptions (ie how much will a family spend on groceries, compared to electronics?) will result in somewhat different numbers. Nobody should be arguing that someone who earned $61K in 2010 (which works out to about $85K in 2025, using the Bank of Canada inflation calculator) has a meaningfully higher income than someone earning $83K today. (Similarly, nobody should be arguing that 57 adjusted goals are meaningfully higher than 55). But, broadly speaking, adjustments make data from disparate environments more comparable. There's no reasonable basis for ignoring that prices are higher today compared to 2010 (even if the exact percentage change can be debated), and similarly there's no reason to ignore the reality that it was easier to score goals in 1988 compared to 2008.

 

[Lshap]

I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that OV remaining notoriously injury-free isn't a direct result of playing in this era with so many protections in place for the stars.

The evidence is clear and unequivocal, provided you're willing to see it. If today's game is so soft, why do most players continue to be injured... except for Ovechkin? If the 1980s/90s had such an elevated risk of injury, why did most stars still have long and mostly healthy careers?

Players in the 1990's weren't all injured. Players in today's 'soft' game aren't all healthy. All credible evidence suggests one of the most durable players to ever play would be just as durable no matter when he played.

I also haven't seen any reason to believe any of the era adjustment models are even necessary, let alone accurate. From what I've ever been able to find, it seems like there were just significantly more elite players making it look easy, but that's different than it actually being easier. During OVs era, there's only 3 or 4 guys who could ever make it look easy, and only OV focused solely on goal scoring. Everyone else couldn't make it look easy, because they were mostly non-elite 1st liners like Benn and Getzlaf and Carter. So, why should those guys get extra adjusted points as a reward for not being good enough to score more to keep the averages up?

The league scoring average in the first half of the 1990's was around 3.5 G/GP. In the first half of the 2010's, scoring had fallen to around 2.7 G/GP. That's too a big drop to be caused by a handful of players. I'd say improved goaltending had a bigger impact on reduced scoring. Ovechkin faced a better class of goalies than Lemieux did. We can disagree on how much, but there's no doubt scoring is harder in today's game than it was yesterday.

 

[TheLegend27]

The evidence is clear and unequivocal, provided you're willing to see it. If today's game is so soft, why do most players continue to be injured... except for Ovechkin? If the 1980s/90s had such an elevated risk of injury, why did most stars still have long and mostly healthy careers?

Players in the 1990's weren't all injured. Players in today's 'soft' game aren't all healthy. All credible evidence suggests one of the most durable players to ever play would be just as durable no matter when he played.


The league scoring average in the first half of the 1990's was around 3.5 G/GP. In the first half of the 2010's, scoring had fallen to around 2.7 G/GP. That's too a big drop to be caused by a handful of players. I'd say improved goaltending had a bigger impact on reduced scoring. Ovechkin faced a better class of goalies than Lemieux did. We can disagree on how much, but there's no doubt scoring is harder in today's game than it was yesterday.

Ovi also faced better defensive systems. There is much better coverage all around. Teams today wouldn’t throw one player at Mario to deke past on open ice, they would throw multiple in waves. I’m not saying he won’t stand out, but the game is a lot smarter and faster now, so Ovi deserves props for dominating to such an extent in such a fast and skilled league.