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

[bambamcam4ever]

Ovechkin's durability isn't something to interpret. It's a straightforward fact. You can't extrapolate his injury history... because he doesn't have an injury history. It's like claiming Lemieux's scoring would've suffered if he played today, because he'd be addicted to online gambling. I mean... it's possible, right? Imagine someone doubling down on that claim, insisting that Lemieux wouldn't be as good a player because he'd acquire a problem he never had before. That's what you're doing with Ovechkin and these imaginary injuries you claim he'd suffer in the 1990's.

By the way, Ovi remained un-injured playing against guys like Pronger, Chara, Weber, Cooke, Kadri, Lucic, etc. in their prime, and he did it before the DPS cracked down on headshots about a dozen years ago. Nothing soft about the league Ovi played in.


We're talking specifically about goals, not total points. I'd be legit curious about the same top-26 from both eras, and the difference between 1991 and 2011 in goals. No problem if you don't have time... I can figure it out later tonight.

Durability is not equal to how many injuries someone had. It is how likely someone is to get injured, which is something that is pretty difficult to determine. Especially since injuries aren't independent events. Significant injuries often make you more likely to get injured again as your body tends to compensate for the injured body part.

 

[WarriorofTime]

If you want to argue that Lemieux might not score 0.82 goals per game during OV's era, go for it.

It'd be harder to argue that Lemieux is immune from league wide scoring rates. The presumption works the other way.

 

[DitchMarner]

If a guy scores 60 goals on 300 shots one time in his career, never to repeat it, then maybe he got lucky. When a guy scores 613 goals on 3054 shots over 745 games, it becomes a lot harder to call his career 20% shooting percentage "abnormally high" or "lucky".

If we're talking about Lemieux specifically, I don't think anyone would deny that he was a remarkably talented shooter.

But I don't buy the argument that scoring X number of goals on fewer shots than another player makes one a superior goal scorer. You can make a good argument that he was a more accurate shooter than Ovechkin, but accuracy isn't all there is to goal scoring.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

It'd be harder to argue that Lemieux is immune from league wide scoring rates. The presumption works the other way.

But league wide scoring rates are a measure of what the players actually did, and claiming a low scoring average somehow prevented guys from scoring more is like saying you got a lower score on a school assignment because you had a C average at the end of the year. The overall average is a measure of what you did, not an excuse for why you didn't do better on the things that contributed to the average.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

If we're talking about Lemieux specifically, I don't think anyone would deny that he was a remarkably talented shooter.

But I don't buy the argument that scoring X number of goals on fewer shots than another player makes one a superior goal scorer. You can make a good argument that he was a more accurate shooter than Ovechkin, but accuracy isn't all there is to goal scoring.

It's important because hockey has a time limit. If you have one minute left and need a goal, do you want the guy that averages 8 or 9 shots per goal, or the guy who can usually score a goal with only 4 or 5 shots? Seems like the more accurate shooter would give you the better chance of actually scoring, right?

 

[TheLegend27]

But league wide scoring rates are a measure of what the players actually did, and claiming a low scoring average somehow prevented guys from scoring more is like saying you got a lower scorer on a school assignment because you had a C average at the end of the year. The overall average is a measure of what you did, not an excuse for why you didn't do better on the things that contributed to the average.

No, in your example it’s like getting a C on a test with the entire class test average being a C, while your friend in another class got a B with the test average being a B. it is reasonable to think that you’d do better in your friend’s class. It’s easier to get a higher score when the average is higher right?. To answer you, a lower scoring average does prevent players from scoring more because of factors that lead to that lower scoring - such as rule changes, equipment changes, reduction in power plays etc. Mario’s scoring would absolutely follow league averages, and it’s short sighted to think he would score at 0.82 rate in Ovi’s era.

 

[paracord]

No, in your example it’s like getting a C on a test with the entire class test average being a C, while your friend in another class got a B with the test average being a B. The lower score reflects the fact that your test was more difficult. To answer you, a lower scoring average does prevent players from scoring more because of factors that lead to that lower scoring - such as rule changes, equipment changes, reduction in power plays etc. Mario’s scoring would absolutely follow league averages, and it’s short sighted to think he would score at 0.82 rate in Ovi’s era.

He scored at .82 in 2001, at age 36, in the dead puck era, with butterfly goalies, with 2 line offsides, no trapezoid, no 3 on 3, no in-zone faceoffs to start PPs, etc.

 

[Regal]

Maybe it's only clear and unequivocal because you want to see it.

To me, the injuries still happening are the mostly unavoidable injuries that aren't related to the massive rules changes that came in during the lockout. So, we still see guys with ankle injuries due to catching an edge, or knee injuries from an awkward collision, or shoulder injuries from guys crashing into the boards. What we don't see anymore are guys having their hands slashed with impunity. A broken finger can easily mess up your shot, even if it doesn't cause you to miss a game. We also don't see guys getting brutalized by defensemen during the net front battles, so there's fewer broken/bruised ribs that guys are playing with and no one has ruptured their spleen lately. Nor do we see nearly as many predatory head shots that take talent out of the game. And when we do see these things today, there's usually a PP as a result, and sometimes even a suspension, to enforce the idea that it's not allowed.

It was also a totally different era in medical care. Injuries today are identified better, treated more seriously, and players are much more apt to miss a game or 3 than playing through something and never properly recovering.



It's not just a handful of players.

In 1990-91, 10 guys scored more than 100 points. Gretzky had 163 points. The top 10 players scored a combined 1157 points. 26 guys scored more than 80 points. The top 26 players combined for 2566 points. There were 5796 goals scored in the league that year. Those top 26 players had points on 44% of the league goals that year. That's a huge impact on league scoring.

In 2010-11, there was only 1 guy over 100 (Sedin 104). In 2010, the top 10 scorers combined for only 894. Only 9 guys scored more than 80 points. The top 26 players combined for 1983 points. There were 6720 goals scored that year, with 9 additional teams joining the league. The top 26 players only scored points on 29.5% of those goals.

Once you get to about the 75th highest scorer, the numbers are all about the same. In other words, despite it allegedly being easier to score, only about 75 guys out of the 500+ in the NHL scored more in 1990 than a similarly ranked scorer in 2010. If was truly easier to score back then, why is it only 15% of the players scoring more? Why is there such a huge difference between the top 10s, but not the 75-150th best guys? If it's goaltending, why is so much of the difference in scoring concentrated among just the top 25-50 players, and not throughout the league? Wouldn't improved goaltending make it harder for the 2nd tier guys to score too? Seems to me like the only logical explanation is that there's something different about the top 25-50 guys.



The top 26 scorers in 1990-91 combined for 600 more points than the top 26 scorers in 2010-11. Remove them, and you're losing a lot more than just the goals they scored themselves.

You’re not accounting for the number of teams in your analysis. The top 26 scorers in 90-91 made up 20.6% of the top 6 forwards in the league. The top 26 scorers in 2010-11 would make up 14.4% of the top 6 forwards in the league. So of course they’d score a lower percentage league wide. You have a bunch more top 6 roles that are being filled and players are scoring in those minutes. If there were 30 teams in 90-91, those 26 players would automatically score a lower percentage of the number of goals in the league.

If we adjust the league wide goals in 2010-11 to what they’d be if there were only 21 teams (based on the league wide goals per game), then there’d be only 4704 goals. Suddenly those top 26 scorers are getting a point on 42.2% of the goals in the league. Basically the same as the top 26 in 90-91.

Similarly, if we use the top 37 scorers in 2010-11 instead, so that we’re using the top 20.6% of the top 6 forwards, we have them combining for 725 more points, or 2708 combined points. With 6720 total goals, that means a point on 40.3% of the total goals.

So, we can argue that there’s a slight difference at the top of the lineup, but it wouldn’t account for all of the league wide scoring. If the top 37 scorers in 2010-11 scored 44% of the league’s offense that would mean 2957 combined points, or 249 more goals. If there were 249 more goals in 2010-11, it would raise the league average from 2.73 to 2.83.

Consider this. Even if we believe every one of the top 75 scorers is 25% better in 90-91 than 2010-11, and so we made the top 75 scorers in 2010-11 score 25% more than they did. The top 75 had 4914 points. That would mean they’d have a combined 6143 points or 1229 more goals. If the league scored 1229 more goals in 2010-11, it’d have 7949 goals. That would mean a league wide GPG of 3.23. The league average GPG in 90-91 was 3.45. Even with the absurd notion that the top 75 players were that much better, we still can’t account for the scoring difference.

I mean, you mention that 90-91 only had 75 guys score more than their 2010-11 counterparts, but then say “out of 500+ NHLers”. But there wasn’t 500+ in 90-91. There were 419 players who played at least 40 games. There were 566 who played at least 40 games in 2010-11. It’s not about the players, it’s about the opportunity. If the league suddenly shrunk to 21 teams, the top 75 scorers would not be scoring at much as they are now because a lot of them would see their roles reduced. However they’d all combine for a greater percentage of the leagues total goals because there’d be a lot fewer players.

 

[TheLegend27]

He scored at .82 in 2001, at age 36, in the dead puck era, with butterfly goalies, with 2 line offsides, no trapezoid, no 3 on 3, no in-zone faceoffs to start PPs, etc.

That was an impressive season, but unfortunately the sample size consists of only 43 games. I’m not sure it was sustainable considering the very next season, his scoring dipped to .25(I know, low sample size, injuries).

 

[Lshap]

Maybe Lemieux's scoring would have suffered for some random off-ice reason that you want to make up. But OV pretty clearly benefited from the on-ice rules changes that the league implemented right before he joined the league, and since. Just something as simple as no touch icing made the game a lot safer. As a result, it's impossible to separate his health from the era he played in and questioning whether he could have done the same in literally any other era is a totally valid and reasonable question. Questioning whether Mario would have gotten into online gambling if he came into the league in 2005 like OV probably isn't valid or reasonable.

And, sure, OV did play against a handful of guys who were pretty tough. Of course, they weren't allowed to slash and crosscheck with impunity anymore, but I'm sure the few dozen minutes a season he spent on the ice against them was just as risky as spending almost every shift getting abused.

Lemieux was addicted to cigarettes, so if he played in today's era with smoking prohibited in most places, he'd probably find another addiction, like online gambling. Luckily for Lemieux, online gambling didn't exist in the 80s and 90s, so he was safe from that threat. However, if he played in Ovi's era with its proliferation of online activities, I doubt Lemieux would have avoided it.

Therefore, Lemieux would not be as great a player because of his online gambling addiction.

The above claim has precisely the same amount of evidence to support it as the claim that Ovechkin would become injury-prone in the 1990's.

I thought we're talking about league averages and what causes them to change. And most elite players contribute to goals being scored in more ways than just putting the puck in the net, so their total points are much better measure of their contribution to overall league scoring. Gretzky's 163 points in 90-91 means 163 goals were scored that season as a direct result of something he did. It doesn't matter if he personally scored every goal or not, he still contributed a lot to them being scored, and probably a few more that didn't result in him getting a point. If you replace him with literally anyone other than Mario, a lot of those goals 163 goals probably aren't getting scored that year.

It's interesting to talk about the overall contribution of the top players. But this thread is specifically about goal-scoring, so let's focus on how much the league goal-scoring average is affected by the top players. Are you right that the 1980's-90's wasn't really a higher-scoring era, but that it simply had higher-scoring superstars? I don't know the answer, but I'd be interested in seeing the data.

 

[Randyne]

Ovechkin by a pretty big gap.
Even Gretzky and Brett Hull slightly better than 66.
10 best adjsuted goal finishes:

 

[paracord]

Ovechkin by a pretty big gap.
Even Gretzky and Brett Hull slightly better than 66.
10 best adjsuted goal finishes:
View attachment 992437

How is this even calculated? Brett Hull scored 86 goals as a high 2 years after Lemieux scored 85, yet it's worth SEVEN more goals in this "adjustment?"

Come on.

 

[Randyne]

How is this even calculated? Brett Hull scored 86 goals as a high 2 years after Lemieux scored 85, yet it's worth SEVEN more goals in this "adjustment?"

Come on.

League Averages GPG was lower 3.46 v 3.74

Adjusted Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Explaination of hockey stats adjusted for the era the games were played in.

www.hockey-reference.com

We will use Gordie Howe's 1952-53season as an example, a season in which Howe scored a career-high 49goals.

The first step in this process is to calculate a schedule adjustment foreach player. In order to do this, divide 82 by the number of scheduledgames per team. In 1952-53 the NHL played a 70-game schedule, so theschedule adjustment is 82 / 70 = 1.17.

The roster size adjustment is computed by dividing the maximum roster sizefor the season in question by 18. Teams were allowed to carry a maximumof 16 skaters at home and 15 skaters on the road during the 1952-53season, so the roster size adjustment is 15.5 / 18 = 0.86.

Next calculate the era adjustment, which we will do by dividing 6 by theleague average goals per game without the player in question. In1952-53 a total of 1006 goals were scored in 210 games. Without Howe thisworks out to (1006 - 49) / 210 = 4.56 goals per game, so our eraadjustment is 6 / 4.56 = 1.32.

Finally, we put everything together. Take the player's actual goals andmultiply by the adjustments we computed above. For Howe in 1952-53 thisis 49 * 1.17 * 0.86 * 1.32 = 65 adjusted goals.

 

[paracord]

Adjusted Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Explaination of hockey stats adjusted for the era the games were played in.

www.hockey-reference.com

We will use Gordie Howe's 1952-53season as an example, a season in which Howe scored a career-high 49goals.

The first step in this process is to calculate a schedule adjustment foreach player. In order to do this, divide 82 by the number of scheduledgames per team. In 1952-53 the NHL played a 70-game schedule, so theschedule adjustment is 82 / 70 = 1.17.

The roster size adjustment is computed by dividing the maximum roster sizefor the season in question by 18. Teams were allowed to carry a maximumof 16 skaters at home and 15 skaters on the road during the 1952-53season, so the roster size adjustment is 15.5 / 18 = 0.86.

Next calculate the era adjustment, which we will do by dividing 6 by theleague average goals per game without the player in question. In1952-53 a total of 1006 goals were scored in 210 games. Without Howe thisworks out to (1006 - 49) / 210 = 4.56 goals per game, so our eraadjustment is 6 / 4.56 = 1.32.

Finally, we put everything together. Take the player's actual goals andmultiply by the adjustments we computed above. For Howe in 1952-53 thisis 49 * 1.17 * 0.86 * 1.32 = 65 adjusted goals.

Yeah, that's nonsense. Hull scored 86 in the exact same era that Lemieux scored 85, and lemieux played 2 fewer games in his season. There's no world where one goal in in 1991 is worth 7 goals in 1989.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

No, in your example it’s like getting a C on a test with the entire class test average being a C, while your friend in another class got a B with the test average being a B. it is reasonable to think that you’d do better in your friend’s class. It’s easier to get a higher score when the average is higher right?. To answer you, a lower scoring average does prevent players from scoring more because of factors that lead to that lower scoring - such as rule changes, equipment changes, reduction in power plays etc. Mario’s scoring would absolutely follow league averages, and it’s short sighted to think he would score at 0.82 rate in Ovi’s era.

Assuming both classes are taking essentially the same test on exactly the same information, the difficulty doesn't change depending on which class is taking it. The class with the B average most likely has more students capable of getting an A on the test and your friend is most likely smarter than you are.

Even if the tests aren't the same we shouldn't assume one is harder just because of the average. My AP Calculus class had a much higher overall average than any of the general math classes. Does that mean general math was actually harder? Or was AP Calc just filled with much better students?

 

[Randyne]

Yeah, that's nonsense. Hull scored 86 in the exact same era that Lemieux scored 85, and lemieux played 2 fewer games in his season. There's no world where one goal in in 1991 is worth 7 goals in 1989.

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

In 1989 league averages was 1.081 times higher than in 1991
Why is that impossible?
It's a common thing in NHL.
For example
In 1996 league averages was 1.190 times higher than in 1998.
NHL was heading to the Dead puck era.

 

[paracord]

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

In 1989 league averages was 1.081 times higher than in 1991
Why is that impossible?
It's a common thing in NHL.
For example
In 1996 league averages was 1.190 times higher than in 1998.
NHL was heading to the Dead puck era.
View attachment 992448

1 x 1.081 != 7

Come on. Common sense here.

 

[WarriorofTime]

But league wide scoring rates are a measure of what the players actually did, and claiming a low scoring average somehow prevented guys from scoring more is like saying you got a lower score on a school assignment because you had a C average at the end of the year. The overall average is a measure of what you did, not an excuse for why you didn't do better on the things that contributed to the average.

Would you consider the save percentages of the goalies from the 2010s to automatically carry over to the 80s? Presumably it would have to work both ways logically

 

[Randyne]

1 x 1.081 != 7

Come on. Common sense here.

85 x 1.081 = 92
92 - 85 = 7

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Lemieux was addicted to cigarettes, so if he played in today's era with smoking prohibited in most places, he'd probably find another addiction, like online gambling. Luckily for Lemieux, online gambling didn't exist in the 80s and 90s, so he was safe from that threat. However, if he played in Ovi's era with its proliferation of online activities, I doubt Lemieux would have avoided it.

Therefore, Lemieux would not be as great a player because of his online gambling addiction.

The above claim has precisely the same amount of evidence to support it as the claim that Ovechkin would become injury-prone in the 1990's.


It's interesting to talk about the overall contribution of the top players. But this thread is specifically about goal-scoring, so let's focus on how much the league goal-scoring average is affected by the top players. Are you right that the 1980's-90's wasn't really a higher-scoring era, but that it simply had higher-scoring superstars? I don't know the answer, but I'd be interested in seeing the data.

Any chance you can show me any sort of evidence to show that smokers are more likely to gamble? I've known a lot of smokers who never gamble and have never seen a single study linking cigarette smoking and the propensity to gamble, so if you want to make that claim, it's going to take a lot more than you saying it for me to believe you're right.


I'm really saying the 80s and 90s was a higher scoring era BECAUSE it had so many more higher scoring superstars. More top tier players scored more and drove the averages up. And every time scoring averages has gone up, there's been new high level scoring talent in the league. Every time averages have gone down, there's high level scorers falling off or retiring and not being replaced. It's almost perfectly consistent going back to at least 1967. The only change it doesn't explain is right after the lockout, when they changed the rules and teams were getting like 100 more PP opportunities per season then in any other season I can find.

 

[paracord]

85 x 1.081 = 92
92 - 85 = 7

Yeah, like I said, that's nonsense. One goal in 1989 is not worth seven goals in 1991.

The math has to pass the common sense test.

 

[Dallas Winston]

It'd be harder to argue that Lemieux is immune from league wide scoring rates. The presumption works the other way.

Not really. Guy scored 85 in the 80d. 69 in 60 in the 90s. And 35 in 41 in the 2000s. Lemieux with no red line. 3 on 3 OT. N lemieux being the most physically talented player of all time and at 6"4 225 pounds would be drawing penalties left, right and center.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Would you consider the save percentages of the goalies from the 2010s to automatically carry over to the 80s? Presumably it would have to work both ways logically

That's a great question, and I'm not honestly sure how to deal with save %. I would probably argue that the SV% of the 2010 goalies is probably a little inflated because they were facing a lot of lower quality shots from worse shooters than the goalies in the 1980s. To support this, I'd don't think the 2025 goalies are all that different than the guys in 2010, and there are currently only 4 guys with a .920 SV% over 10 or more games compared to 19 in 2010-11. Did the top goalies all get worse over the last 15 years, or did the top end scorers get much better making their jobs that much harder?

 

[Randyne]

Yeah, like I said, that's nonsense. One goal in 1989 is not worth seven goals in 1991.

The math has to pass the common sense test.

You said nonsense. If 1=7 the difference would be 86 x 7 - 85 = 517 goals.
The table is not saying 1=7
It says 1=1.081 (approximately)

 

[paracord]

You said nonsense. If 1=7 the difference would be 86 x 7 - 85 = 517 goals.
The table is not saying 1=7
It says 1=1.081 (approximately)

The table is saying that 85 goals in 1989 is "71"

And 86 goals in 1991 is "78"

And I'm saying that's nonsense. That's all.