Better Goal Scorer 66 or 8

[Randyne]

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.

It's math.
In different seasons, like 1996-1998 the gap between 86-85G would be even bigger ~16

 

[WarriorofTime]

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.

Lemieux scored 77 in 170 games after the year 2000.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

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.

But I have been told that having more teams makes it much easier to score, because talent is diluted. Isn't that the whole idea behind expansion being a reason why scoring averages go up? Shouldn't we then assume those guys wouldn't be getting so many easy goals against the 9 expansion teams we've eliminated and would probably score much less as a result?

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.

When you need 37 guys to do the same amount of scoring as 26, I'm not sure your guys are as good as mine.

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.

Again, 10 guys creating 250 more goals vs needing 37 guys to get the same increase. Not sure if you're arguing against me or agreeing with me.

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.

Again, I'm confused. Do you agree that 75 players being about 25% better is enough to explain the scoring averages being much higher? Or are you saying that your math showing 75 players increasing their scoring by just 25% would increase league averages by 0.5 goals per game isn't good enough to prove that a small number of players can have a big impact?

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.

Adding more players to the league shouldn't change how well the top 26 in the league can perform. If anything, adding so many teams and mediocre players is usually claimed to make it easier to score (expansion causes averages to increase, right?), so you'd think there'd be more guys putting up big numbers skating around the pylons that littered the league in 2010.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

It's math.
In different seasons, like 1996-1998 the gap between 86-85G would be even bigger ~16

If you can explain the differences in scoring by looking at the number of elite scorers around the league in a given year, why is this math necessary? Why do players deserve bonus points for playing in an era full of players who clearly weren't good enough to score more?

 

[Lshap]

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.

Evidence? When did we start using evidence? I say Lemieux would be addicted to online gambling today. You say Ovechkin would be injured back then. Our evidence: Just because.

Wait until you hear my theory about how the mullet era would've changed Maurice Richard's game.

Seriously... as far as the adjusted goals thing, it sounds like a chicken/egg problem. Were goal-scorers better back then, or were goaltenders and defencemen worse? Maybe both. Aside from Patrick Roy, the 80's and 90's featured a lot of mediocre goalies, nowhere close to the goalie class of the 2000's and 2010's. Hasek and Brodeur started in the mid/late 90's. So while it may be true that there were more generational forwards in the 80's and 90's, it's also true that they had easier targets. Not to mention the less systematic defensive systems back then.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Evidence? When did we start using evidence? I say Lemieux would be addicted to online gambling today. You say Ovechkin would be injured back then. Our evidence: Just because.

Wait until you hear my theory about how the mullet era would've changed Maurice Richard's game.

Seriously... as far as the adjusted goals thing, it sounds like a chicken/egg problem. Were goal-scorers better back then, or were goaltenders and defencemen worse? Maybe both. Aside from Patrick Roy, the 80's and 90's featured a lot of mediocre goalies, nowhere close to the goalie class of the 2000's and 2010's. Hasek and Brodeur started in the mid/late 90's. So while it may be true that there were more generational forwards in the 80's and 90's, it's also true that they had easier targets. Not to mention the less systematic defensive systems back then.

I never said OV would be injured. I said we shouldn't assume he would definitely be healthy. He obviously might be healthy, but then again, maybe not. But that means we also shouldn't assume Lemieux would definitely have a back injury if he was playing in OVs era. Maybe he does, but then again, maybe not. We simply can't tell whether the difference are due to some attribute of the players or the environment they played in, so using it to compare them seems ridiculous to me.

There's a lot of mediocre goaltenders now, if we compare SV% to the 2010s. Does that discount how good MacKinnon, McDavid, Kucherov, Matthews, etc. are driving the scoring averages up? Or do you think that maybe there are so many mediocre goalies today because scorers are so much better that all but the very best goalies are getting outclassed more frequently by the guys scoring goals, making them look mediocre?

I will give you defensive systems. But there also weren't offensive systems either, so offenses weren't using the same tactics either. It was usually just go out and let your superstars outclass the opponents, while the rest of the team tried to not make mistakes.

 

[PainForShane]

I'm saying that the eras are so different that it's impossible to separate OVs health from the era he played in. In other words, I can't test that he would stay healthy in literally any other era, so why should I trust that he definitely would? That doesn't mean that he definitely would, but giving OV credit for staying healthy in one era while punishing Mario for getting hurt in a completely different era is total bullshit.

You're saying a lot of things man. Mostly making stuff up on your end and demanding proof / repeatable experiments for everything you're trying to disprove. You're also saying some legitimately dumb things like the bolded above, as well as repeatedly arguing that Shots on Goal are actually a negative stat when it comes to goal scoring. Which is a take that I don't think many people have ever heard before, if at all. I know I certainly haven't.

Anyway re: Mario, he didn't get hurt, he got cancer. Pretty sure the clutching and grabbing (or a lack thereof at times) has absolutely nothing to do with whether a player contracts Hodgkin's Lymphoma

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

He's not saying that 1 goal in 1989 is worth 7 goals in 1991.

He's saying that 1 goal in 1989 is worth roughly 1.07 goals in 1991. That seems reasonable if you look at how much teams were scoring per game each year.

7% of 85 is almost 6 (5.95). Add the 1 extra goal that Hull actually scored and you get the 7 extra adjusted goals.

 

[Regal]

But I have been told that having more teams makes it much easier to score, because talent is diluted. Isn't that the whole idea behind expansion being a reason why scoring averages go up? Shouldn't we then assume those guys wouldn't be getting so many easy goals against the 9 expansion teams we've eliminated and would probably score much less as a result?



When you need 37 guys to do the same amount of scoring as 26, I'm not sure your guys are as good as mine.



Again, 10 guys creating 250 more goals vs needing 37 guys to get the same increase. Not sure if you're arguing against me or agreeing with me.



Again, I'm confused. Do you agree that 75 players being about 25% better is enough to explain the scoring averages being much higher? Or are you saying that your math showing 75 players increasing their scoring by just 25% would increase league averages by 0.5 goals per game isn't good enough to prove that a small number of players can have a big impact?



Adding more players to the league shouldn't change how well the top 26 in the league can perform. If anything, adding so many teams and mediocre players is usually claimed to make it easier to score (expansion causes averages to increase, right?), so you'd think there'd be more guys putting up big numbers skating around the pylons that littered the league in 2010.

You’re not understanding the math. It’s a basic fact that using the same number of scorers in a smaller league means they’re going to score a higher percentage of points. The top 26 scorers in the 06 era also scored a much bigger percentage than in the 80s and 90s. If the league added 9 teams tomorrow, the top 26 scorers would also score a lower percentage even though they’d be the same players.

This is completely different than expansion teams increasing scoring. Expansion teams increase scoring overall because theres less depth per team which means more mistakes and more players the best players can take advantage of. But it doesn’t increase the percentage the top 26 players are scoring relative to league wide goals because there’s too many added goals from the extra roster spots. This is fact, not opinion, and if you’re not understanding it, I suggest you look at it more closely until you understand rather than keep trying to argue your side.

As for the 25%, my point was that even an outrageous exaggeration in talent doesn’t account for the difference, because it’s clear that even if there is a talent difference, it’s certainly not 25%. And even that 25% doesn’t fully account for the difference. My argument isn’t that adjustments are perfect, but you’re trying to argue that no adjustments are needed, and the numbers just don’t bear that out

 

[yeaher]

Lemieux was literally the best

 

[Regal]

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?

The top goalies all had their pads shrunk

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

Mario clears Ovechkin as a better overall hockey player by several notches. Who cares who was better goal scorer?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You’re not understanding the math. It’s a basic fact that using the same number of scorers in a smaller league means they’re going to score a higher percentage of points. The top 26 scorers in the 06 era also scored a much bigger percentage than in the 80s and 90s. If the league added 9 teams tomorrow, the top 26 scorers would also score a lower percentage even though they’d be the same players.

This is completely different than expansion teams increasing scoring. Expansion teams increase scoring overall because theres less depth per team which means more mistakes and more players the best players can take advantage of. But it doesn’t increase the percentage the top 26 players are scoring relative to league wide goals because there’s too many added goals from the extra roster spots. This is fact, not opinion, and if you’re not understanding it, I suggest you look at it more closely until you understand rather than keep trying to argue your side.

As for the 25%, my point was that even an outrageous exaggeration in talent doesn’t account for the difference, because it’s clear that even if there is a talent difference, it’s certainly not 25%. And even that 25% doesn’t fully account for the difference. My argument isn’t that adjustments are perfect, but you’re trying to argue that no adjustments are needed, and the numbers just don’t bear that out

I understand my math perfectly. What I don't understand is why you're talking about a percentage of the league scoring instead of the almost 600 point difference between just the 26 top players. Does it being a smaller percentage of the league somehow explain that massive difference in totals between the top 26 players?

I also don't understand how "expansion teams make it easier to score by diluting talent" and "the top talent still scored a lot less despite there being more expansion teams making it easier to score" add up to prove it was harder to score. To me, scoring less against worse competition would suggest the "top talent" aren't nearly as good.

And the top 26 guys from 1990-91 outscored the top 26 guys from 2010-11 by 29%, so your "outrageous exaggeration in talent" is actually a bit lower than reality.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

The top goalies all had their pads shrunk

Goalie equipment was shrunk by 11% in 2005. If it's goalie equipment changes, why did scoring continue to decrease and the average SV% increase until more high end scorers showed up 10 years later?

 

[Golden_Jet]

He's not saying that 1 goal in 1989 is worth 7 goals in 1991.

He's saying that 1 goal in 1989 is worth roughly 1.07 goals in 1991. That seems reasonable if you look at how much teams were scoring per game each year.

7% of 85 is almost 6 (5.95). Add the 1 extra goal that Hull actually scored and you get the 7 extra adjusted goals.

Sad you had to explain that.

 

[Shonky]

Ovechkin is the best and greatest goal scorer ever just deal with it

 

[centipede2233]

Lemieux scored 77 in 170 games after the year 2000.

Yeah that’s because the nhl did nothing about hooking and holding in lemieux’s early prime years where he had 200 pound grown men dragging off him going up the ice. His back declined so much he couldn’t even tie his own skates in the back half of his career.

 

[paracord]

Another way to look at this: For basically every game Lemieux played, he was simultaneously the top playmaker and goal scorer on his team. As such, the offense ran through him as the quarterback in almost all situations. So his focus for most of his career was relatively split between goal scoring and play making.

Ovechkin has basically a one-track objective. He was always paired with a playmaker, such as Backstrom, and was always the primary trigger man when he was on the ice.

If we take the 87 Canada Cup, for a small but high level sample size, Lemieux played Ovechkin's position because he had Gretzky to be the centerman and play maker. And look what he did. He destroyed the tournament in goal scoring against the best players in the world.

Are we really saying that Lemieux didn't have the talent to put up insane goal numbers if we was just simply a trigger man? Come on. He played 500+ less games than Gretzky but is only 204 goals behind him. 200 of those games were when he was scoring 1+ GPG.

He'd have over 1000 goals right now relatively easily, even as a balanced goalscoring / playmaker.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Goalie equipment was shrunk by 11% in 2005. If it's goalie equipment changes, why did scoring continue to decrease and the average SV% increase until more high end scorers showed up 10 years later?

Because the players who couldn't handle the rule changes were phased out of the league and the NHL slowly kept allowing more interference.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Because the players who couldn't handle the rule changes were phased out of the league and the NHL slowly kept allowing more interference.

Agreed. Contrary to what some people think, ES scoring per game was remarkably consistent from 2006 to 2016. The reason overall scoring decreased is because far fewer penalties were called. There were (on average) nearly 6 powerplays per game in 2005-06. That number fell to just 3.5 per game by 2010-2011, and it was barely above 3.0 by 2014-15. Claude Giroux led the NHL with 37 PP points in 2015; in 2006, that wouldn't have placed him in the top 30.

Scoring started increasing around 2016-17 for several unrelated reasons (all of which favoured offense, and all of which were implemented within the span of a few years). The most obvious is the reduction in the size of goalie equipment. But there was also the introduction of 3v3 overtime. And, although this isn't a rule change, coaches began pulling their goalies earlier and more often.

If it were true that the current generation of star players were meaningfully better than the last generation, older veterans would be getting left in the dust. Instead, we see 39 year old Ovechkin being 5th in goals (despite missing around 15 games), 37 year old Crosby being 3rd in 5v5 scoring (ahead of McDavid, Kucherov and Crosby), Stamkos setting a career high in scoring at age 31 (despite very obviously no longer being as good a player as was a decade earlier), etc. There are plenty of other examples, but the only way this could happen is if the leaguewide scoring environment became more conducive to scoring.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Because the players who couldn't handle the rule changes were phased out of the league and the NHL slowly kept allowing more interference.

How does the worst players getting incrementally better make it easier for goalies to stop more pucks? Or reduce scoring overall? Am I supposed to believe these slightly improved 4th liners were shutting down the top scorers and preventing them from scoring more? Or is it the little bit of contact that they decided to allow after handing out 100+ additional PPs per team calling everything by the book that first year after the lockout that prevented the top guys from scoring more and allowed 19 goalies to post a .920 SV% or better in 2010-11?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Agreed. Contrary to what some people think, ES scoring per game was remarkably consistent from 2006 to 2016. The reason overall scoring decreased is because far fewer penalties were called. There were (on average) nearly 6 powerplays per game in 2005-06. That number fell to just 3.5 per game by 2010-2011, and it was barely above 3.0 by 2014-15. Claude Giroux led the NHL with 37 PP points in 2015; in 2006, that wouldn't have placed him in the top 30.

Scoring started increasing around 2016-17 for several unrelated reasons (all of which favoured offense, and all of which were implemented within the span of a few years). The most obvious is the reduction in the size of goalie equipment. But there was also the introduction of 3v3 overtime. And, although this isn't a rule change, coaches began pulling their goalies earlier and more often.

If it were true that the current generation of star players were meaningfully better than the last generation, older veterans would be getting left in the dust. Instead, we see 39 year old Ovechkin being 5th in goals (despite missing around 15 games), 37 year old Crosby being 3rd in 5v5 scoring (ahead of McDavid, Kucherov and Crosby), Stamkos setting a career high in scoring at age 31 (despite very obviously no longer being as good a player as was a decade earlier), etc. There are plenty of other examples, but the only way this could happen is if the leaguewide scoring environment became more conducive to scoring.

I can't help but wonder if maybe PPs went down because the league average defenseman wasn't getting beaten as frequently. Between 2006 and 2016, who other than Crosby/OV/Malkin was really capable of making defensemen regularly look bad? Was there even a truly elite level skater in the league during that decade? Or just a bunch of guys who were above average at best?

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that 2016-17 was the rookie season for Matthews, Marner, Rantanen, Aho, Nylander, Tkachuk, Point, Guentzel, Morrissey, Chychrun, not to mention McDavid's first 100 point season, Kucherov's first PPG+ season, and Pasta and Drai's first 70+ point seasons. It can't possibly be that all these high talent youngsters boosted scoring or anything that obvious, it's gotta be the minor changes to goalie equipment and all those extra EN points guys were getting, right?

It's also not that the current generation of elite scorers is better than the last generation, there's just more of them. The previous era only had 3 or 4, this one has 10-15 at about that same level. That's why we only see Crosby/OV still competing with the best of the best from this generation and not the lesser guys who littered the top 10 in scoring year after year. If it were actually easier to score, shouldn't guys like Duchene and Tavares score more than they did back then?

I also can't think anything more conducive to scoring than having more talented teammates to play with. Get 2 or 3 high talent offensive players on the same team and you're going to score a lot more goals than if you have Crosby playing with 3rd liners.

 

[ijuka]

If you can explain the differences in scoring by looking at the number of elite scorers around the league in a given year, why is this math necessary? Why do players deserve bonus points for playing in an era full of players who clearly weren't good enough to score more?

For adjusted stats, you're looking at comparing "the number of standard deviations above average" instead of raw goals. But season-adjusted raw goals are a somewhat useful shorthand that's better than nothing. Either way, that's the metric that shows you how good you're doing relative to your peers.

 

[psycat]

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

"Even Gretzky", what a sentence.

Also adjusted stats are fine and all but they are just that, nothing really tangible. Furthermore if we are looking at best(topic of this thread) as opposed to greatest/longevity it would make more sense to use, say, top 3-5 seasons(or even singular peak season).

If we talk about greatest/most accomplished stat watching would be pretty easy way to deduct with some certainity who's the one but that's not what's being discussed.

I suppose that if I would buy your adjusted stats at face value, I don't to be clear, Brett Hull would have a pretty compelling case for best goalscorer of all time and I am not entirely against that notion, at his peak he was certainly in the territory of that.

 

[Golden_Jet]

"Even Gretzky", what a sentence.

Also adjusted stats are fine and all but they are just that, nothing really tangible. Furthermore if we are looking at best(topic of this thread) as opposed to greatest/longevity it would make more sense to use, say, top 3-5 seasons(or even singular peak season).

If we talk about greatest/most accomplished stat watching would be pretty easy way to deduct with some certainity who's the one but that's not what's being discussed.

I suppose that if I would buy your adjusted stats at face value, I don't to be clear, Brett Hull would have a pretty compelling case for best goalscorer of all time and I am not entirely against that notion, at his peak he was certainly in the territory of that.

Bobby Hull was better than Brett Hull at scoring.