Better Goal Scorer 66 or 8

[PainForShane]

Sure, logically, having smaller goalie pads does sound like there's more net to shoot at. But I'm pretty sure goalies are allowed to move and are still going to make most of the same saves, even with slightly smaller pads. These are the best goalies in the world and people act like incrementally smaller pads makes it impossible for them to stop the puck at a high level anymore.

I've also read quotes where goalies say they prefer the smaller pads, because they aren't as stiff or cumbersome, making them easier to move in, so it seems like even the goalies themselves don't think the pads increase scoring.

EDIT - since you added something about St Louis after I quoted, I'd point out that MSL was 37 years old in 2013 when he won his 2nd Ross, which isn't doing much to convince me there were a lot of high talent youngsters floating around in 2014-15 that was even on his level.

Yeah, sorry for the stealth edit, remembered later about MSL and wanted to make sure I got the years right re: Yzerman disagreement re: inclusion on team Canada and also his Art Ross.

Regarding team selection, you're moving the goalposts, obvi age doesn't matter as much in a short tourney, that year Teemu was 43 and was Sochi's MVP. Either way we all know Canada has a ton of depth, esp at forward (wing!) so claiming otherwise and then repeating that claim just seems dumb.

One more thing -- I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, that's not a task or responsibility I would ever ask for, especially not after what little I've seen of your post history in this thread.

***

Anyway, if logically having smaller pads means more net to shoot at, and if scoring went up immediately after the size reduction (which it did), I think you answered your own question.

 

[Garbageyuk]

“What if”; that’s about all there is to say about this narrative.

Durability and longevity matter, and they are extremely valuable attributes in a player. Ovechkin has those two things in spades over Lemieux.

If the “best” goal scorer is only available for half the games, he isn’t the best. Lemieux’s career spanned 20 years (excluding the lockouts); he missed nearly half the games during that span.

From a goalscoring standpoint, I’ll take a 0.6 goal per game player who plays nearly every game over a 0.75 goal per game player who is only available for half of them, easily.

So no, Lemieux was definitely not a better goal scorer than Ovechkin, all things considered.

 

[authentic]

“What if”; that’s about all there is to say about this narrative.

Durability and longevity matter, and they are extremely valuable attributes in a player. Ovechkin has those two things in spades over Lemieux.

If the “best” goal scorer is only available for half the games, he isn’t the best. Lemieux’s career spanned 20 years (excluding the lockouts); he missed nearly half the games during that span.

From a goalscoring standpoint, I’ll take a 0.6 goal per game player who plays nearly every game over a 0.75 goal per game player who is only available for half of them, easily.

So no, Lemieux was definitely not a better goal scorer than Ovechkin, all things considered.

Really even that’s not an accurate representation of how they compare once you adjust for era. Ovechkin’s peak was arguably as good or slightly better. Though Lemieux did have a few more of those peak seasons as far as I can tell.. but the longevity and consistency factor for Ovechkin tilts heavily in his favour on an all-time scale.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Really even that’s not an accurate representation of how they compare once you adjust for era. Ovechkin’s peak was arguably as good or slightly better. Though Lemieux did have a few more of those peak seasons as far as I can tell.. but the longevity and consistency factor for Ovechkin tilts heavily in his favour on an all-time scale.

That’s true; factoring that in, it tilts it even more in favour of Ovechkin. Just crazy how he’s still trucking along at a 50+ goal pace at 39 years of age.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Sure, logically, having smaller goalie pads does sound like there's more net to shoot at. But I'm pretty sure goalies are allowed to move and are still going to make most of the same saves, even with slightly smaller pads. These are the best goalies in the world and people act like incrementally smaller pads makes it impossible for them to stop the puck at a high level anymore.

that wasn’t the only change made to goalie equipment, you’ve been shown a whole list (and that wasn’t even complete),

but still enjoying the entertainment.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

If 35 impresses you more than 50, I guess we count numbers differently. Being able to withstand the grind of complete seasons rather than eating nachos in the press box is a big plus in Ovechkin’s favor. If playing in barely half the games and scoring 35 goals is the most impressive thing you’ve ever seen, you haven’t seen many impressive things.

I guess so, because 0.81 goals per game is much more impressive to me than 0.65. And that's before we account for the fact that this was after Mario retired for 3 years due to cancer and back injuries. Who else in the history of the game has ever returned after 3 years away due to debilitating back issues at the age of 35 and scored anywhere close to 0.8 goals per game over more than half a season?

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Correlation doesn't prove causation. There was also a huge influx of high end young talent coming into the league starting around 2016. What do you think suggests it was definitely goalie pads and not the dozens of new elite scorers who are very clearly upgrades over the guys they replaced on the depth charts.

Why weren't the Olympics or the WCOH or 4 Nations higher scoring if there was more talent there?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Yeah, sorry for the stealth edit, remembered later about MSL and wanted to make sure I got the years right re: Yzerman disagreement re: inclusion on team Canada and also his Art Ross.

Regarding team selection, you're moving the goalposts, obvi age doesn't matter as much in a short tourney, that year Teemu was 43 and was Sochi's MVP. Either way we all know Canada has a ton of depth, esp at forward (wing!) so claiming otherwise and then repeating that claim just seems dumb.

One more thing -- I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, that's not a task or responsibility I would ever ask for, especially not after what little I've seen of your post history in this thread.

***

Anyway, if logically having smaller pads means more net to shoot at, and if scoring went up immediately after the size reduction (which it did), I think you answered your own question.

My comment about MSL was about the fact that he was the Ross winner at 37 years old, and not about being selected for team Canada. MSL was obviously a very good player, but that was also another one of the "but Crosby got hurt" seasons that left it wide open for someone from the next tier of talent to win a trophy. There weren't many other good young elite players that could actually compete with Crosby, which made it a lot easier for a 37 year MSL to win.

I'm not expecting you to convince me, but for an argument to be considered convincing, it should hold up to scrutiny. You should be able to ask questions, and look at the work that went into formulating it, not be expected to accept it as true while being told you can't ask questions. When you can't ask questions, that's not logic, it's faith.


And if they only reduced goalie pad sizes and didn't also start giving every team an extra 100+ power plays that season, then maybe we could attribute the increase in scoring to the goalie pads. But when you change a bunch of things at once, how do you know which one caused the result? With ES scoring staying pretty steady (aka low) and PP scoring going up, I think the 25% increase in PPs probably had a bigger impact than the changes in goalie pad sizes.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Why weren't the Olympics or the WCOH or 4 Nations higher scoring if there was more talent there?

Because those are best on best tournaments, meaning it's elite players against elite players, not a bunch of elite players regularly outclassing average level defenders and putting up big points.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

that wasn’t the only change made to goalie equipment, you’ve been shown a whole list (and that wasn’t even complete),

but still enjoying the entertainment.

Right, they made the leg pads smaller, and the chest pad smaller, and the arm pads smaller, and some of the other pads too. Calling all of these various pads worn by a goalie "goalie pads" saves having to type out the full list every time I want to reference the attempts to make the various pads smaller, but apparently this confused you to the point where you once again want to pretend I'm wrong instead actually addressing any of the substance of my post.

 

[x Tame Impala]

@IWantSakicAsMyGM its not possibly a little bit of both? That there was an influx of great young talent around 2018 AND their numbers were inflated by a reduction in goalie pad size?

It seems completely reasonable to me. I highly doubt McDavid is sniffing higher than 110 points if he had his prime years in 2013/14 - 2015-16.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

@IWantSakicAsMyGM its not possibly a little bit of both? That there was an influx of great young talent around 2018 AND their numbers were inflated by a reduction in goalie pad size?

It seems completely reasonable to me. I highly doubt McDavid is sniffing higher than 110 points if he had his prime years in 2013/14 - 2015-16.

They made changes to all the various goalie equipment in 2005 and scoring still dropped every single year for the next 10 years. In the three years leading up to the lockout, 23 goalies played at least 50 games and put up a .920 or better SV% at ES. In the three years after the lockout, there were also 23 goalies who played at least 50 games and put up a .920 or better SV% at ES. PP SV% also isn't drastically different before or after that round of changes to the goalie equipment. If smaller equipment makes goaltending more difficult and scoring easier, why aren't SV% significantly different after they changed things? The only difference I see is that the guys after the lockout all faced a lot more PP shots. If smaller pads didn't drastically change the rate at which goalies were stopping shots then, then it can't be the driving force in scoring averages going back to 1970. That isn't to say that some guys don't struggle to adjust, but McDavid isn't scoring so many points because they made the 6'6" goalies wear slightly smaller pads. He's scoring that many points, in part, because he's got teammates who don't suck,

I do agree that McDavid probably wouldn't score as much if he were playing with Sam Gagner back in 2013/14 instead of Draisaitl today. But that has nothing to do with the goalie pad sizes, at least for me.

 

[daver]

Textbook circular logic.

 

[daver]

@IWantSakicAsMyGM its not possibly a little bit of both? That there was an influx of great young talent around 2018 AND their numbers were inflated by a reduction in goalie pad size?

It seems completely reasonable to me. I highly doubt McDavid is sniffing higher than 110 points if he had his prime years in 2013/14 - 2015-16.

As evidenced by what?

If 17/18 is the start of the rise in young talent that explains the rise in league GPG, it certainly wasn't reflected in the Top Ten scorers. Six of the the Top Ten were 30 or older while three were under 25. The usual mix is 2/3 older players and 2/3 younger players in the Top Ten.

18/19 saw three older players and four younger players.

19/20 was the first year there was a real youth movement with six younger players.

20/21 had three older players and four younger players

Of course OV is not reflected in these numbers but he was a Top 2/3 goalscorer.

So no evidence that there was a huge influx of younger talent that explains the rise in league scoring.

There was a lull in drafted superstar forwards in the early 2010s then a few years . We saw this in the early 2000s before Crosby/OV and Malkin and there is now a lull in upcoming superstar talent.

 

[PainForShane]

My comment about MSL was about the fact that he was the Ross winner at 37 years old, and not about being selected for team Canada. MSL was obviously a very good player, but that was also another one of the "but Crosby got hurt" seasons that left it wide open for someone from the next tier of talent to win a trophy. There weren't many other good young elite players that could actually compete with Crosby, which made it a lot easier for a 37 year MSL to win.

I'm not expecting you to convince me, but for an argument to be considered convincing, it should hold up to scrutiny. You should be able to ask questions, and look at the work that went into formulating it, not be expected to accept it as true while being told you can't ask questions. When you can't ask questions, that's not logic, it's faith.


And if they only reduced goalie pad sizes and didn't also start giving every team an extra 100+ power plays that season, then maybe we could attribute the increase in scoring to the goalie pads. But when you change a bunch of things at once, how do you know which one caused the result? With ES scoring staying pretty steady (aka low) and PP scoring going up, I think the 25% increase in PPs probably had a bigger impact than the changes in goalie pad sizes.

Well, it's pretty clear my comment about Marty St Louis was about his lack of selection for Team Canada. Because that's what we were discussing when I was responding to you wrt Chris Kunitz and your repeated claim that Canada wasn't deep at forward in 2014,

Regarding that, if "Marty St Louis was obviously a very good player," and if he was initially left off Team Canada's roster, it follows that Team Canada had a lot of depth at forward in 2014. Which we all obviously already know. You claimed the opposite of this, multiple times.

***

And yes, in general increases in PPs result in increased scoring. However, the league average of power play opportunities actually slightly decreased a few percent from 2017-2018 to 2018-2019 (250 opportunities per team in 82 games down to 239). A quick look at hockey reference would've been all it took to correct yourself.

***

Either way, over time if there are systemic changes in things like officiating or goalie pads or whatever, well, that's the reason you need to adjust for era scoring rates. Because there are certain things about the game that change over the decades. We all know this and yet here you are consistently arguing (amongst other things) that we shouldn't be adjusting for era at all.

You're claiming a lot of nonsense in this thread. Keep going man, we're all here for it

 

[Golden_Jet]

Right, they made the leg pads smaller, and the chest pad smaller, and the arm pads smaller, and some of the other pads too.

Yet here we are, but you insist on all this balderdash in this thread.
We’re all here for the entertainment though.

 

[Golden_Jet]

@IWantSakicAsMyGM its not possibly a little bit of both? That there was an influx of great young talent around 2018 AND their numbers were inflated by a reduction in goalie pad size?

It seems completely reasonable to me. I highly doubt McDavid is sniffing higher than 110 points if he had his prime years in 2013/14 - 2015-16.

Plus the rule changes for more offense, yep there are a few factors.

 

[Golden_Jet]

They made changes to all the various goalie equipment in 2005 and scoring still dropped every single year for the next 10 years. In the three years leading up to the lockout, 23 goalies played at least 50 games and put up a .920 or better SV% at ES. In the three years after the lockout, there were also 23 goalies who played at least 50 games and put up a .920 or better SV% at ES. PP SV% also isn't drastically different before or after that round of changes to the goalie equipment. If smaller equipment makes goaltending more difficult and scoring easier, why aren't SV% significantly different after they changed things? The only difference I see is that the guys after the lockout all faced a lot more PP shots. If smaller pads didn't drastically change the rate at which goalies were stopping shots then, then it can't be the driving force in scoring averages going back to 1970.

Year before 2005 lockout, NHL was .911 save percentage, year after lockout became .901.

Rule changes, goalie equipment changes and an increase in PPO being the main reason.

PPO year before lockout avg per team - 348
PPO year after lockout avg per team - 480
This year it is 223 per team average.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Well, it's pretty clear my comment about Marty St Louis was about his lack of selection for Team Canada. Because that's what we were discussing when I was responding to you wrt Chris Kunitz and your repeated claim that Canada wasn't deep at forward in 2014,

Regarding that, if "Marty St Louis was obviously a very good player," and if he was initially left off Team Canada's roster, it follows that Team Canada had a lot of depth at forward in 2014. Which we all obviously already know. You claimed the opposite of this, multiple times.

There's a difference between not being deep, and not having better options than a 50 point scorer like Kunitz. Do you think Team Canada was as talented in 2014 as they are today? Would you pick that 2014 team to beat the Four Nations team?

And wasn't MSL having troubles with Yzerman back then, which is part of why he was initially left off the Team Canada roster and then requested a trade out of Tampa?

***


And yes, in general increases in PPs result in increased scoring. However, the league average of power play opportunities actually slightly decreased a few percent from 2017-2018 to 2018-2019 (250 opportunities per team in 82 games down to 239). A quick look at hockey reference would've been all it took to correct yourself.

How does this have anything to do with the fact that the extra PPs were pretty obviously the primary reason scoring went up so much immediately after the 2005 lockout? Where do you think I said anything about PPs driving scoring changes at other times?

***

Either way, over time if there are systemic changes in things like officiating or goalie pads or whatever, well, that's the reason you need to adjust for era scoring rates. Because there are certain things about the game that change over the decades. We all know this and yet here you are consistently arguing (amongst other things) that we shouldn't be adjusting for era at all.

You're claiming a lot of nonsense in this thread. Keep going man, we're all here for it

So, even if we can't determine if the goalie pad changes actually did what the NHL intended them to do, we should just assume they did because the NHL said they would? Does the NHL has a long track record of successfully implementing common sense solutions to complicated problems that makes you believe they are this competent?

If the league changing the rules and goalie pads didn't actually achieve their stated intent, and the variations in scoring rates are instead the natural result of variations in talent level around the league from year to year, do we still need to era adjust?

 

[filinski77]

As evidenced by what?

If 17/18 is the start of the rise in young talent that explains the rise in league GPG, it certainly wasn't reflected in the Top Ten scorers. Six of the the Top Ten were 30 or older while three were under 25. The usual mix is 2/3 older players and 2/3 younger players in the Top Ten.

18/19 saw three older players and four younger players.

19/20 was the first year there was a real youth movement with six younger players.

20/21 had three older players and four younger players

Of course OV is not reflected in these numbers but he was a Top 2/3 goalscorer.

So no evidence that there was a huge influx of younger talent that explains the rise in league scoring.

There was a lull in drafted superstar forwards in the early 2010s then a few years . We saw this in the early 2000s before Crosby/OV and Malkin and there is now a lull in upcoming superstar talent.

Agreed - there is 0 evidence that young talent caused the increased scoring.

Top-10 in scoring went up 19% in one year, despite the average age of those top-10 scorers INCREASING more than just 1.0.

A lot of elite players have transitioned into a less physical, more speed focused play style. But the exact same has happened with defensemen. More focus on scoring and less focus on actually defending. Catch-22 because forwards have more offensively focused D to help them score, on top of less defensively focused D to defend.

Not to mention that there is no good argument that decreasing pad sizes DIDN'T lead to easier scoring.

 

[Stephen]

Lemieux is tiers above in all aspects offensive but Ovechkin is a better goal scoring specialist with more focus on scoring. Lemieux also only had a career where he’s played 61% of the games Ovechkin has played in so the compilation word comes up when looking at stats only.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Year before 2005 lockout, NHL was .911 save percentage, year after lockout became .901.

Rule changes, goalie equipment changes and an increase in PPO being the main reason.

PPO year before lockout avg per team - 348
PPO year after lockout avg per team - 480
This year it is 223 per team average.

Over the 3 years before the lockout, only 2 goalies faced more than 1000 PP shots. Over the 3 years after the lockout, there were 11. Luongo led the league both times, and faced 300+ more PP shots (about 25% more) after the lockout than he did before. SV% for goalies at ES didn't really change. SV% for goalies on the PP really didn't change either. There were just a lot more PP opportunities handed out which resulted in more PP shots getting taken, which predictably scored more goals than an equivalent number of ES shots would. Based on what I can find in the stats, the rules changes that increased PPOs is what caused scoring to go up after the lockout. There's nothing in the underlying numbers that suggests goalie equipment had any effect.

 

[Golden_Jet]

There's nothing in the underlying numbers that suggests goalie equipment had any effect.

sure whatever, thanks for the laughs.

Like has been said as nauseum in here,
Rule changes, goalie equipment changes and an increase in PPO being the main reason. There’s nothing you’ve presented yet, that disputes those 3 options weren’t all affecting goal scoring increases.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

As evidenced by what?

If 17/18 is the start of the rise in young talent that explains the rise in league GPG, it certainly wasn't reflected in the Top Ten scorers. Six of the the Top Ten were 30 or older while three were under 25. The usual mix is 2/3 older players and 2/3 younger players in the Top Ten.

18/19 saw three older players and four younger players.

19/20 was the first year there was a real youth movement with six younger players.

20/21 had three older players and four younger players

Of course OV is not reflected in these numbers but he was a Top 2/3 goalscorer.

So no evidence that there was a huge influx of younger talent that explains the rise in league scoring.

There was a lull in drafted superstar forwards in the early 2010s then a few years . We saw this in the early 2000s before Crosby/OV and Malkin and there is now a lull in upcoming superstar talent.

The influx started a little earlier than that (I'd say the 2013 draft was the start), but how many of those older guys in the top 10 in 2017/18 were playing with youngsters that were much better than the guys they replaced in the depth chart? Crosby had Guentzel. Wheeler had Laine and Ehlers and Connor. Giroux had Provorov, Gostisbehere, Konecny.

For the younger guys, McDavid had Draisaitl. Kucherov had Point and Sergachev, not to mention Stamkos. Mackinnon had Rantanen. Hall played with Hischier and Bratt.

The few guys who buck the trend of playing with talented youth were Malkin/Kessel, who played together, and Kopitar with Dustin Brown.

Obivously, all of that youth wasn't ready for prime time yet, but it was starting to help drive scoring up. As those guys progressed, and more talent joined along side them and progressed, a lot more guys are playing with good young linemates and scoring more as a result.

There was also a massive lull in drafted superstar forwards after 1991 that ran up until Crosby/Malkin/OV at the lockout, and then another one after those two drafts. It wasn't until about 2013 that we started regularly seeing high talent guys coming through the draft again for about a decade, and seem to be heading for another lull. Hopefully, it doesn't last 20+ years this time and we aren't destined for another low scoring era starting in 12 or 15 years.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

sure whatever, thanks for the laughs.

Like has been said as nauseum in here,
Rule changes, goalie equipment changes and an increase in PPO being the main reason.

Repeating the same bullshit enough times doesn't make it true.