Better Goal Scorer 66 or 8

[WarriorofTime]

But beating one group of players doesn't tell us anything about how you measure up to a totally different group of players. How does beating Jeff Carter mean you're better than a guy who lost to Wayne Gretzky?

Even if Wayne Gretzky never exists, Lemieux isn't adding more goal scoring crowns.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Clearly you don’t. The top 26 players in the 06 regularly accounted for points on more than 100% of the league goals. Apparently that means they’re twice as good as the 80s guys!!

Out of morbid curiosity, how exactly were these guys allegedly accounting for points on more than 100% of the league goals? It sounds to me like another attempt to give guys bonus points for goals that never actually got scored.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Lemieux lost to all sorts of people.

He never lost a title to Gretzky.

Lemieux was 3rd in goals in 86-87 when Gretzky won. Is being 3rd not losing to the guy who won?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Lemieux was 3rd in goals in 86-87 when Gretzky won. Is being 3rd not losing to the guy who won?

I think the point is that if Gretzky wasn't in the league, Lemieux would have lost the goal title to Tim Kerr.

Alternatively, Calgary's Tim Hunter also lost to Wayne Gretzky for 1986-87 goals, I guess.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Even if Wayne Gretzky never exists, Lemieux isn't adding more goal scoring crowns.

I don't disagree. Eliminating Gretzky doesn't get Lemieux to play 70 games more than 4 times in his prime, which makes this sound like another argument that hinges on Mario's health issues instead of his goal scoring ability.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I think the point is that if Gretzky wasn't in the league, Lemieux would have lost the goal title to Tim Kerr.

Alternatively, Calgary's Tim Hunter also lost to Wayne Gretzky for 1986-87 goals, I guess.

Which is technically true, but Kerr also played 12 more games, so it's essentially another "Mario couldn't stay healthy" argument, instead of a measure of his goal scoring ability. Had he played 12 more games to get to Kerr's 75 games played, he was on pace to score 64 goals, which wouldn't requiring eliminating Wayne to win the crown.

 

[Hippasus]

If we can't get an actual apples to apples comparison because of all the hard to measure variables that play into it, my question is still "are we really sure these adjustments are even necessary?" Why should we treat them as being factual when it's clearly a flawed model? Isn't it just as plausible that the league scored less because there were only a handful of elite players in the league, and the next tier of guys weren't good enough to score more than they did? Having watched both eras extensively, I can unequivocally say I'd much rather be tasked with stopping the 2014-15 Stars from scoring than the 2024-25 Stars, because the new team has so many more weapons to worry about. Stopping a team with 2 very good scorers is easier than stopping a team with 4 or 5, right? True, I can't precisely measure that the 4th highest scoring forward on the Stars today (Roope Hintz) is much more skilled than the 4th highest scoring forward on the team from 2014-15 (Cody Eakin), but the evidence that he is seems pretty overwhelming to me. If I'm supposed to believe he's not, I need a lot more than unsubstantiated claims about goalie pads having an effect.

Apples to apples comparison is what I was trying to do, but it is easier said than done. Nevertheless, there are better and worse statistical analyses without absolute truth, and thus a lack of veritable provability. Would you agree with this statement?

EDIT: Here is what I tried to do upthread:

Post in thread 'Better Goal Scorer 66 or 8'

Mar 5, 2025

I used two different methods, one for regular season, one for playoffs.

Regular season method is ratio versus average first-line forward.

Playoffs method is ratio versus total goals scored in the given playoffs.

These results are reflected in the second and third columns, respectively.

Conclusion (using this mixed-method): It is close. It may be noteworthy to keep in mind that Lemieux only played 15 games in 1992 for the third column (16 goals scored) while Ovechkin played 24 games for that column (15 goals scored).

Also, Lemieux also scored 16 goals in 23 games played the year prior...

• Hippasus

EDIT II: Click on the link, from the edit, to see the table I intended to show.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Which is technically true, but Kerr also played 12 more games, so it's essentially another "Mario couldn't stay healthy" argument,

Playing hockey and contributing to wins is better than missing games and not contributing to wins.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

 

[Midnight Judges]

instead of a measure of his goal scoring ability. Had he played 12 more games to get to Kerr's 75 games played, he was on pace to score 64 goals, which wouldn't requiring eliminating Wayne to win the crown.

Mario Lemieux's ability to score goals from the press box was worth precisely zero.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I don't disagree. Eliminating Gretzky doesn't get Lemieux to play 70 games more than 4 times in his prime, which makes this sound like another argument that hinges on Mario's health issues instead of his goal scoring ability.

Being healthy enough to play is a big part of one’s ability to contribute goals.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Playing hockey and contributing to wins is better than missing games and not contributing to wins.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

I agree durability is important in all sports, but when the question is "who is the better goal scorer?", "the guy who stayed healthier" doesn't sound like a good answer to me. It sounds like sidestepping the question and turning the conversation to something else to avoid an uncomfortable truth.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Being healthy enough to play is a big part of one’s ability to contribute goals.

True, but being unavailable to do something due to illness/injury doesn't mean you're worse at doing it. I'm pretty sure Lemieux was still an amazing goal scorer even when cancer and back surgery kept him from doing it.

 

[WarriorofTime]

True, but being unavailable to do something due to illness/injury doesn't mean you're worse at doing it. I'm pretty sure Lemieux was still an amazing goal scorer even when cancer and back surgery kept him from doing it.

You don’t get credit for what you might have done.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Apples to apples comparison is what I was trying to do, but it is easier said than done. Nevertheless, there are better and worse statistical analyses without absolute truth, and thus a lack of veritable provability. Would you agree with this statement?

EDIT: Here is what I tried to do upthread:

Post in thread 'Better Goal Scorer 66 or 8'

Mar 5, 2025

I used two different methods, one for regular season, one for playoffs.

Regular season method is ratio versus average first-line forward.

Playoffs method is ratio versus total goals scored in the given playoffs.

These results are reflected in the second and third columns, respectively.

Conclusion (using this mixed-method): It is close. It may be noteworthy to keep in mind that Lemieux only played 15 games in 1992 for the third column (16 goals scored) while Ovechkin played 24 games for that column (15 goals scored).

Also, Lemieux also scored 16 goals in 23 games played the year prior...

• Hippasus

EDIT II: Click on the link, from the edit, to see the table I intended to show.

I totally agree. To me, the best analysis method for comparing between eras is a complex approach that tries to account for as much relevant context as possible, which usually requires discussion and debate with other people, and will likely never lead to agreement among all parties. It's a complex task, and as a result, I believe the simple math equations most people like to use to do blanket adjustments will probably be wrong just as often as it's right. If it's only accurate maybe half the time, how credible can the numbers really be? For that matter, how do I know which ones are accurate and which aren't, without doing my own analysis anyway?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You don’t get credit for what you might have done.

What about getting credit for scoring 613 goals in 745 games? Is that still allowed?

 

[Midnight Judges]

I agree durability is important in all sports, but when the question is "who is the better goal scorer?", "the guy who stayed healthier" doesn't sound like a good answer to me. It sounds like sidestepping the question and turning the conversation to something else to avoid an uncomfortable truth.

In this case it's "the guy who had an equal peak, a massively superior prime, and massively superior longevity."

 

[WarriorofTime]

What about getting credit for scoring 613 goals in 745 games? Is that still allowed?

Yes Lemieux has gotten plenty of "credit" for his play. It's you discrediting Ovechkin and using blatant lies to insinuate that league scoring rates are only determined by how good the forwards are.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

In this case it's "the guy who had an equal peak, a massively superior prime, and massively superior longevity."

I'm sorry, but when did OV ever score 0.82 goals per game like Mario did over his first 745 games? Which season was that? He was only over even .70 goals per game twice. Oh, right, that's 100% because of goalie pads...

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm sorry, but when did OV ever score 0.82 goals per game like Mario did over his first 745 games? Which season was that? He was only over even .70 goals per game twice. Oh, right, that's 100% because of goalie pads...

This has already been explained several times: it was significantly easier to score goals during Lemieux’s prime than it was during Ovechkin’s prime.

There are many forms of evidence for this and they all point to the same conclusion.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Yes Lemieux has gotten plenty of "credit" for his play. It's you discrediting Ovechkin and using blatant lies to insinuate that league scoring rates are only determined by how good the forwards are.

When one guy scores 613 goals in 745 games, and the other guy needs 1000 games to 600, I don't need to discredit anyone to make my point.

I will say I find it funny that you accuse me of "using blatant lies" in the same sentence when you completely misrepresent everything I've said as being just "how good the forwards are". I'm not sure you'll appreciate the irony of your sentence like I do, but it didn't go unnoticed.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

This has already been explained several times: it was significantly easier to score goals during Lemieux’s prime than it was during Ovechkin’s prime.

There are many forms of evidence for this and they all point to the same conclusion.

No, it was CLAIMED several times that that was the reason. Explanation requires a lot more than repeating the same sentence over and over again.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, it was CLAIMED several times that that was the reason. Explanation requires a lot more than repeating the same sentence over and over again.

The evidential data is firm. It is right here in this thread, starting on page 1.

 

[PainForShane]

When one guy scores 613 goals in 745 games, and the other guy needs 1000 games to 600, I don't need to discredit anyone to make my point.

I will say I find it funny that you accuse me of "using blatant lies" in the same sentence when you completely misrepresent everything I've said as being just "how good the forwards are". I'm not sure you'll appreciate the irony of your sentence like I do, but it didn't go unnoticed.

Meanwhile, in reality, those of us who've been following this thread know that's exactly what you've been arguing. For 'evidence,' here you are talking about forwards in the 2010s, in a direct response to the guy who you claimed is completely misrepresenting what you've been saying (quoted in context). Post 502.

I can absolutely say "they weren't good enough to put up big numbers" because the evidence clearly shows that they did not put up big numbers. If they were actually good enough to put up big numbers, they should have done so.

"I'm not sure you'll appreciate the irony of your sentence like I do, but it didn't go unnoticed"

 

[daver]

Let's start the wheel of circular logic again:

On a per game basis, Mario was more dominant. That makes him "better" but not "greater".

 

[Midnight Judges]

Let's start the wheel of circular logic again:

On a per game basis, Mario was more dominant.

No. He wasn’t.

Your entire argument hangs on a falsehood, in addition to the broken logic that leading the nhl in goals 9 times is not “better” than leading the nhl 3 times.