GOAT goalscorer?

[daver]

The lists I made were just to give a rough idea of what the top-line players in Gordie Howe's heyday would look like under the same circumstances in 2018. I didn't list the other three lines on each of the five teams, but I'm sure there's be room for MacKinnon, regardless of how he played last season.

But this brings to mind another point about why the 1950s/60s League was, if anything, more competitive. In today's NHL, you have to be great to make it to the top (as always), but you don't have to be great to stay there. We were talking about Mark Messier in another thread. The Messier-in-Vancouver thing would never have happened in the 50s, because once it was obvious to ownership that Mess wasn't worth what they'd signed him for, they'd just cancel his status and demote him to the minors. No long-term contracts to float in.

This makes the League more competitive, because today after signing John Tavares for $77 million, the Maple Leafs can't not play him if he sucks. But in the 50s, he'd never have gotten a long-term contract and the moment he started to suck his minutes would go down and then he'd be banished.

To what end do we use this conclusion? Do we give the benefit of the doubt to a player from the 50/60s vs. a player from today if their stats are similar?

 

[Troubadour]

I support it in large part as an American...the whole greater population = more talent could be a thing, in theory, but in practice...meh...not convinced...talent, elite talent clusters randomly...environmental factors involved as well...

Mick Jagger born July 1943
John Lennon born October 1940
Paul McCartney born June 1942
Keith Richards born December 1943
Eric Burdon born May 1941

et cetera...

UK's population is up some 40% since that time and they haven't produced a God damn thing after 1978 except for Radiohead and, for a moment, Amy Winehouse...why is this? Isn't there more talent? Shouldn't they, ya know, not suck...?

Sorry to drive it back here, but, having read the latest biography on Lennon (The Life) and Keith Richards' autobiography (ehm... The Life), I've learned this particular phenomenon had everything to do with the post-war social system. England in particular used to be very enlightened. In many other systems, you are either considered smart and intelligent and studious, i.e. university material, or you're a future plumber at best.

Not in the post-war England. If you were a lazy -- but gifted and maybe even a bit of a rascal on top, the idea was... Maybe you could make a great artist!

So all this terrible-grades-but-lots-of-wit smartass types ended on art schools. Keith Richards, John Lennon, Ray Davies, Eric Burdon, Pete Townshend, Syd Barrett, basically the entire British Invasion was a direct (anti-)product of the English school system!

It appears as though the talent pool might be slightly overrated. It's more a case of what you do with what you have. Look at Finland.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Canada is still 1/2 the league.

But yes, there is an argument for Ovechkin based on competiton, in particular one-year wonders who coukd affect the goals race if given first line minutes.

But comparing "margins" between two vastly different standards (top 18, top 93) is nonsense.

Canada's current population is roughly double what it was in Hull's day.

I do not know how the hockey playing population compares, nor do I have data for the other half of the current NHL (assuming Canada accounts for only half these days).

What is the proper ratio for comparing margins? I would think the hockey playing population is a good starting point.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There should be no reason to believe that a clearly dominant player from any era would not be as dominant in another era, relative to their peers.

Depends on how you are looking at it.

VsX, for example, would almost certainly show less dominance if the peer group is larger.

For example: Your child is the fastest out of 500 students at his school. He is 5 seconds faster than second place. Now they hold an event combining with another school of equal size. Your child is now 1 second faster than the second fastest kid - a pool of 1000 kids.

Is this really all that unexpected?

Now he is considered less dominant just because the pool got larger.

 

[daver]

Depends on how you are looking at it.

VsX, for example, would almost certainly show less dominance if the peer group is larger.

For example: Your child is the fastest out of 500 students at his school. He is 5 seconds faster than second place. Now they hold an event combining with another school of equal size. Your child is now 1 second faster than the second fastest kid - a pool of 1000 kids.

Is this really all that unexpected?

Now he is considered less dominant just because the pool got larger.

Not if the other school had a terrible swimming program. Then the kid is 5 seconds faster out of a group of 1000 rather than a group of 500.

But again, by this reasoning, the GOAT would always default to the best in the most current era if stats are similar. There needs to be acceptance that we would have no idea how a player from another era would perform in another.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not if the other school had a terrible swimming program. Then the kid is 5 seconds faster out of a group of 1000 rather than a group of 500.

But again, by this reasoning, the GOAT would always default to the best in the most current era if stats are similar. There needs to be acceptance that we would have no idea how a player from another era would perform in another.

Pool was not referring to swimming.

Competition over various recognized distances.

Regardless, more revealing would be how many from each school were in the top 10 of distance, their respective rankings, collective results.

Why would the GOAT default to the best in the current era? He has after all the greatest advantages competitively. Knowing the score to beat and adjusting accordingly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Canada's current population is roughly double what it was in Hull's day.

I do not know how the hockey playing population compares, nor do I have data for the other half of the current NHL (assuming Canada accounts for only half these days).

What is the proper ratio for comparing margins? I would think the hockey playing population is a good starting point.

Yes, the population of Canada has doubled.

And the percentage of Canadians who plays hockey has decreased. But nobody really knows by how much.

 

[New Jersey]

best *pure* goal scorer of all time? for me...

ovechkin.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Depends on how you are looking at it.

VsX, for example, would almost certainly show less dominance if the peer group is larger.

For example: Your child is the fastest out of 500 students at his school. He is 5 seconds faster than second place. Now they hold an event combining with another school of equal size. Your child is now 1 second faster than the second fastest kid - a pool of 1000 kids.

Is this really all that unexpected?

Now he is considered less dominant just because the pool got larger.

That assumes the fastest of the larger pool is faster than the second fastest of the first 500 students.

 

[daver]

That assumes the fastest of the larger pool is faster than the second fastest of the first 500 students.

The analogy really serves no purpose. There is not a good argument that the O6 was missing a substantial amount of NHL level players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes, the population of Canada has doubled.

And the percentage of Canadians who plays hockey has decreased. But nobody really knows by how much.

True with an explanation.

Key question is how much hockey do the developing young Canadians play? Always overlooked by those who favour the population argument.

To the issue.

O6 era, young Canadians, had app. a 90 day window to play hockey, outdoor rinks, few youth arenas and those did not have adequate refrigeration systems to sustain ice in the summer heat.

So in the mid sixties when the two goalie system was introduced at the youth level, game time was significantly reduced which created issues for future NHL goalies in the 1975 to 1995 period.

Last two generations, it is possible to play hockey year round. So while the number of young Canadians playing is less, the access to ice is more than four fold. More than enough to develop goalies in the two goalie system with increased focus on the other positions as well.

 

[Midnight Judges]

But again, by this reasoning, the GOAT would always default to the best in the most current era if stats are similar.

No, that's not accurate.

If you adjust equitably, the historic guys can come out on top, or the current guys can.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The analogy really serves no purpose. There is not a good argument that the O6 was missing a substantial amount of NHL level players.

You think 16,000,000 person Canada (1960) had just as much hockey talent as 36,000,000 person Canada + the hockey playing portions of Czechoslovakia, USA, Sweden, Germany, Russia, Finland, etc?

 

[daver]

You think 16,000,000 person Canada (1960) had just as much hockey talent as 36,000,000 person Canada + the hockey playing portions of Czechoslovakia, USA, Sweden, Germany, Russia, Finland, etc?

There are more teams to spread that talent over.

FWIW, I am not 100% sold on the idea that OV's peak season is quite up there with the two or three peak seasons but that really doesn't change his status among the six players mentioned in the OP. Using league GPG to place it there is considerably more suspect than trying to adjust for "populations" and "Euros".

Can we please put this topic to bed.

 

[Sentinel]

Can we please put this topic to bed.

Yes, I believe it has run its course.

 

[Hippasus]

I find this talent pool topic to be an interesting one because: (1) the question of density and-or quality over time is probably the strongest criticism to competition between peers studies. The latter is probably the best way to evaluate players from different eras. (2) It gets at social context and how this has influenced the game.

A few issues and questions:

(a) Is there a positive correlation between population and talent, or is talent invariant to this in some way?

(b) What is the best statistic for the pool of hockey players at a given time? Registered hockey players in leagues up the age of 24 maybe? This might involve some extrapolation, especially in countries where such statistics are scant.

(c) Have contemporary methods of coaching, training, nutrition, or equipment increased quality and-or quantity of talent at the NHL level?

 

[Canadiens1958]

I find this talent pool topic to be an interesting one because: (1) the question of density and-or quality over time is probably the strongest criticism to competition between peers studies. The latter is probably the best way to evaluate players from different eras. (2) It gets at social context and how this has influenced the game.

A few issues and questions:

(a) Is there a positive correlation between population and talent, or is talent invariant to this in some way?

(b) What is the best statistic for the pool of hockey players at a given time? Registered hockey players in leagues up the age of 24 maybe? This might involve some extrapolation, especially in countries where such statistics are scant.

(c) Have contemporary methods of coaching, training, nutrition, or equipment increased quality and-or quantity of talent at the NHL level?

For the purposes of the reply there is a opperative assumption that the linked article by Bill James has been linked and understood.

Societies and subsections of societies have always followed the economic model that profit is generated by catering to a need.

Often this generates clusters. Bill James about William Shakespeare and the playwrites of his time. Theatre was a popular form of entertainment so people who could write became playwrites.

Constant in societies regardless of population size or era.

Define an obvious need and it will be filled. Hockey is no different.

Until the depression, Canada with a smaller population supported a 10 team NHL. By WWII the population had grown but the NHL had shrunk to 6 teams. Players were more than plentiful but Canada and the USA lacked adequate NHL quality arenas. So the NHL stayed at 6 teams until 1967.

For the generation after WWII Europe was more concerned with reconstruction post WWII and not falling into Soviet hands. Why they would produce hockey players during such a period defies priorities.

USA. Post WWII, rise of pro Football and Basketball replaced hockey as a sport. Accesible all over the USA not only in cold weather states for three months.

So for roughly a generation, hockey was mainly a Canadian activity.

Numbers. Basically solid estimates are the best options. In Canada schools are not required to reveal the size of the hockey playing population. Boys and girls are lumped together.

Time and access to ice time are the only constants required to produce hockey players at the elite level. 40 years ago youngsters had app. a 90 day window to play hockey. Today it is 365 days.

 

[Hippasus]

For the purposes of the reply there is a opperative assumption that the linked article by Bill James has been linked and understood.

Societies and subsections of societies have always followed the economic model that profit is generated by catering to a need.

Often this generates clusters. Bill James about William Shakespeare and the playwrites of his time. Theatre was a popular form of entertainment so people who could write became playwrites.

Constant in societies regardless of population size or era.

Define an obvious need and it will be filled. Hockey is no different.

Until the depression, Canada with a smaller population supported a 10 team NHL. By WWII the population had grown but the NHL had shrunk to 6 teams. Players were more than plentiful but Canada and the USA lacked adequate NHL quality arenas. So the NHL stayed at 6 teams until 1967.

For the generation after WWII Europe was more concerned with reconstruction post WWII and not falling into Soviet hands. Why they would produce hockey players during such a period defies priorities.

USA. Post WWII, rise of pro Football and Basketball replaced hockey as a sport. Accesible all over the USA not only in cold weather states for three months.

So for roughly a generation, hockey was mainly a Canadian activity.

Numbers. Basically solid estimates are the best options. In Canada schools are not required to reveal the size of the hockey playing population. Boys and girls are lumped together.

Time and access to ice time are the only constants required to produce hockey players at the elite level. 40 years ago youngsters had app. a 90 day window to play hockey. Today it is 365 days.

So according to James and you, population is irrelevant to concentration of talent. Talent is proportional to the size of the league. Talent and size of the league are to a large degree based on the social context of nourishing, encouragement, and values and priorities. In this way, talent clusters. Coaching, training, nutrition, equipment, etc. reflect these social priorities and serve to fill-out the league with talent.

It would be reassuring for this thesis for internationally registered male hockey players up to the age of 24 to have increased by about 31 / 6 since 1952, but this would require some digging as well as ingenuity with extrapolating to confirm.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So according to James and you, population is irrelevant to concentration of talent. Talent is proportional to the size of the league. Talent and size of the league are to a large degree based on the social context of nourishing, encouragement, and values and priorities. In this way, talent clusters. Coaching, training, nutrition, equipment, etc. reflect these social priorities and serve to fill-out the league with talent.

It would be reassuring for this thesis for internationally registered male hockey players up to the age of 24 to have increased by about 31 / 6 since 1952, but this would require some digging as well as ingenuity with extrapolating to confirm.

Bolded is the only thing you got right.

Rest is jibber-jabber.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Not trying to be stubborn, but you simply cannot accurately compare players across eras without factoring in the amount of competition they are up against. It is inherent to every GOAT question of this nature.

The question is not if, but how to do this. At some point I will see if I can come up with a methodology.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think anyone disagrees that level of competition is a factor...

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't think anyone disagrees that level of competition is a factor...

You are correct that it is the level and not the amount as claimed or other disconnected points like provenance.

 

[streitz]

Glad we finally agree Mario Lemieux is the GOAT goal scorer, with Hull sr coming in at a close 2nd/disputed #1.

 

[Sentinel]

Glad we finally agree Mario Lemieux is the GOAT goal scorer, with Hull sr coming in at a close 2nd/disputed #1.

Glad that practically nobody besides you thinks that. Again and again, you skate around the question: if GPG is the only thing you care about, how come Mike Bossy is not the GOAT goal scorer?

 

[streitz]

Glad that practically nobody besides you thinks that. Again and again, you skate around the question: if GPG is the only thing you care about, how come Mike Bossy is not the GOAT goal scorer?

Because Lemieux was better then Bossy at scoring goals.


Plenty of people have agreed with me, infact all the most knowledgeable fans here agree with me