NHL leaders in career goals adjusted for era: Howe 2'd, Jagr 3'd, MARIO is NOT TOP 10!

[ItWasJustified]

Either you don't understand what adjusted scoring means or what speculation means here.

One can say that the adjusted scoring isn't 100% accurate, it never can be but adjusted scoring is probably more accurate than counting stats between eras with zero context.

Speculation means speculation and that is exactly what goals adjusted for era is. It's 0% accurate.

 

[Strangle]

Why do you say that? Remove all of their career stats from the history books and league-wide scoring would still have been much higher in the 80s than today.

It’s not about removing their stats it’s about how they shaped the league and how teams changed their play because of the successes of teams like the oilers.

Same thing in the dead puck era, all of a sudden the trap was popular.

 

[filinski77]

One thing that stands out to me watching Gretzky highlights from the 80s is how much he looks like a modern player, while his contemporaries can't keep up (including the goalies). That's what generational means to me, somebody who looks like a damn time-traveler with their understanding of the game. That's what the likes of Ovechkin and McDavid represent. They elevate the game by showing everyone else what's possible.

To me, that's why era adjustment doesn't make a lick of sense. The reason goaltending/defending/strategizing got better is *because* of the scorers of the era. They're directly related...it's how evolution works. Yes, if you drop Crosby into the 80s he'd blow up the league. But Crosby grew up in the game that the 80s created. It never makes sense, and it never will make sense to apply the logic backwards. That's not how time works.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of adjusted stats at all...

There have been massive changes in equipment (player and goalie), in average skill level, goalie structure etc. This has drastically changed how many goals the average player/team is scoring. That inherently makes comparisons not meaningful between different environments. This is the exact same reason $1 million today is not comparable to $1 million 40 years ago.

"The reason goaltending/defending/strategizing got better is *because* of the scorers of the era. They're directly related...it's how evolution works."
It's unfair to compare how many goals Gretzky could score on a goalie that didn't know how to do his job vs. how many goals Ovechkin could score on goalies that are much more competent.

This is why it is significantly more reasonable to look at their performance vs. their peers. This is things such as goal finishes, AND - adjusted stats. Since performance vs. peers includes the average goals scored league-wide.

It's like comparing 36-year old Ovechkin scoring 50 goals and finishing 4th in the league (in a higher scoring environment to 29-year old Ovechkin scoring 53 goals and finishing 1st with a 10 goal lead over #2 in the league (in a lower scoring environment). Nobody can say with a straight face that those 2 goal totals are similar, or that Ovechkin's ability as a player to score goals from 29 vs. 36 are remotely similar.

I think the thing that people like you lose sight to, is that adjusting for scoring levels does not really even change actual vs. peers results for Gretzky. Look at his adjusted stats vs. the art Ross winner adjusted stats post-lockout.

In this scenario, Wayne "dropped into" today's league would still win the same 11 point scoring totals, and most of them are insanely dominant - just like back in the 80's.

 

[filinski77]

To me, that's why era adjustment doesn't make a lick of sense. The reason goaltending/defending/strategizing got better is *because* of the scorers of the era. They're directly related...it's how evolution works. Yes, if you drop Crosby into the 80s he'd blow up the league. But Crosby grew up in the game that the 80s created. It never makes sense, and it never will make sense to apply the logic backwards. That's not how time works.

And let's be real here - let's take a deep dive into the hypothetical scenario of if we dropped peak 215 Gretzky into 2017.

The facts we know:
-> Gretzky was insanely dominant that year, scoring 52% more points than #2 in the league, and over double the amount of points that #10 had.
-> League wide scoring was significantly higher in that year for Gretzky than it was in 2017. This directly ties in with the best players scoring more points

Option 1:
For the crowd that says adjusting is stupid, your claim is that Gretzky's 215 points should not be adjusted for when comparing other seasons. so if he was plopped into a lower scoring environment, that he'd score the same.

So what you are claiming is that Gretzky would actually get BETTER relative to the rest of the players in the league? So Gretzky's performance vs. 2nd would double, his performance vs. 5th would double, and his performance vs. 10th would double.

If you seriously make this claim, you're out to lunch and there is no logical explanation for that.

Option 2:
Comparing the relative dominance (first green chart below) = assuming that Gretzky would have the same 52% point lead he would over #2 that he did in his actual year. As you can see, that results in a pretty close lead over the various #2 - #10 point scorers.

This assumes Gretzky is EQUALLY as dominant in his era, or in the lower scoring era. This is probably the MOST accurate representation of reality. To assume that Gretzky would be just as good vs. his peers, regardless of the era he played in.

This would result in his 215 raw points looking closer to 152 points in 2017.

Option 3:
Comparing just Hockey Reference's adjusted points (2nd green chart below). This would increase Gretzky's points from 152 -> 170, but also increase other players points too by a bit.

The result is a very similar level of dominance to Option 2. Even if I think option #2 is more accurate, it is a lot easier to calculate wide-scale the way Hockey reference does it for an anchored goals/gp.

 

[Knave]

The league more than quadrupled in size in the years prior to Gretzky's career.

Anyone talking about how modern day hockey is watered down... lol.

Did the league go from 30 teams to 120 teams while Ovechkin played or in the decade prior to him playing? No. And how about FSU players now participating?

If people want to talk about an era being watered down it doesn't start with 2005-2025. It starts with the 60s, 70s and 80s.

 

[wetcoast]

Speculation means speculation and that is exactly what goals adjusted for era is. It's 0% accurate.

Okay so it's that you don't understand what adjusted stats mean then I can interest you in $100 Canadian dollars for $100 of your American ones?

 

[qcal1427]

Okay so it's that you don't understand what adjusted stats mean then I can interest you in $100 Canadian dollars for $100 of your American ones?

Thank you. I don't know what about adjusted goals specifically is so hard for people to understand

 

[wetcoast]

Thank you. I don't know what about adjusted goals specifically is so hard for people to understand

They just don't like them which is fine but then say things that just don't make sense.

 

[nturn06]

Why do you say that? Remove all of their career stats from the history books and league-wide scoring would still have been much higher in the 80s than today.

Adjusted goals is a very good stat and the fact that Gretzky and Lemieux played at the same time is only an extremely small part of the reason why leaguewide scoring fluctuates year to year. Copying this from another recent thread:

Average goals/team/gp in 88-89: 3.74
Average goals/team/gp in 88-89 if LAK and PIT played but were shut out in every single game: 3.66

Average goals/team/gp in 2000-01: 2.75
Average goals/team/gp in 2014-15 (Tavares' only 1st team All-Star selection): 2.66

There are probably more statistically rigorous ways to answer the same question but 1) you'd get a very similar result and 2) it involves a better database than HRef and I don't want to spend the time doing it ...

Gretzky and Lemieux had really incredible impacts on league scoring, far more than any other players in history. Over the course of an entire league season though with so many teams, so many players, and so many games one player is a drop in the bucket -- even if they're the best player of all time. The full story of why overall scoring levels have changed is a much larger (and very interesting!) one that involves a ton of different factors, none of which really have anything to do with one or two specific players being in the league.

Yes, but if you make such adjustments, Lemieux is ranked higher, isn't he? And Wayne may also be ranked higher.

Also, the formula for the adjusted goals is looking at the average number of goals after the goals of that player are removed from the calculation. This seems to penalize significantly a player who had, let us say, 163 assists in a season; the fact that he had so many assists makes his goals in that year worth much less.

Adjusted goals are not a perfect model, and there are many other ways of adjusting for this, which likely lead to a different ranking.

Here is a very simple comparison between two seasons, tell me what is the correct rate for goals conversion:

1986-87
Average goals per game (per team) :3.675
Highest scoring team: 4.65 G/G
Lowest Scoring team: 3.25 G/G
Top scorers: 62, 58, 54, 54, 52 (adjusted to 82 games: 64, 59, 55, 55, 53)
Top Assists: 121, 72, 70 , 64, 63, 63, 59 (adjusted to 82 games: 124, 74, 72, 66, 65, 60)

2024-25
Average goals per game (per team) : 3.08
Highest scoring team: 3.58 G/G
Lowest Scoring team: 2.48 G/G
Top scorers: 69, 57, 54, 51
Top Assists: 100, 100, 89, 75, 71


Now, if you remove Gretzky from 1986-87, there is no 60-goal scorer or 75-assist player.
In both years, there were exactly 17 40-goal scorers. There were much more 50 assits players in 24-25 than in 86-87.

So in which year is it easier to score?

These stats are saying that the depth players scored much more in the 86-87 than in 24-25, but the top players in 24-25 outperformed the top players in 86-87. Yet, the (i)logical conclusions is that we should use the much higher depth scoring in the 86-87 to conclude that the top players had it easier.

BTW: looking at these stats, I suspect that the top players actually played much less than 24-25 minutes many top players play today, which would explain these stats.

The reality is that it is much harder to adjust for era than people realize. And all the adjustment formulas I have seen are terrible.

 

[1specter]

ITT: A bunch of folks who don't understand mathematics or statistics.

 

[qcal1427]

Yes, but if you make such adjustments, Lemieux is ranked higher, isn't he? And Wayne may also be ranked higher.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

Also, the formula for the adjusted goals is looking at the average number of goals after the goals of that player are removed from the calculation. This seems to penalize significantly a player who had, let us say, 163 assists in a season; the fact that he had so many assists makes his goals in that year worth much less.

This removal actually benefits high scorers like Gretzky as it looks at what league scoring was like without that player. As I showed before, you could pretend that the entire Kings and Penguins teams didn't score a single goal all year and leaguewide scoring was still significantly higher in the late 80s than the early 2000s or early 2010s.

Adjusted goals are not a perfect model, and there are many other ways of adjusting for this, which likely lead to a different ranking.

Here is a very simple comparison between two seasons, tell me what is the correct rate for goals conversion:

1986-87
Average goals per game (per team) :3.675
Highest scoring team: 4.65 G/G
Lowest Scoring team: 3.25 G/G
Top scorers: 62, 58, 54, 54, 52 (adjusted to 82 games: 64, 59, 55, 55, 53)
Top Assists: 121, 72, 70 , 64, 63, 63, 59 (adjusted to 82 games: 124, 74, 72, 66, 65, 60)

2024-25
Average goals per game (per team) : 3.08
Highest scoring team: 3.58 G/G
Lowest Scoring team: 2.48 G/G
Top scorers: 69, 57, 54, 51
Top Assists: 100, 100, 89, 75, 71


Now, if you remove Gretzky from 1986-87, there is no 60-goal scorer or 75-assist player.
In both years, there were exactly 17 40-goal scorers. There were much more 50 assits players in 24-25 than in 86-87.

So in which year is it easier to score?

These stats are saying that the depth players scored much more in the 86-87 than in 24-25, but the top players in 24-25 outperformed the top players in 86-87. Yet, the (i)logical conclusions is that we should use the much higher depth scoring in the 86-87 to conclude that the top players had it easier.

When you start to bucket things into "stars" vs "depth" or just look at the top 5 scorers or top 10 you're purposefully ignoring the vast majority of the data. It was harder to score in the seasons where there were less goals scored per league game.

BTW: looking at these stats, I suspect that the top players actually played much less than 24-25 minutes many top players play today, which would explain these stats.

It's always "suspect" or "if"

The reality is that it is much harder to adjust for era than people realize. And all the adjustment formulas I have seen are terrible.

It's not hard to adjust for era and the standard formula that HRef uses is extremely good and intuitive to understand

 

[Midnight Judges]

And let's be real here - let's take a deep dive into the hypothetical scenario of if we dropped peak 215 Gretzky into 2017.

The facts we know:
-> Gretzky was insanely dominant that year, scoring 52% more points than #2 in the league, and over double the amount of points that #10 had.
-> League wide scoring was significantly higher in that year for Gretzky than it was in 2017. This directly ties in with the best players scoring more points

Option 1:
For the crowd that says adjusting is stupid, your claim is that Gretzky's 215 points should not be adjusted for when comparing other seasons. so if he was plopped into a lower scoring environment, that he'd score the same.

So what you are claiming is that Gretzky would actually get BETTER relative to the rest of the players in the league? So Gretzky's performance vs. 2nd would double, his performance vs. 5th would double, and his performance vs. 10th would double.

If you seriously make this claim, you're out to lunch and there is no logical explanation for that.

Option 2:
Comparing the relative dominance (first green chart below) = assuming that Gretzky would have the same 52% point lead he would over #2 that he did in his actual year. As you can see, that results in a pretty close lead over the various #2 - #10 point scorers.

This assumes Gretzky is EQUALLY as dominant in his era, or in the lower scoring era. This is probably the MOST accurate representation of reality. To assume that Gretzky would be just as good vs. his peers, regardless of the era he played in.

This would result in his 215 raw points looking closer to 152 points in 2017.

Option 3:
Comparing just Hockey Reference's adjusted points (2nd green chart below). This would increase Gretzky's points from 152 -> 170, but also increase other players points too by a bit.

The result is a very similar level of dominance to Option 2. Even if I think option #2 is more accurate, it is a lot easier to calculate wide-scale the way Hockey reference does it for an anchored goals/gp.


View attachment 1008241

For those of you who don’t think adjusted stats make sense, please read this post. ^^^

 

[RussianBum86]

Problem is with all these adjustments you can't factor in the difference in skill and equiptment in thise era compared to others. An average nhler is a lot more talented than they were 20, 30,40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 years ago due to training , technology advances ,and equiptment. You just have to appreciate how great these guys were against the players of their time.

 

[nturn06]

And let's be real here - let's take a deep dive into the hypothetical scenario of if we dropped peak 215 Gretzky into 2017.

The facts we know:
-> Gretzky was insanely dominant that year, scoring 52% more points than #2 in the league, and over double the amount of points that #10 had.
-> League wide scoring was significantly higher in that year for Gretzky than it was in 2017. This directly ties in with the best players scoring more points

Option 1:
For the crowd that says adjusting is stupid, your claim is that Gretzky's 215 points should not be adjusted for when comparing other seasons. so if he was plopped into a lower scoring environment, that he'd score the same.

So what you are claiming is that Gretzky would actually get BETTER relative to the rest of the players in the league? So Gretzky's performance vs. 2nd would double, his performance vs. 5th would double, and his performance vs. 10th would double.

If you seriously make this claim, you're out to lunch and there is no logical explanation for that.

Option 2:
Comparing the relative dominance (first green chart below) = assuming that Gretzky would have the same 52% point lead he would over #2 that he did in his actual year. As you can see, that results in a pretty close lead over the various #2 - #10 point scorers.

This assumes Gretzky is EQUALLY as dominant in his era, or in the lower scoring era. This is probably the MOST accurate representation of reality. To assume that Gretzky would be just as good vs. his peers, regardless of the era he played in.

This would result in his 215 raw points looking closer to 152 points in 2017.

Option 3:
Comparing just Hockey Reference's adjusted points (2nd green chart below). This would increase Gretzky's points from 152 -> 170, but also increase other players points too by a bit.

The result is a very similar level of dominance to Option 2. Even if I think option #2 is more accurate, it is a lot easier to calculate wide-scale the way Hockey reference does it for an anchored goals/gp.


View attachment 1008241

Do you really think that #3 and #4 would had put the same numbers without playing on a line with Wayne?

You picked an year where #2 is a player who is seen by many as a top 3 player all times, and #3-4# have their stats inflated by playing with Wayne.

 

[Hank Plank]

Era adjusted is code for whatever the heck the stats guy wants it to be.

 

[qcal1427]

Problem is with all these adjustments you can't factor in the difference in skill and equiptment in thise era compared to others. An average nhler is a lot more talented than they were 20, 30,40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 years ago due to training , technology advances ,and equiptment. You just have to appreciate how great these guys were against the players of their time.

That is the entire point of adjusted stats. It is an approximation of how much a player scored relative to their time, and will normalize the differences between skill, equipment, roster sizes, schedule lengths, rules, tactics, etc. to make comparisons across different eras more accurate

 

[ItWasJustified]

Okay so it's that you don't understand what adjusted stats mean then I can interest you in $100 Canadian dollars for $100 of your American ones?

I know that it's speculation. If you can prove it's not speculation, feel free.

 

[Daishi]

One stat illustrates Ovie's career of double shifting every PP and standing in wait at the opposing blue line is his career +62 plus minus. Frankly I'm surprised he's in the plus at all. 8% of his goals are empty net goals so that of course helps.

Even Auston Matthews is +152. Gretzky was like +550?

But plus minus is a meaningless stat, so there's of course that. He's so great.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Add in the ice of years past (soft and rutted) and the skates (dull) the sticks (like 2x4’s) and it’s a wonder the players could get around the ice and shoot at all. The cream rises to the top, regardless. IMO OV, in the old six team league, would have been an even better fit than this era. Doug Harvey would fit better in this era.

The cream doesnt rise to the top if they were excluded by geopolitics. We all know the russians for example was almost just as good as nhl's best during the summit, so if anything the league was watered down when they didnt have those elite foreign talents.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I guess I don’t understand how this is news. Mario missed a huge chunk of his career, do people not know this? He had cancer in the middle of his career and took a year off. He used a stool to help take his skates off his back was so bad.

I assume this is an Ovy conversation.



Ooooooohhhh:….im in a fake stat adjusted era conversation made to make the people you want to seem better look better and the guys you don’t like look worse - and pass it off as actual stats. Got it. My bad on reading compression with the thread title.

These adjusted stats are cringe.

 

[wetcoast]

I know that it's speculation. If you can prove it's not speculation, feel free.

Well I was wrong as I thought you only didn't understand what adjusted stats do but also it seems that you don't understand speculation as well.

Adjusted stats do exactly what they say, they adjust for league scoring totals so we can compare players scoring in a 3 GPG average to a 5 GPG average.

If you mean by proof a 100% absolute definitive metric then no adjusted stats isn't that.

But what is is might be more important as it gives better and more appropriate context than counting stats when comparing different seasons with different scoring rates.

 

[filinski77]

Do you really think that #3 and #4 would had put the same numbers without playing on a line with Wayne?

You picked an year where #2 is a player who is seen by many as a top 3 player all times, and #3-4# have their stats inflated by playing with Wayne.

If you read my post, you can see that it doesn't really matter if you're looking at the top couple guys, or the 7th-10th guys. So your whole point is irrelevant.

Same concept - not adjusting raw, would assume that Gretzky would go from 95-105% more points than 8-10th to all of a sudden being twice as dominant and being 179-187% more points than 8-10th. Once again - a claim or comparison that has no substantive truth or logic to it.

Whereas when you adjust for Hockey reference, or through a similar dominance, you can see that this would result in Gretzky being equally as dominant to the 8th-10th best players as he was in his era. The only logical way to think about it,

 

[RussianBum86]

That is the entire point of adjusted stats. It is an approximation of how much a player scored relative to their time, and will normalize the differences between skill, equipment, roster sizes, schedule lengths, rules, tactics, etc. to make comparisons across different eras more accurate

Approximates don't mean squat. No way to actually compared just guess.

 

[thekernel]

I don't think you quite understand the concept of adjusted stats at all...

There have been massive changes in equipment (player and goalie), in average skill level, goalie structure etc. This has drastically changed how many goals the average player/team is scoring. That inherently makes comparisons not meaningful between different environments. This is the exact same reason $1 million today is not comparable to $1 million 40 years ago.

Okay, if I'm wrong, then explain to me the concept of adjusted stats. The way I understand it, it's supposed to make meaningful comparisons between players from any era, based on an individual's performance relative to his competition. Distilling a player's career/season into numbers that you can stack against players from different periods of time. Do I have that right? Tell me what I'm missing.

I'm here to tell you what you seem to already understand from the bolded....these comparisons are inherently not meaningful between different environments. That's why the record book is the *record* book, it doesn't document "why", it just documents "what". The reason people don't care as much about "why" is because you can (evidently) drive yourself mad trying to quantify the unquantifiable. I mean, I will give you grace insofar that this is indeed HFboards where arguing about my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad is your god given prerogative. But I draw the line at the literal adjustment of points, because that's not dealing with "what" any more.

Also I think it's funny that you missed my point so badly that you agreed with it without realizing it

 

[ItWasJustified]

Well I was wrong as I thought you only didn't understand what adjusted stats do but also it seems that you don't understand speculation as well.

Adjusted stats do exactly what they say, they adjust for league scoring totals so we can compare players scoring in a 3 GPG average to a 5 GPG average.

If you mean by proof a 100% absolute definitive metric then no adjusted stats isn't that.

But what is is might be more important as it gives better and more appropriate context than counting stats when comparing different seasons with different scoring rates.

Speculation based on historical numbers is still just speculation.