Ratio between goals of #1 goalscorer and his team' goals 1946 - 2023 RS + PO

[MadLuke]

and desagree with some ratio,

I am not sure that could make sense, the ratio are straightforward fact. I disagree that they are a good way to judge goalscorer (and not say their support cast) but I do not imagine anyone suggested it was a good way to do that.

Just say that you want to explain why ratio of player A is lower than you think it should be.

One of the example I gave was Pavel Bure with himself, because it was at a quick look the clearest

00/01 59 200 1 29,5%
99/00 58 244 1 23,77%

Did he get significantly better at scoring goals in 2001 ? or it is simply the Panthers got worst at scoring them because of injuries to their best other players... It is rather obvious that this % stats tell us at a lot about the team (denominator) not just the ability to score goal of the player.

So, Gretzky deflated his season with 120 assists, but Lemieux with his 114 (88/89) somehow didn't?

Lemieux would be another obvious example of someone that adds goals he did not score, you are trying to read some agenda here.

If so, what team is better - with low ratio of its best goalscorer or with high?

I am really unsure, the team that score more goals is the better team ? Regardless of who-how...

 

[FinLurker]

I didn't tell about your example that one is better than another. I mean abstract player who didnt make the list, but had many assists. I thought that you told about smth like that.
It seems, that you look at some particular player and desagree with some ratio, connected with him. If you want to suggest some explanation of some player its fine. Just say that you want to explain why ratio of player A is lower than you think it should be.

Ok.
If so, what team is better - with low ratio of its best goalscorer or with high?

Ah. Finally. Youre talking about Gretzky' particular season.
So, Gretzky deflated his season with 120 assists, but Lemieux with his 114 (88/89) somehow didn't?

I don't know what is so hard to understand. I try once again. It affected everybody, but Gretzky most, since he has the most assists. Lemieux as you pointed out suffered the second most of all players. Cherry picking Bure is one of the least affected with his 33 assists.

If you are just primarily blasting shots like Ovechkin of today, the effect is less and when you also making plays like Kucherov for example, all those assists are counted for team goals and therefore making him worse "pure goalscorer" in this methodology. Therefore you need to be good goalscorer and bad passer to get high percentages. If being "pure goalscorer" means that he should be good only at goalscoring you get Bure's, Bondra's and Nash's at the top like you did.

Furthermore, I am not sure how much of an effect to players goal scoring ability, the goal scoring ability of players of other lines have? How much less of a goalscorer Bure would be if there was also second 50 goal player in that team?

 

[Namba 17]

I am not sure that could make sense, the ratio are straightforward fact.

Sure, it was bad worded from my part.

I disagree that they are a good way to judge goalscorer (and not say their support cast) but I do not imagine anyone suggested it was a good way to do that.

It depends in what way you want to judge goalscorers.

It is rather obvious that this % stats tell us at a lot about the team (denominator) not just the ability to score goal of the player.

I am really unsure, the team that score more goals is the better team ?

Is it "rather obvious" or you are "really unsure"?
So, what makes a team better? this % stats or amount of goals?

Lemieux would be another obvious example of someone that adds goals he did not score, you are trying to read some agenda here.

Then why Lemieux with 114 assists has 24,5%?
One of the highest in the list?

I don't know what is so hard to understand. I try once again. It affected everybody, but Gretzky most, since he has the most assists. Lemieux as you pointed out suffered the second most of all players.

You didn't even read the table did you?

 

[Namba 17]

you get Bure's, Bondra's and Nash's at the top like you did.

You didn't

 

[MadLuke]

Is it "rather obvious" or you are "really unsure"?

I am unsure I understand your question:
Ok.
If so, what team is better - with low ratio of its best goalscorer or with high?

Usually it will be the low answer, but if the goalscorer scored 120 goals maybe not, thus the best team being the one that score more goals regardless of who and how.

Then why Lemieux with 114 assists has 24,5%?

Because he was arguably the best goal scorer in the history of the sport having his best season and scored more than a goal a game on a team that missed the playoff the year just before ? Does that mean that he was a significantly worst goal scorer than Bure in 2001, what does the percentage of is team goal tell us here, what information is added in term of judging if 85 goals was good or not, if Rob Brown does not miss game, Kevin Stevens get to work a bit earlier in his career and those 86 goals end up being 22.5% of the team goals instead ? would he had been a worst goalscorer that year in any way ?

It depends in what way you want to judge goalscorers.

How much what the third line did when they were not on the ice would tell us much about their goalscoring ability ? It is nice trivia when talking about MVP winner, player support cast, etc... judging them, not so sure.

 

[Namba 17]

I am unsure I understand your question:
Ok.
If so, what team is better - with low ratio of its best goalscorer or with high?

Usually it will be the low answer, but if the goalscorer scored 120 goals maybe not, thus the best team being the one that score more goals regardless of who and how.

So, we don't need to know the ratio to know who the better team was?
What does ratio show then?

Because he was arguably the best goal scorer in the history of the sport having his best season and scored more than a goal a game on a team that missed the playoff the year just before ?

Why do you ask me? I asked you

Does that mean that he was a significantly worst goal scorer than Bure in 2001

I asked you you told, that ratio is about team strengh. Now youre back to "best/worst" stuff.

 

[MadLuke]

that ratio is about team strengh

I guess it could some april fool trolling, because obviously it is both about player strength and his team strength, you would not for a second think otherwise, right ?

 

[Namba 17]

I guess it could some april fool trolling, because obviously it is both about player strength and his team strength,

We started this dialog because you said that players with less assists have disadvantage. I started to clear up what disadvantage. You said that the list is about players' strengh, then said that its about team strengh then came back to player's strengh, then accused me in trolling.
Now it's both about team strength and players strength.

you would not for a second think otherwise, right ?

How can it be about team strengh if we know literary nothing about the team?
It can tell us about player's strengh, but not directly.
Answering your question.
This ratio shows us how important, critical, significant was goal input of a player to his team.
Why it was that important or not that important is the question you cant answer with these stats.

 

[MadLuke]

We started this dialog because you said that players with less assists have disadvantage.

How and why players with less assists will have a disadvantage when it come to goals scored / team scored ? I am not sure you grasp what is being talked about at all, but yes it sound like you are trolling the point being made (not by me) was extremely simple (by FinLurkey I think)

How can it be about team strengh if we know literary nothing about the team?

We know how many goals they scored, which is a lot of knowledge, would we had how many goals they got scored against and we would have almost everything there is to know.

Why it was that important or not that important is the question you cant answer with these stats.

Nothing will ever be important in a history message board forum conversation (or anything ever about any pro sport)

perfectly fine to calculate something like that just for fun trivia, or in a MVP type of talk (i.e. the significance of the goal scored aspect), the point made by FinLurkey was simple (that a good playmaker will reduce that figure by having a team that score more goals even if they are has good as scoring goal than someone with an higher figure)

 

[Namba 17]

We started this dialog because you said that players with less assists have disadvantage.

How and why players with less assists will have a disadvantage when it come to goals scored / team scored ? I am not sure you grasp what is being talked about at all, but yes it sound like you are trolling the point being made (not by me) was extremely simple (by FinLurkey I think)

With more assists, sure. My misprint.

 

[Namba 17]

Here are stats of players why became the best GS of RS and PO and won SC (table 1) and players who became the best GS of RS and PO and didn't win SC (table 2)

Table 1
Name / season / RS ratio / PO ratio

Bealiveau 55/56 21,17 28,57
Esposito 69/70 15,52 20,00
Esposito 71/72 20,00 14,06
Lafleur 77/78 16,71 17,24
Bossy 80/81 19,15 17,53
Ovechkin 17/18 19,14 17,44


Table 2
Name / season / RS ratio / PO ratio

Richard 46/47 23,81 31,03
Bobby Hull 61/62 23,04 23,53
Leach 75/76 17,53 31,15
Bure 93/94 21,5 21,05
Iginla 03/04 20,50 21,67

 

[Hippasus]

The average of table 2 is higher, which is somewhat surprising. Depth is an important ingredient for playoff success.

 

[MadLuke]

The average of table 2 is higher, which is somewhat surprising.

How could it be ? isn't lower the % the better without any downside to it here ? It purely means the Rocket Richard winner play on a better team.

 

[Hippasus]

How could it be ? isn't lower the % the better without any downside to it here ? It purely means the Rocket Richard winner play on a better team.

Looking at the last column, I got ~21.98 for the first table and ~25.69 for the second table. I thought this was about proportion of goals from the x scorer for a given team.

 

[MadLuke]

I thought this was about proportion of goals from the x scorer for a given team.

Yes so better the team the lower the proportions would be and the better chance they have at winning the cup, i..e Lafleur on Mtl, Bossy on the Islanders has obviously a better chance to win the cup than Iginla on the flames.

if the rocket richard winner would have less than 12% of the goals of his team, that would tell you something about how good that team is and their chance to win the cup.

Other way around if that same player on a different teams has over 33% of the goal, good luck winning anything.

Maybe I am just not understanding what is going on, but I feel yes obviously the lower than percentage the higher the chance of winning the cup will be and vice versa.

 

[Hippasus]

Yes so better the team the lower the proportions would be and the better chance they have at winning the cup, i..e Lafleur on Mtl, Bossy on the Islanders has obviously a better chance to win the cup than Iginla on the flames.

if the rocket richard winner would have less than 12% of the goals of his team, that would tell you something about how good that team is and their chance to win the cup.

Other way around if that same player on a different teams has over 33% of the goal, good luck winning anything.

Maybe I am just not understanding what is going on, but I feel yes obviously the lower than percentage the higher the chance of winning the cup will be and vice versa.

I think we're agreeing on that.

Statistics are like data. The interpretation comes afterwords. This thread is providing statistics.