The best goalscorers in the NHL-3

[MadLuke]

I disagree with it. To my mind, it's much easier to score goals when you're surrounded with good players, than when you're one man show.

that 2 different claim, it is easier to score goals vs it is easier to score a larger percentage of the teams goals.

The 1984 oilers scored 446 goals, for Gretzky to score 30% of their goals (and every goals he score are added to the team goal making it harder and harder) if him scoring does not remove anyone else goals he would have needed to score 153 goals and the Oilers would have ended up with 512 of them.

To score 30% of the 2001 panthers goals, Bure needed to score 59-60, was that harder to do than scoring over 150 goals with the oilers ?

If we add 1989 Mario Lemieux-Coffey and have a prime Anderson-Messier second on the 2001 Panthers, maybe it make it easier a bit for Bure to score goals (maybe not that much, maybe they play to win, he play less minutes, etc...) but the Panthers would have scored over near 350 goals that year maybe a bit more, now Bure need to score 105 goals to do it (and if he do they are probably more a 365 goals teams, now he need to score 110..., you get the idea)

I am really unsure it is linear how easier it get to score with how many goals the team score as for one the more you score the more goals the team has.

Imagine a team that score 200 goals with a player that scored 40, would he find a new gear and scored 80 and his team end up with 240 ? Was he not at least twice as good at scoring goal (and argument could be made much more than that) ?

in team goal percentage he went from 20% to 33%, a 65% jump.

Now imagine a team that score 400 goals with a player that scored 40, would he find a new gear and scored 80 and his team end up with 440 ? He went from 10% to 18.2% a significantly different jump... all that to say not sure how sound it is.

 

[Namba 17]

that 2 different claim, it is easier to score goals vs it is easier to score a larger percentage of the teams goals.

The 1984 oilers scored 446 goals, for Gretzky to score 30% of their goals (and every goals he score are added to the team goal making it harder and harder) if him scoring does not remove anyone else goals he would have needed to score 153 goals and the Oilers would have ended up with 512 of them.

To score 30% of the 2001 panthers goals, Bure needed to score 59-60, was that harder to do than scoring over 150 goals with the oilers ?

Mmm, ok.
1. I see what are you takling about
2. My answer about "easier to score goals in good team" was rush a bit. I still think so, but I'd like to specify it a bit - Bure's 00/01 season and Gretzky's 83/84 seasons belongs to different eras in the NHL - different amout of teams. Different amount of teams gives us different absolute numbers, which is clear from my tables. That's why I divide tables by teams amount.
So, I can't say right now, that the difference is as huge as 153 goals, that Gretz needed to score. I beleive, though, that its stil in Bure's favour, but not sure for how much, cause I don't know, how should we compare those two epochs.

 

[MadLuke]

belongs to different eras in the NHL

we can go ultra specific and something that would go directly in your point I think, the 1996 Penguins.

If you were playing on the penguins Top 6 and if you were on their powerplay, scoring goals was much easier for a type of player than on any other teams.

Nedved scored 45 that year, Sandstrom pace was young Sandstrom 1991ish, Jagr putted 62 in. But you also need to be really good to see ice time on the PP, not sure if it help Naslund or hurt Naslund playing for them.

But on the other hand because the penguins score so much more goals than anyone else, does it not make it harder to score 20% of their goals ?

Nedved scoring 45 of the penguins 362 goals, does it make him a worst goal scorer than scoring 25 on the Senators ? Like rookie Alfredsson did ?

And also there is the it is easier to score because I am on a big offensive like RNH scoring 100 points on that McDavid-Drai power play vs I am playing on a offensive powerhouse because I am McDavid-Draisaitl and we turn the OIlers into an offensive powerhouse because we play for them scenario.

Lemieux winger were nothing special for first liner in 1996, his line scored so much because he was the center of his line. So giving the team effect we give to Nedved-Sandstrom in a same way to Lemieux-Jagr can feel a bit different,

Lemieux-Jagr were on the best offensive 360 goals team in the nhl because they played for the Penguins scoring a lot of points, they did not score a lot of points because they were playing for the Penguins.

That way to calculate things will hurt goalscorer that are also great playmaker 2 times, their teams having high goals total because they score a lot of goals yes, but they also boost it with the rest of their games.

 

[Namba 17]

we can go ultra specific and something that would go directly in your point I think, the 1996 Penguins.

That way to calculate things will hurt goalscorer that are also great playmaker 2 times, their teams having high goals total because they score a lot of goals yes, but they also boost it with the rest of their games.

It doesn't hurt, because those tables are not answers to "who was the best player". It allows us to compare particular goal-scoring seasons in particular time periods.
The main problem with my calculations as I see it, is that time after time people want to have ONE number that will explain everyhting.
No, unfortunately.
But if you want to interpret 26-28 teams table as that Lemieux 95/96 season was the most outstanding, because score 19% of goals of good team is harder than score 25 % of bad team goals - its also fine by me. I can just stand here that we ddint come to an agreement on this question

 

[MadLuke]

It doesn't hurt, because those tables are not answers to "who was the best player".

You think that if Gretzky score 87 goals with 55 assists the Oilers does end up with less goals and he does not end up with an larger percentage of his team goals ?

I do not think this can be controversial.