The best goalscorers in the NHL

[Hippasus]

This is the ranking of the most impressive entries by a player from the update post for this year (domination of peers since post-O6 expansion), assuming the 46th position to be worth half that of the 1st position. This list is comprised of all players with multiple entries in that post:

Ovechkin: 6,13,17,18,20,22
Esposito: 7,12,15,41,45,46
Gretzky: 2,8,21,28,30
Lemieux: 3,4,16
Brett Hull: 1,9,26
Bure: 5,14,27
Selanne: 11,19,43
Bossy: 25,37

This yields the following valuation:

Ovechkin|6.666666667
Esposito|5.62962963
Gretzky|5.422222222
Lemieux|3.703703704
Brett Hull|3.511111111
Bure|3.362962963
Selanne|2.962962963
Bossy|1.777777778

 

[VanIslander]

The top-10 seasons by the op's analysis include three by Esposito, two by Gretzky, Lemieux and Hull and one by Bure.

No Ovechkin.

Interesting.

 

[Hippasus]

The top-10 seasons by the op's analysis include three by Esposito, two by Gretzky, Lemieux and Hull and one by Bure.

No Ovechkin.

Interesting.

You're talking about post 1. The summary I presented is based on post 19. Post 19 is the up-to-date one.

 

[Namba 17]

The top-10 seasons by the op's analysis include three by Esposito, two by Gretzky, Lemieux and Hull and one by Bure.

No Ovechkin.

Interesting.

Later, I changed method to receive more correct results. I explained it below and posted more correct results.

 

[Joedaman55]

So, to make my table more correct, I decided to find the number of players, who scored 80% of goals in corresponding season, and find the average number of goals per game excluding goals and games of the 1-st place. Everything else is the same.
80% was taken without any methods, so it might be weak point too But I found out that the number of players, who score 80% of the goals of the season is pretty much the same, no matter what season it is - it's from 33 to 39% of all the players of the season; for the majority of seasons it's 34-35% (which is interesting itself, I think).
So, I found the average number of goals per game of the best goalscorer and compared it to the average number of goals per game of the other best players of the corresponding seasons.
I'll post the table after a few minutes.

Not a fan of the goals per game method but if you were to use this statistic I think you did a very good job at analyzing the data without using a regression. I really like the idea of using 80% idea which normalizes era differences. A good note is to include this analysis only goes back to 1970 (unless you have already said so).

Some numbers are a little surprising to me but the top 4 doesn't really shock me and the results make sense. Nice work buddy.

 

[Namba 17]

Not a fan of the goals per game method but if you were to use this statistic I think you did a very good job at analyzing the data without using a regression. I really like the idea of using 80% idea which normalizes era differences. A good note is to include this analysis only goes back to 1970 (unless you have already said so).

Some numbers are a little surprising to me but the top 4 doesn't really shock me and the results make sense. Nice work buddy.

Thank you!

 

[Hippasus]

I just realized since the data starts for the 69-70 season, Bobby Hull may also have had multiple entires (2) on the table, if it were to have included all post-O6 expansion seasons. Ovechkin, Esposito, and Gretzky all have more than two entries for this timeframe. Therefore those three players are really the ones that have the significant entries in the latest summary I posted as post 26.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Great project!

 

[Hippasus]

Namba 17, would you be able to post an example to show how the 80% figure in your formula works? I want to see if I understand it properly.

 

[Namba 17]

Namba 17, would you be able to post an example to show how the 80% figure in your formula works? I want to see if I understand it properly.

For example, let's take the last season.
For 2015-2016 there were scored 6565 goals (all numbers are from nhl.com) by all players, who participated in the regular season.
6565 * 0,8 = 5252 goals.
So, 5252 is 80% of all scored goals.
After I found number of 80% goals of the season, I found number of players, who scored 5252 goals.
To do this, I add number of goals scored by the player, who took the 1-st place with number of goals scored by the player, who took the 2-d place etc, until I found the last player, adding whose number of goals to the sum of goals of players before him, I got 5252.
For 2015-2016 it was Reid Boucher. When I add his 8 goals to the sum of goals, scored by the guys before him, I got 5254. He took 309 place of all NHL goalscorers in the 2015-2016 season.
After it, I found the sum of games, played by the players, who took places from 2 to 309 and the sum of goals, scored by them.
After it I found average GPG for 2-309 and the 1.
After it I found the ratio.

 

[Hippasus]

For example, let's take the last season.
For 2015-2016 there were scored 6565 goals (all numbers are from nhl.com) by all players, who participated in the regular season.
6565 * 0,8 = 5252 goals.
So, 5252 is 80% of all scored goals.
After I found number of 80% goals of the season, I found number of players, who scored 5252 goals.
To do this, I add number of goals scored by the player, who took the 1-st place with number of goals scored by the player, who took the 2-d place etc, until I found the last player, adding whose number of goals to the sum of goals of players before him, I got 5252.
For 2015-2016 it was Reid Boucher. When I add his 8 goals to the sum of goals, scored by the guys before him, I got 5254. He took 309 place of all NHL goalscorers in the 2015-2016 season.
After it, I found the sum of games, played by the players, who took places from 2 to 309 and the sum of goals, scored by them.
After it I found average GPG for 2-309 and the 1.
After it I found the ratio.

Thank you very much. I added two seasons, 67-68 and 68-69. These are the results for all post-O6 expansion seasons.

1|90-91 Brett Hull |379,21
2|83-84 Gretzky|346,60
3|95-96 Lemieux|344,11
4|88-89 Lemieux|329,88
5|99-00 Bure|324,54
6|07-08 Ovechkin|323,96
7|70-71 Esposito|323,67
8|81-82 Gretzky|315,88
9|91-92 Brett Hull|312,86
10|11-12 Stamkos|303,20
11|97-98 Selanne|301,77
12|71-72 Esposito|292,44
13|14-15 Ovechkin|289,08
14|00-01 Bure|285,93
15|73-74 Esposito|285,86
16|87-88 Lemieux|282,84
17|13-14 Ovechkin|282,01
18|12-13 Ovechkin|281,78
19|92-93 Selanne|281,45
20|15-16 Ovechkin|278,88
21|84-85 Gretzky |276,41
22|08-09 Ovechkin|275,91
23|01-02 Iginla|275,50
24|79-80 Simmer|273,05
25|78-79 Bossy|272,84
26|89-90 Brett Hull|272,29
27|93-94 Bure|271,48
28|82-83 Gretzky|267,83
29|85-86 Kurri|257,61
30|68-69 Bobby Hull|256,67
31|86-87 Gretzky|255,51
32|76-77 Shutt|255,28
33|09-10 Crosby|255,10
34|05-06 Cheechoo|253,43
35|77-78 Lafleur|252,21
36|10-11 Perry|250,90
37|96-97 Tkachuk|250,77
38|80-81 Bossy|250,08
39|02-03 Hejduk|246,88
40|94-95 Bondra|246,62
41|06-07 Lecavalier|245,05
42|74-75 Esposito|240,49
43|75-76 Leach|236,27
44|67-68 Bobby Hull|225,04
45|98-99 Selanne|224,04
46|03-04 Kovalchuk|222,68
47|72-73 Esposito|217,62
48|69-70 Esposito|189,69

This is the ranking of the most impressive entries by a player. This list is comprised of all players with multiple entries:

Ovechkin: 6,13,17,18,20,22
Esposito: 7,12,15,42,47,48
Gretzky: 2,8,21,28,31
Lemieux: 3,4,16
Brett Hull: 1,9,26
Bure: 5,14,27
Selanne: 11,19,45
Bossy: 25,38
Bobby Hull: 30,44

Assuming the 48th position to be worth half that of the 1st position, this yields the following valuation:

Ovechkin|6.723404255
Esposito|5.659574468
Gretzky|5.460992908
Lemieux|3.716312057
Brett Hull|3.531914894
Bure|3.390070922
Selanne|2.978723404
Bossy|1.80141844
Bobby Hull|1.645390071

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

For example, let's take the last season.
For 2015-2016 there were scored 6565 goals (all numbers are from nhl.com) by all players, who participated in the regular season.
6565 * 0,8 = 5252 goals.
So, 5252 is 80% of all scored goals.
After I found number of 80% goals of the season, I found number of players, who scored 5252 goals.
To do this, I add number of goals scored by the player, who took the 1-st place with number of goals scored by the player, who took the 2-d place etc, until I found the last player, adding whose number of goals to the sum of goals of players before him, I got 5252.
For 2015-2016 it was Reid Boucher. When I add his 8 goals to the sum of goals, scored by the guys before him, I got 5254. He took 309 place of all NHL goalscorers in the 2015-2016 season.
After it, I found the sum of games, played by the players, who took places from 2 to 309 and the sum of goals, scored by them.
After it I found average GPG for 2-309 and the 1.
After it I found the ratio.

That's basically the same as using league-wide goals-per-game averages, is it not? Any ratio between two years basically cancels out the multiplicative factor of 80%.

Additionally, the 309th player is already extremely far down the depth chart. The cross-era effects determining his level of scoring is going to be different than the effects determining the level of scoring facing a typical first-liner.

Perhaps it would be informative to calculate the percentage of total league-wide offense generated by first line forwards over each season to see how it varies before proceeding with cross-era comparisons.

 

[Hippasus]

That's basically the same as using league-wide goals-per-game averages, is it not? Any ratio between two years basically cancels out the multiplicative factor of 80%.

Additionally, the 309th player is already extremely far down the depth chart. The cross-era effects determining his level of scoring is going to be different than the effects determining the level of scoring facing a typical first-liner.

Perhaps it would be informative to calculate the percentage of total league-wide offense generated by first line forwards over each season to see how it varies before proceeding with cross-era comparisons.

The most simple adjusted stat calculation is comparing one year to another in terms of scoring rates.

92 goals * (5.44 / 8.02) = 62.404 goals

5.44 and 8.02 are scoring rates of different seasons. Here the term 'adjustment' is apt. The formula presented in this thread only compares scoring rates within a given season. There is no adjustment to the scoring of another year. It is a comparison of a goal scorer against his peers. Both approaches are normalizations that are supposed to enable cross-era comparison, to a degree, but comparison against peers is less controversial.

 

[Sentinel]

With a game on the line, Ovy simply has to bury golden chances like that. I just don't see Bossy, Lafleur, Esposito, or Richard not scoring in that situation...

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

The most simple adjusted stat calculation is comparing one year to another in terms of scoring rates.

92 goals * (5.44 / 8.02) = 62.404 goals

5.44 and 8.02 are scoring rates of different seasons. Here the term 'adjustment' is apt. The formula presented in this thread only compares scoring rates within a given season. There is no adjustment to the scoring of another year. It is a comparison of a goal scorer against his peers. Both approaches are normalizations that are supposed to enable cross-era comparison, to a degree, but comparison against peers is less controversial.

The problem with comparing with scorers who score 80% of all goals is that it makes no difference with comparing with scorers who score 100% of all goals (the example you posted above).

The actual peer group of interest for first-line players is that of other first-line players of their era. For example, this season, "first-liners" (i.e. the top 90 forwards) scored 37% of all goals. Just 20 years ago (95-96), "first-liners" (i.e. the top 78 forwards) scored 39% of all goals.

This doesn't look significant, but it makes a difference. Fixing a comparison to scorers who score 80% of all goals erases the different factors facing top players in different eras.

All first-liners averaged 27 goals this season. In 95-96, first-liners averaged 34 goals. For example, 2015-16 Ovechkin versus only other first-liners would "adjust" to 63 goals in 95-96.

What would we expect when comparing raw goals-per-game totals (5.34 goals per game vs 6.29)? We'd expect Ovechkin to have 59 goals in 95-96 if we're comparing him to league average... or 80% of league totals.

 

[Hippasus]

The problem with comparing with scorers who score 80% of all goals is that it makes no difference with comparing with scorers who score 100% of all goals (the example you posted above).

The actual peer group of interest for first-line players is that of other first-line players of their era. For example, this season, "first-liners" (i.e. the top 90 forwards) scored 37% of all goals. Just 20 years ago (95-96), "first-liners" (i.e. the top 78 forwards) scored 39% of all goals.

This doesn't look significant, but it makes a difference. Fixing a comparison to scorers who score 80% of all goals erases the different factors facing top players in different eras.

All first-liners averaged 27 goals this season. In 95-96, first-liners averaged 34 goals. For example, 2015-16 Ovechkin versus only other first-liners would "adjust" to 63 goals in 95-96.

What would we expect when comparing raw goals-per-game totals (5.34 goals per game vs 6.29)? We'd expect Ovechkin to have 59 goals in 95-96 if we're comparing him to league average... or 80% of league totals.

In post 14 the OP stated that the top 80% comprised 33 to 39% of all players in the league of a given season and that the variation of this range is limited. More importantly though, this is thus far a post-O6 expansion study only. If we were to consider the NHL all the way back to the beginning, I would agree with you. I am actually in the process of doing my own study on this comparing the dominant goal scorer to the average first liner in terms of goal scoring, going by the best adjusted goals seasons from Hockey-reference.com. My data will be from Nhl.com and will go back to the 1917-18 season.

 

[The Panther]

The most simple adjusted stat calculation is comparing one year to another in terms of scoring rates.

92 goals * (5.44 / 8.02) = 62.404 goals

While I agree with the premise of comparing a scorer to his peers, I think another flaw with this kind of calculation is that it's taking the #1 goal scorer of 1982 (Gretzky), who played on by-far the highest scoring team in 1982 (Edmonton), and adjusting the raw number by comparing it to the average scoring rate in 2016. Why not adjust in consideration of the highest-scoring team in 2016?

For example, in 2016 the highest-scoring team was Dallas, with 3.26 goals-per-game (not 2.72, as the NHL-average). In a more "realistic" scenario, 1982-Gretzky would score more than 62 goals in 2016 because he wouldn't be playing for the average scoring team in 1982 (Winnipeg or Boston, say). Just my thought.

 

[Hippasus]

While I agree with the premise of comparing a scorer to his peers, I think another flaw with this kind of calculation is that it's taking the #1 goal scorer of 1982 (Gretzky), who played on by-far the highest scoring team in 1982 (Edmonton), and adjusting the raw number by comparing it to the average scoring rate in 2016. Why not adjust in consideration of the highest-scoring team in 2016?

For example, in 2016 the highest-scoring team was Dallas, with 3.26 goals-per-game (not 2.72, as the NHL-average). In a more "realistic" scenario, 1982-Gretzky would score more than 62 goals in 2016 because he wouldn't be playing for the average scoring team in 1982 (Winnipeg or Boston, say). Just my thought.

I think we're on the same page on this one, The Panther, because I have a similar criticism to your's, as well as the poster to whom I was responding, about adjusting across seasons. That is where adjustment calculations are too simple, as they ignore all kinds of variables. Disproportionate contribution from lines other than top lines is an example of such a criticism. This is a variable that is not accounted for in simple adjusting of goals. I think we all agree that there some flaws to that one.

However, the OP's formula does not compare across different seasons, like your example shows. It is just looking at the ratio of domination within a given season, thus showing who had the most dominant goal scoring seasons relative to the season the player led in goals. That's where the 80% etc. comes in. It is measuring relative to 80% of the goals for the season that the leading goal scorer led in goals. Since there are no cross-era comparisons within the formula, rather only after the calculations of the formula have been made, I feel this formula is less controversial than simply looking at adjusted goals or some such thing.

 

[Hippasus]

For those interested, the study I was in the process of doing, to which I referred in post 41 of this thread can be found here.

 

[Namba 17]

So, I've done it.
Table of the best goal-scorers of the NHL from 1942-1943 to 2015-2016 seasons.
The point of the table is the ratio between GPG of the best goal-scorer of corresponding season and GPG of all goalscorers, scored 80% of goals of the same season.
As we see, the method works no matter what season do we take and what was the size of the league.
1942-1943 was taken as the first year of Richard career. Don't see the point to calculate earlier seasons.
67-68 and 68-69 were calculated by Hippasus. Many thanks to him.
Enjoy
Discuss

1| 90-91| Brett Hull| 379,21
2 |83-84 |Gretzky| 346,60
3 |95-96 |Lemieux| 344,11
4 |88-89 |Lemieux| 329,88
5 |99-00| Bure |324,54
6 |07-08 |Ovechkin |323,96
7 |70-71 |Esposito| 323,67
8 |81-82| Gretzky |315,88
9 |91-92 | Brett Hull |312,86
10 |11-12| Stamkos| 303,20
11 |97-98| Selanne |301,77
12 |71-72| Esposito |292,44
13 |66-67 | Bobby Hull| 290,95
14 |14-15| Ovechkin| 289,08
15 |00-01| Bure| 285,93
16 |73-74| Esposito |285,86
17 |87-88| Lemieux| 282,84
18 |13-14| Ovechkin| 282,01
19 |52-53|Gordie Howe| 281,86
20 |12-13| Ovechkin| 281,78
21 |92-93| Selanne| 281,45
22 |15-16| Ovechkin| 278,88
23 |84-85| Gretzky| 276,41
24 |08-09| Ovechkin| 275,91
25 |01-02 | Iginla| 275,50
26 |79-80 |Simmer |273,05
27 |78-79 | Bossy| 272,84
28 |89-90 | Brett Hull| 272,29
29 |93-94 | Bure |271,48
30 |82-83| Gretzky| 267,83
31 |60-61 | Bernie Geoffrion| 263,47
32 |85-86| Kurri| 257,61
33 |68-69 | Bobby Hull| 256,67
34 |86-87| Gretzky| 255,51
35 |76-77| Shutt| 255,28
36 |09-10| Crosby |255,10
37 |55-56| Jean Beliveau| 253,55
38 |05-06| Cheechoo| 253,43
39 |65-66 | Bobby Hull| 253,16
40 |77-78| Lafleur| 252,21
41 |10-11| Perry| 250,90
42 |96-97| Tkachuk |250,77
43 |80-81| Bossy| 250,08
44 |02-03| Hejduk| 246,88
45 |94-95| Bondra| 246,62
46 |51-52| Gordie Howe| 245,79
47 |06-07| Lecavalier| 245,05
48 |44-45| Maurice Richard| 244,14
49 |74-75| Esposito| 240,49
50 |61-62| Bobby Hull| 238,89
51 |50-51| Gordie Howe| 237,05
52 |75-76 | Leach| 236,27
53 |56-57| Gordie Howe| 233,25
54 |58-59 | Jean Beliveau| 231,71
55 |49-50| Maurice Richard| 227,80
56 |67-68| Bobby Hull| 225,04
57 |98-99| Selanne| 224,04
58 |03-04| Kovalchuk| 222,68
59 |46-47 | Maurice Richard |222,05
60 |63-64| Bobby Hull| 220,55
61 |53-54 | Maurice Richard| 219,85
62 |72-73| Esposito| 217,62
63 |54-55| Bernie Geoffrion| 213,65
64 |45-46| Gaye Stewart| 211,40
65 |64-65| Norm Ullman| 206,93
66 |47-48| Ted Lindsay| 195,17
67 |59-60| Bobby Hull| 194,27
68 |69-70| Esposito| 189,69
69 |57-58| Dickie Moore| 178,86
70 |62-63| Gordie Howe| 178,04
71 |42-43| Doug Bentley| 170,76
72 |41-42| Doug Bentley| 164,10
73 |48-49 | Sid Abel| 162,96

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

So, I've done it.
Table of the best goal-scorers of the NHL from 1942-1943 to 2015-2016 seasons.
The point of the table is the ratio between GPG of the best goal-scorer of corresponding season and GPG of all goalscorers, scored 80% of goals of the same season.
As we see, the method works no matter what season do we take and what was the size of the league.
1942-1943 was taken as the first year of Richard career. Don't see the point to calculate earlier seasons.
67-68 and 68-69 were calculated by Hippasus. Many thanks to him.
Enjoy
Discuss

I disagree with this statement. For example, the league doubled in size with the 1967 expansion. 80% of a 6-team league is going to represent a significantly higher level of talent from 80% of a 12-team league. Given that the NHL continued to expand (in addition to the WHA splitting talent between two leagues for a number of years), there has never been the same level of talent compression as there was during the O6 era.

 

[Namba 17]

I disagree with this statement. For example, the league doubled in size with the 1967 expansion. 80% of a 6-team league is going to represent a significantly higher level of talent from 80% of a 12-team league. Given that the NHL continued to expand (in addition to the WHA splitting talent between two leagues for a number of years), there has never been the same level of talent compression as there was during the O6 era.

Even if true, it doesn't make the method incorrect

 

[Hockey Outsider]

So, I've done it.
Table of the best goal-scorers of the NHL from 1942-1943 to 2015-2016 seasons.
The point of the table is the ratio between GPG of the best goal-scorer of corresponding season and GPG of all goalscorers, scored 80% of goals of the same season.
As we see, the method works no matter what season do we take and what was the size of the league.
1942-1943 was taken as the first year of Richard career. Don't see the point to calculate earlier seasons.
67-68 and 68-69 were calculated by Hippasus. Many thanks to him.
Enjoy
Discuss

1| 90-91| Brett Hull| 379,21
2 |83-84 |Gretzky| 346,60
3 |95-96 |Lemieux| 344,11
4 |88-89 |Lemieux| 329,88
5 |99-00| Bure |324,54
6 |07-08 |Ovechkin |323,96
7 |70-71 |Esposito| 323,67
8 |81-82| Gretzky |315,88
9 |91-92 | Brett Hull |312,86
10 |11-12| Stamkos| 303,20
11 |97-98| Selanne |301,77
12 |71-72| Esposito |292,44
13 |66-67 | Bobby Hull| 290,95
14 |14-15| Ovechkin| 289,08
15 |00-01| Bure| 285,93
16 |73-74| Esposito |285,86
17 |87-88| Lemieux| 282,84
18 |13-14| Ovechkin| 282,01
19 |52-53|Gordie Howe| 281,86
20 |12-13| Ovechkin| 281,78
21 |92-93| Selanne| 281,45
22 |15-16| Ovechkin| 278,88
23 |84-85| Gretzky| 276,41
24 |08-09| Ovechkin| 275,91
25 |01-02 | Iginla| 275,50
26 |79-80 |Simmer |273,05
27 |78-79 | Bossy| 272,84
28 |89-90 | Brett Hull| 272,29
29 |93-94 | Bure |271,48
30 |82-83| Gretzky| 267,83
31 |60-61 | Bernie Geoffrion| 263,47
32 |85-86| Kurri| 257,61
33 |68-69 | Bobby Hull| 256,67
34 |86-87| Gretzky| 255,51
35 |76-77| Shutt| 255,28
36 |09-10| Crosby |255,10
37 |55-56| Jean Beliveau| 253,55
38 |05-06| Cheechoo| 253,43
39 |65-66 | Bobby Hull| 253,16
40 |77-78| Lafleur| 252,21
41 |10-11| Perry| 250,90
42 |96-97| Tkachuk |250,77
43 |80-81| Bossy| 250,08
44 |02-03| Hejduk| 246,88
45 |94-95| Bondra| 246,62
46 |51-52| Gordie Howe| 245,79
47 |06-07| Lecavalier| 245,05
48 |44-45| Maurice Richard| 244,14
49 |74-75| Esposito| 240,49
50 |61-62| Bobby Hull| 238,89
51 |50-51| Gordie Howe| 237,05
52 |75-76 | Leach| 236,27
53 |56-57| Gordie Howe| 233,25
54 |58-59 | Jean Beliveau| 231,71
55 |49-50| Maurice Richard| 227,80
56 |67-68| Bobby Hull| 225,04
57 |98-99| Selanne| 224,04
58 |03-04| Kovalchuk| 222,68
59 |46-47 | Maurice Richard |222,05
60 |63-64| Bobby Hull| 220,55
61 |53-54 | Maurice Richard| 219,85
62 |72-73| Esposito| 217,62
63 |54-55| Bernie Geoffrion| 213,65
64 |45-46| Gaye Stewart| 211,40
65 |64-65| Norm Ullman| 206,93
66 |47-48| Ted Lindsay| 195,17
67 |59-60| Bobby Hull| 194,27
68 |69-70| Esposito| 189,69
69 |57-58| Dickie Moore| 178,86
70 |62-63| Gordie Howe| 178,04
71 |42-43| Doug Bentley| 170,76
72 |41-42| Doug Bentley| 164,10
73 |48-49 | Sid Abel| 162,96

This a good attempt, but there still appears to be a bias against older eras:

- The 1940s (despite only having seven seasons included) have the bottom three spots, and five of the bottom ten.

- The 1950s don't do much better. Howe's career year is barely (2.1%) better than Ovehckin's sixth best season. The 1950's have seven of the bottom 23 seasons. (Combined, the 1940s and 1950s have 13 of the bottom 23 seasons).

- I found Bobby Hull's rankings to be surprisingly low. He has seven goal-scoring titles (more than anyone else). He won six of them by 10%, and three of them were among the most dominant ever (1962, 1966, 1967). Yet he only has one season in the top 30! As an example, in 1969 he scored 54 goals, and nobody else scored more than 32. (Only 13 players scored even half as much). Yet that season is ranked behind Jonathan Cheechoo's, who was a 50-goal scorer in a season with five players who scored 50+, 11 who scored 40+, and 32 who scored 32+ (which would have been runner-up in Hull's year). I know the league more than doubled in size since 1969, but it doesn't seem reasonable that this would distort the rankings so heavily.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Even if true, it doesn't make the method incorrect

Look, I do appreciate that you went to all this time and effort to do this; however, it's just a variation of league-wide adjusted stats (instead of league-wide, it's down to 80%-league-wide) with the same weaknesses.

For example:

This a good attempt, but there still appears to be a bias against older eras:

- The 1940s (despite only having seven seasons included) have the bottom three spots, and five of the bottom ten.

- The 1950s don't do much better. Howe's career year is barely (2.1%) better than Ovehckin's sixth best season. The 1950's have seven of the bottom 23 seasons. (Combined, the 1940s and 1950s have 13 of the bottom 23 seasons).

- I found Bobby Hull's rankings to be surprisingly low. He has seven goal-scoring titles (more than anyone else). He won six of them by 10%, and three of them were among the most dominant ever (1962, 1966, 1967). Yet he only has one season in the top 30! As an example, in 1969 he scored 54 goals, and nobody else scored more than 32. (Only 13 players scored even half as much). Yet that season is ranked behind Jonathan Cheechoo's, who was a 50-goal scorer in a season with five players who scored 50+, 11 who scored 40+, and 32 who scored 32+ (which would have been runner-up in Hull's year). I know the league more than doubled in size since 1969, but it doesn't seem reasonable that this would distort the rankings so heavily.

80%-league-wide is for all intents and purposes roughly identical to using 100%-league-wide adjusted stats. There's no accounting for league strength, which would be an issue when trying to adjust for the talent-compressed O6 era. For example, the 70th most talented forward in the O6 era (a fringe NHL player) might be a fringe-second liner in the 1967-68 (not accounting for player roles and such).

If the NHL decided to double the league size to 60 teams because reasons, I'm pretty sure the average NHL player in this hypothetical 60-team league is going to be a lot lesser than the average NHL player in the current league for a long while.

 

[Namba 17]

This a good attempt, but there still appears to be a bias against older eras:
- The 1940s (despite only having seven seasons included) have the bottom three spots, and five of the bottom ten.
- The 1950s don't do much better. Howe's career year is barely (2.1%) better than Ovehckin's sixth best season. The 1950's have seven of the bottom 23 seasons. (Combined, the 1940s and 1950s have 13 of the bottom 23 seasons).

That's not bias. That's numbers, they can't be biased If 40s took the bottom three spots - it means that the 1-st goal-scorers of that epoch didn't dominate players, scored 80% of goals, as much, as players of modern time.
And I underline that these numbers don't give us an answer WHY. We just know that it was so.
We may argue if it was because of higher level of players of that time or it was because #1 goal-scorers today are better - we need more information to know that.

I found Bobby Hull's rankings to be surprisingly low. He has seven goal-scoring titles (more than anyone else). He won six of them by 10%, and three of them were among the most dominant ever (1962, 1966, 1967).

Numbers say otherwise They were not among the most dominant ever.
It doesn't take something out of Hull. It's just that.
BTW, what does 10% mean? 2-nd place?

Yet he only has one season in the top 30! As an example, in 1969 he scored 54 goals, and nobody else scored more than 32. (Only 13 players scored even half as much). Yet that season is ranked behind Jonathan Cheechoo's, who was a 50-goal scorer in a season with five players who scored 50+, 11 who scored 40+, and 32 who scored 32+ (which would have been runner-up in Hull's year).

You meant 65-66.
I'll check numbers.

I know the league more than doubled in size since 1969, but it doesn't seem reasonable that this would distort the rankings so heavily.

I don't know the reason, as I stated before. Probably it was because the league doubled. Probably were was another reason.