The "Goals vs. Assists" thing...

[The Panther]

The 'Ovechkin's Future Legacy' thread (which appears to be neither about Ovechkin's legacy nor the History of Hockey) has opened up some kind of weird debate about "goals vs. assists".

While I thought it was beyond obvious to any intelligent observer that last-touches of pucks that go in the net (i.e., goals) and passes that create situation whereby teammates are able to last-touch pucks into the net (i.e., assists) are both hugely important, there is seemingly an "either-or" kind of debate going on.

The assertion was made, for example, that less-than-highly-skilled (maybe AHL-level) players could score 25 goals in the NHL in an ideal situation, whereas no such player could ever post 60 assists (or whatever).

So, just looking at this in historical terms and trying to establish how "difficult" it is to achieve certain scoring feats (goals vs. assists) in post-expansion (starting from 1967-68) NHL history, I came up with this:

NHL 1967-68 to today:

90+ goal seaons = 1
140+ assist seasons = 1
____________________________

76-89 goal seasons = 6
120-135 assist seasons = 5
____________________________

70-73 goal seasons = 7
100-118 assist seasons = 8
____________________________

65-69 goal seasons = 11
92-98 assist seasons = 11
____________________________

61-64 goal seasons = 10
89-97 assist seasons = 11
____________________________

60 goal seasons = 8
87 assist seasons = 7
____________________________

57-59 goal seasons = 13
84-86 assist seasons = 12
____________________________

56 goal seasons = 12
81-83 assist seasons = 9
____________________________

55 goal seasons = 13
78-80 assist seasons = 17
____________________________

54 goal seasons = 17
76-77 assist seasons = 17
____________________________

So, ignoring position / era (and ignoring the Gretzky-factor as well), we could perhaps say that the above totals, as grouped, are roughly equivalent 'accomplishments' in terms of how rarely they occur. I'm too lazy to break it down beyond 54 goals and 76-77 assists (which might be more interesting), but anyone who has time / means is welcome to do so!

Now, were any of these higher-scoring seasons achieved by non-elite / non-All Star players? Possibly candidates (parentheses for ones who are kind of borderline):

54 goals = Zach Hyman, Rick Vaive, Al Secord (Dave Andreychuk)
76-77 assists = Dennis Maruk

55 goals = John Ogrodnick, Rick Kehoe (Jimmy Carson)
78-80 assists = (Doug Weight, Phil Housley, Bernie Nicholls)

56 goals = Jonathan Cheechoo, Blaine Stoughton (Craig Simpson, Danny Gare)
81-83 assists = (Craig Janney)

57-59 goals = (Sam Reinhart)
84-86 assists = (Jonathan Huberdeau)

60 goals = Dennis Maruk (Steve Shutt)
87 assists =
61-64 goals = (Reggie Leach)
89-97 assists =

65-69 goals = (Lanny McDonald)
92-98 assists =

70-73 goals = (Bernie Nicholls)
100-118 assists =
____________________________

These are just rough equivalents and not meant to prove anything conclusively, but it appears that elite-level goal seasons are somewhat more likely to appear than elite-level assist seasons (at least according to historical frequency-comparisons). And the Gretzky-assist factor might skew these comparisons a bit in the sense of making elite-assist seasons even harder to achieve.

To those saying that lower-level players can't put up big goals-numbers in the NHL... Uh, remember Dave Lumley scoring 32 goals? Warren Young scoring 40 goals? Bob Probert scoring 29 goals? Patrick Maroon scoring 27 goals, fairly recently? (And if your response is, "yeah, that's because they played with Gretzky / Lemieux / Yzerman / McDavid, then YES, that just proves the importance of assists in creating goals.)

At no point in NHL history is an AHL-level "plug" ever going to score 50 goals in a season, but in the high-scoring era we've seen highly forgettable players do it (Stoughton; Bullard). And I think in all eras we can see "good-but-fairly-nondescript" players score 40+ goals in a season: Bill Flett, Lowell MacDonald, Blair MacDonald, Dave Taylor, Warren Young, Brian Sutter, Mike Krushelnyski, Troy Murray, Mark Hunter, Rob Brown, John MacLean, Brian Bradley, Geoff Sanderson, Glen Murray, Brian Gionta, Jeff O'Neill, Brad Boyes, Jeff Carter, Cam Atkinson, Elias Lindholm, etc.

Then, can a relatively lesser player put up, say, 60+ assists in a season? This gets tricky because I would tend to think defenceman (who are on the PP) have a much greater advantage to achieving this than goal-scoring forwards (who are mainly wingers) have. 60 assists has been achieved 435 times in NHL post-expansion history, which is roughly equivalent to how many times 42 goals has been achieved. On the surface these might appear equal, but according to my point (just preceding) I think it would make more sense to compare forwards to forwards only (defenceman weren't scoring 40+ goals in any seasons, excepting Orr and Coffey a few times).

Among forwards (post-expansion), 60 assists has been achieved 352 times, which is roughly equivalent to 44-goal seasons. Anyway, non-overly celebrated (so to speak) forwards who've achieved 60 assists include: Pit Martin, Mike Rogers, Brent Sutter, Paul MacLean, Dan Quinn, Robert Thomas (all the preceding made 60 exactly and no more), Andre Boudrias, Ron Schock, Tim Young, Bob MacMillan, Blake Dunlop, Dennis Maruk, Michal Pivonka, John Cullen, and Blake Wheeler.

As goals go, it's rare to see non All-Star names beyond about the high-40s in goals in a season, but there are several exceptions, mostly in the high-scoring era, of course (Jacques Richard, Mike Bullard, etc.).

The general rule with assists seems to be after about 65-assists in one season, you don't see any (or many) non-All Star names, but there are some in the higher scoring periods. And other than maybe Dunlop and Maruk (the latter in the highest-scoring season since the 1920s), I didn't see any non-All Star types over 70 assists in a season, as you'd expect.

 

[maddskkilz]

Sorry but this whole premise is a bit ridiculous. There is a point where goals are easier to come by versus assists. Setting the benchmark at 50 assists to 25 goals is arbitrary and meaningless.

We all watch the games and see plenty of great passes that aren’t finished. That speaks to the difficulty of finishing. There are plenty of instances where the pass directly results in the goal and assists are attached to goals. But There is also plenty of skill involved in scoring, shooting, deking to finish. There are so many instances of a player getting a near phantom assist for having it bounce off his skate or chipping the puck out. I am not saying these assists are not essential to the goal, I am saying that without elite finishing ability the assist does not materialize.

Scoring goals consistently is a difficult difficult thing to do. Having a one off 25, 30, 40 goal season is an aberration and in a game influenced as much by luck and variations there are bound to be instances of players going on a run.

Players hitting 50 assists is great but again assists only get tallied if a player finishes and that consistent, high level finishing ability is the crucial part

 

[The Panther]

Sorry but this whole premise is a bit ridiculous. There is a point where goals are easier to come by versus assists. Setting the benchmark at 50 assists to 25 goals is arbitrary and meaningless.

We all watch the games and see plenty of great passes that aren’t finished. That speaks to the difficulty of finishing. There are plenty of instances where the pass directly results in the goal and assists are attached to goals. But There is also plenty of skill involved in scoring, shooting, deking to finish. There are so many instances of a player getting a near phantom assist for having it bounce off his skate or chipping the puck out. I am not saying these assists are not essential to the goal, I am saying that without elite finishing ability the assist does not materialize.

Scoring goals consistently is a difficult difficult thing to do. Having a one off 25, 30, 40 goal season is an aberration and in a game influenced as much by luck and variations there are bound to be instances of players going on a run.

Players hitting 50 assists is great but again assists only get tallied if a player finishes and that consistent, high level finishing ability is the crucial part

You may have misunderstood my post. I was not arguing for goals over assists or for assists over goals. (I thought I made clear that I think that sort of argument is rather silly.)

 

[MadLuke]

Not sure why it would be particular weird debate among debate that can go on talking hockey or the premise being ridiculous (what the premise talked about too ?)

 

[The Panther]

Not sure why it would be particular weird debate among debate that can go on talking hockey or the premise being ridiculous (what the premise talked about too ?)

The debate itself isn't weird, but when people take extreme positions (as with most things) akin to: 'Goals are clearly the main thing and that's all there is to it!" (or vice-versa), it gets very anti-intellectual.

 

[Overrated]

The debate itself isn't weird, but when people take extreme positions (as with most things) akin to: 'Goals are clearly the main thing and that's all there is to it!" (or vice-versa), it gets very anti-intellectual.

That is a rather rare position in ice hockey. Such comments are maybe made among soccer fans by some. Most people either say goals are more important than points overall or that points are more indicative of a player's ability than goals. I've yet to see someone disregard points all together.

If such position was common so many people wouldn't call McDavid the greatest of all time when he was 69th in goals this very season.

 

[Randyne]

While I thought it was beyond obvious to any intelligent observer that last-touches of pucks that go in the net (i.e., goals) and passes that create situation whereby teammates are able to last-touch pucks into the net (i.e., assists) are both hugely important, there is seemingly an "either-or" kind of debate going on.

You can read all boards. Almost all posters on losing side write the same thing - just shoot the puck. They never post - just pass the puck.
Passing is 99% of actions in hockey, when there are no goals passing is 100% of actions in hockey. In last case all those zillion passes were absolutely useless. Only goals give significance to passes and convert them to assists. Sometimes assist is not even a requirement to create a goal.
And if secondary assist was a truly secondary, goalscorers would have more points than they have (and so called playmakers would have less assists than they have). Goalscorers secondary assists on their scored goals are not counted like they never existed.

 

[Troubadour]

Passing is 99% of actions in hockey, when there are no goals passing is 100% of actions in hockey.

No goals = no shots? Sure you wanna think again.

In last case all those zillion passes were absolutely useless

Or it could mean that all those shots (they always happen you know) were absolutely useless.

The main problem of this topic is it requires willingness to think and not confusing shots with goals and passes with assists.

 

[Troubadour]

Sometimes assist is not even a requirement to create a goal

Which does not mean goals exist in a vaccuum, and, on the contrary, it could mean that assisted goals are way easier to score, hence most of the goals are assisted. So yeah, most of the goals are a direct or indirect result of the assist work.

Just want to say this:

When I started watching hockey and for about fifteen years after, snipers (unless they were Lemieux) were considered a secondary echelon of stars, and it were the playmakers (at center or off the wing) who were widely considered the best players in the game.

Maurice Richard Trophy was the Peter Bondra, Keith Tkachuk type of achievement. Not even Selanne or Bure were quite it.

Then Ovi/Sid came along and suddenly, goals were the most important part of the players' resumes for about a half of the fans engaged, because they can be scored without assists or something. Gotta think about why there are so many more assists than goals then, haha.

 

[Crosby2010]

Let's take a season like this.

50 goals 55 assists for 105 points
vs.
30 goals 80 assists for 110 points

Which season is better? I think ideally we are all likely going to take the player with 50 goals. That being said, there comes a time when point totals and assists just totally override the goal totals.

For example in 1991:
Gretzky - 41 goals 122 assists for 163 points
Hull - 86 goals 45 assists for 131 points

Hull won the Hart and somehow the Pearson that year too. I get it, voter fatigue for Gretzky and such. But there is no way Gretzky didn't have a better season that year. You can maybe argue the Hart, since it involves different requirements, but the Pearson? That is literally for the player who had the best year. 86 goals or not, Hull didn't have a better year than the Great One. To a lesser extent McDavid in 2022 had a better year than Matthews but lost the Hart, Pearson and 1st team all-star. 17 points separated them, 60 goals for Matthews was a sexy number, but McDavid was still the better player that year. But they favoured goals. I think you favour goals when the points are close to one another but not when there is clear separation.

 

[Overrated]

Unassisted goals should be also worth more, not in the point system per se, but it should influence the rankings of players. It makes sense because every goal is worth the same but some goals lead to three points being awarded one to each of the three players responsible to a goal yet some other goals lead to just one point being awarded (the one player who scored the unassisted goal).

 

[Michael Farkas]

So, like, turning and ripping one 150 feet into an empty net...?

 

[JackSlater]

I do think that there is a creeping "Goals >>>>" in hockey media lately, don't know why exactly but it's usually not the more reasonable sources. As far as goals versus assists, I will agree that on the average one goal is more impressive than one assists, but we have points already and points almost always create a more accurate offensive picture in my opinion.

 

[Overrated]

So, like, turning and ripping one 150 feet into an empty net...?

More like forcing a turnover and then scoring without passing...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ok, so you're going to get a lot of weight on shorthanded goals...more so than a poorly run fantasy hockey league haha

Also, this would almost certainly vault Lemieux towards the top of the heap (Gretzky would do well too relative to his current "standing" for many). Also, most of the pre 1950 scorers, in part because of how the game was played, and in another part because of how much harder assists were to come by in that time.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The 'Ovechkin's Future Legacy' thread (which appears to be neither about Ovechkin's legacy nor the History of Hockey) has opened up some kind of weird debate about "goals vs. assists".

While I thought it was beyond obvious to any intelligent observer that last-touches of pucks that go in the net (i.e., goals) and passes that create situation whereby teammates are able to last-touch pucks into the net (i.e., assists) are both hugely important, there is seemingly an "either-or" kind of debate going on.

The assertion was made, for example, that less-than-highly-skilled (maybe AHL-level) players could score 25 goals in the NHL in an ideal situation, whereas no such player could ever post 60 assists (or whatever).

So, just looking at this in historical terms and trying to establish how "difficult" it is to achieve certain scoring feats (goals vs. assists) in post-expansion (starting from 1967-68) NHL history, I came up with this:

NHL 1967-68 to today:

90+ goal seaons = 1
140+ assist seasons = 1
____________________________

76-89 goal seasons = 6
120-135 assist seasons = 5
____________________________

70-73 goal seasons = 7
100-118 assist seasons = 8
____________________________

65-69 goal seasons = 11
92-98 assist seasons = 11
____________________________

61-64 goal seasons = 10
89-97 assist seasons = 11
____________________________

60 goal seasons = 8
87 assist seasons = 7
____________________________

57-59 goal seasons = 13
84-86 assist seasons = 12
____________________________

56 goal seasons = 12
81-83 assist seasons = 9
____________________________

55 goal seasons = 13
78-80 assist seasons = 17
____________________________

54 goal seasons = 17
76-77 assist seasons = 17
____________________________

So, ignoring position / era (and ignoring the Gretzky-factor as well), we could perhaps say that the above totals, as grouped, are roughly equivalent 'accomplishments' in terms of how rarely they occur. I'm too lazy to break it down beyond 54 goals and 76-77 assists (which might be more interesting), but anyone who has time / means is welcome to do so!

Now, were any of these higher-scoring seasons achieved by non-elite / non-All Star players? Possibly candidates (parentheses for ones who are kind of borderline):

54 goals = Zach Hyman, Rick Vaive, Al Secord (Dave Andreychuk)
76-77 assists = Dennis Maruk

55 goals = John Ogrodnick, Rick Kehoe (Jimmy Carson)
78-80 assists = (Doug Weight, Phil Housley, Bernie Nicholls)

56 goals = Jonathan Cheechoo, Blaine Stoughton (Craig Simpson, Danny Gare)
81-83 assists = (Craig Janney)

57-59 goals = (Sam Reinhart)
84-86 assists = (Jonathan Huberdeau)

60 goals = Dennis Maruk (Steve Shutt)
87 assists =
61-64 goals = (Reggie Leach)
89-97 assists =

65-69 goals = (Lanny McDonald)
92-98 assists =

70-73 goals = (Bernie Nicholls)
100-118 assists =
____________________________

These are just rough equivalents and not meant to prove anything conclusively, but it appears that elite-level goal seasons are somewhat more likely to appear than elite-level assist seasons (at least according to historical frequency-comparisons). And the Gretzky-assist factor might skew these comparisons a bit in the sense of making elite-assist seasons even harder to achieve.

To those saying that lower-level players can't put up big goals-numbers in the NHL... Uh, remember Dave Lumley scoring 32 goals? Warren Young scoring 40 goals? Bob Probert scoring 29 goals? Patrick Maroon scoring 27 goals, fairly recently? (And if your response is, "yeah, that's because they played with Gretzky / Lemieux / Yzerman / McDavid, then YES, that just proves the importance of assists in creating goals.)

At no point in NHL history is an AHL-level "plug" ever going to score 50 goals in a season, but in the high-scoring era we've seen highly forgettable players do it (Stoughton; Bullard). And I think in all eras we can see "good-but-fairly-nondescript" players score 40+ goals in a season: Bill Flett, Lowell MacDonald, Blair MacDonald, Dave Taylor, Warren Young, Brian Sutter, Mike Krushelnyski, Troy Murray, Mark Hunter, Rob Brown, John MacLean, Brian Bradley, Geoff Sanderson, Glen Murray, Brian Gionta, Jeff O'Neill, Brad Boyes, Jeff Carter, Cam Atkinson, Elias Lindholm, etc.

Then, can a relatively lesser player put up, say, 60+ assists in a season? This gets tricky because I would tend to think defenceman (who are on the PP) have a much greater advantage to achieving this than goal-scoring forwards (who are mainly wingers) have. 60 assists has been achieved 435 times in NHL post-expansion history, which is roughly equivalent to how many times 42 goals has been achieved. On the surface these might appear equal, but according to my point (just preceding) I think it would make more sense to compare forwards to forwards only (defenceman weren't scoring 40+ goals in any seasons, excepting Orr and Coffey a few times).

Among forwards (post-expansion), 60 assists has been achieved 352 times, which is roughly equivalent to 44-goal seasons. Anyway, non-overly celebrated (so to speak) forwards who've achieved 60 assists include: Pit Martin, Mike Rogers, Brent Sutter, Paul MacLean, Dan Quinn, Robert Thomas (all the preceding made 60 exactly and no more), Andre Boudrias, Ron Schock, Tim Young, Bob MacMillan, Blake Dunlop, Dennis Maruk, Michal Pivonka, John Cullen, and Blake Wheeler.

As goals go, it's rare to see non All-Star names beyond about the high-40s in goals in a season, but there are several exceptions, mostly in the high-scoring era, of course (Jacques Richard, Mike Bullard, etc.).

The general rule with assists seems to be after about 65-assists in one season, you don't see any (or many) non-All Star names, but there are some in the higher scoring periods. And other than maybe Dunlop and Maruk (the latter in the highest-scoring season since the 1920s), I didn't see any non-All Star types over 70 assists in a season, as you'd expect.

It’s interesting data but your logic is somewhat circular.

You are relying on the reputations of players - much of which is based on point totals (which is driven ~ 72% more by assists than goals) and using that to justify the talent of players with higher assist totals.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Let's take a season like this.

50 goals 55 assists for 105 points
vs.
30 goals 80 assists for 110 points

Which season is better? I think ideally we are all likely going to take the player with 50 goals. That being said, there comes a time when point totals and assists just totally override the goal totals.

For example in 1991:
Gretzky - 41 goals 122 assists for 163 points
Hull - 86 goals 45 assists for 131 points

Hull won the Hart and somehow the Pearson that year too. I get it, voter fatigue for Gretzky and such. But there is no way Gretzky didn't have a better season that year.

I don’t think that’s accurate - not outside the realm of possibility. It’s only inconceivable based on this assists = goals assumption.

If primary assists are adjusted to .75 and secondary assists are adjusted to .1, then Hull pulls ahead. Neither of these adjustments are outside the realm of reason.

 

[Johnny Engine]

It'd be interesting to know how unassisted goals actually break down in real life, as there are:
- great defensive plays that turn into individual efforts
- individual efforts that start with a simpler loose puck retrieval
- really bad turnovers to guys who just happen to be standing there
- empty net goals
- nothing plays that the goaltender botches
- credited goals, whether from an own goal, a thrown stick or what have you.

Anyway, I feel like I created a monster here, but for me the enemy is folksy nonsense used as a premise...

 

[MadLuke]

For example in 1991:
Gretzky - 41 goals 122 assists for 163 points
Hull - 86 goals 45 assists for 131 points

To that example to a very gross simple level, if we look at goal their teams scored when the player were on the ice, Gretzky was on the ice for 30 more goals than Hull, coincidence that he had 30 more points ? Better teammate ? more ice time ? Or generating ~30 more goals of offense and points is a good proxy when you talk about points difference between 2 players scoring more than 100 ?

 

[MadLuke]

I don’t think that’s accurate - not outside the realm of possibility. It’s only inconceivable based on this assists = goals assumption.

If primary assists are adjusted to .75 and secondary assists are adjusted to .1, then Hull pulls ahead.

Those type of numbers are attempt at league wide approximation.

If goal scored is an average .5 goal created, primary assists .35, secondary .15 ,etc .....

But say an average good first line center playing for the 1991 Kings would have scored 75 points (a Turgeon-Damphousse-Nicholls-Gilmour-Broten type of production of that year, put you top 30-35 overall in scorer league wide.

Replacing him by a 160 pts Gretzky mean the team scored ~85 more goals at least more than they would have with a competent number one C instead, regardless of the assists-goals splits.

If we take a rare example where we have some glimpse on point impact on team production, Mario Lemieux in 91-92 and 92-93 combined, missed 40 games, played 124 games.

The Penguins scored 4.64 goals a game with Lemieux, without Lemieux they scored 3.38 goal a game.

Ron Francis scored at a 1ppg rate those seasons, Lemieux scored at a 1.35 ppg those season, the offensive gap between with vs without Lemieux was 1.26 goal a game.

Assists-secondary assists, has lower value in the thought that the goal would have still occurred if instead of player X it was a replacement level player that was on the ice, same goes for power play points, if that specific player would not have scored maybe they still score anyway for the rest of the 2 minutes and a lot of power play assists or a play that any Top 9 player in the league would have done, you were just the one getting those minutes.

But any extra marginal point that would have not occurred with a regular player, mean an extra goal pop-up and with player that score more than a ppg a large portion of their points will tend to be.

In Lemieux case, instead of a competent first liner bar in real life his minutes were taken by Mullen-Francis and a mix of a bit more ice time for a Jagr, he was probably more adding 1.5-1.6 goal to his team versus regular replacement than the 1.26 that actually occurred.

kings replaced 55 goals-107 points Carson by 168 points Gretzky, they scored 58 mores goals.

 

[WarriorofTime]

How about Matthews vs. Panarin 2023-24? Both great seasons, Matthews did better in hart ballot.

 

[MadLuke]

Matthews is a strong 2 way center.

In 2023-2024 at 5v5 his team outscored the opposition 3.92 GF to 2.56, Panarin was 3.43 to 2.72.

All the points difference between the 2 are from the powerplay and to Panarin credit the Rangers team had an all-time good 26.5% PP that year with his play and special team advantage probably explain in good part the 114 points seasons versus the Leafs 102.

Matthews playing with Marner vs Panarin doing it with Lafreniere is a big plus for Panarin here (but he had an elite cast on the Power play, the situation he outscored Matthews).

 

[WarriorofTime]

Matthews is a strong 2 way center.

In 2023-2024 at 5v5 his team outscored the opposition 3.92 GF to 2.56, Panarin was 3.43 to 2.72.

All the points difference between the 2 are from the powerplay and to Panarin credit the Rangers team had an all-time good 26.5% PP that year with his play and special team advantage probably explain in good part the 114 points seasons versus the Leafs 102.

Matthews playing with Marner vs Panarin doing it with Lafreniere is a big plus for Panarin here (but he had an elite cast on the Power play, the situation he outscored Matthews).

True. How much Matthews rep is driven by two-way vs. 69 goals isn’t a clear thing. Playmaker wings don’t seem to get overly high love so a lot seems like a center thing too.

 

[wetcoast]

No goals = no shots? Sure you wanna think again.




Or it could mean that all those shots (they always happen you know) were absolutely useless.

The main problem of this topic is it requires willingness to think and not confusing shots with goals and passes with assists.

The main problem with the topic is that for most proponents on one side it's just a single player narrative and when confronted with other example they deflect.

Hockey also isn't just about scoring goals or even getting assists there is a lot going on with total play and defending too.

I guess the simplest way to put it is that both guys who were tied for 3rd in goals this year were arguably both outside of the top 20 or even 30 forwards, although Tage might be on the cusp, Ovi wasn't even a top 50 forward this year if you break down his play but people doing fantasy hockey instead of real hockey.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I guess the simplest way to put it is that both guys who were tied for 3rd in goals this year were arguably both outside of the top 20 or even 30 forwards, although Tage might be on the cusp, Ovi wasn't even a top 50 forward this year if you break down his play but people doing fantasy hockey instead of real hockey.

Odd to make such a definitive and matter of fact statement when your position is an extreme minority one

Thread 'How good is Ovechkin league wide this season ?'

Apr 6, 2025

Currently, where does Ovechkin rank as a player?

Not all time. At this point in time, this day, this season.

Statistically he’s great. 2nd in goals/game, third in goals overall. 18th in points/game.

However just by the eye test he doesn’t look great. He doesn’t drive play. His skating is bad. His stick handling is nonexistent. On just the caps, there are probably 3 or 4 players who are more impactful. But the caps are the best team in the league so not every team has 3 players better than him.

But regardless, because he’s still the best shooter in the league, he is always one flick of...

• 895
• Replies: 28
• Forum: Polls - (hockey-related only)

• 

Poll is player not forward as well. If limit to just forward might just be you and like two other guys that would say not a top 50 forward.