Who is the best goal scorer of all time and who are the top 10 all time in order?

[norrisnick]

Well, this person isn't looking for raw stats. It's easy to sort by goals and call it, so if ability is just "one piece", it must be the vast majority of it or else there isn't much to discuss, right?

So, at what point does longevity stop being a factor? If Ovechkin quit five years ago...would people wonder if he's a top 5 (or whatever) goal scorer because he isn't out there traipsing around still?

Jagr, who you sort of backdoor brought up, played 24 seasons in the NHL...I don't think longevity is the question. He's 4th all time in goals as a result...not a lot of "Jagr" entries on these lists though.

Proper talent evaluation is always the way to go. I'm not saying take a guy that played 12 games before film or anything...but I don't see a lot of Mike Gartner answers either for some reason...

At the same ages that Lemieux was sipping drinks around the links during his sabbatical (32-34), Ovechkin won 3 goal scoring titles. Being the best in the league at the skill being discussed is of importance. Call it compiling if you want, but if you're compiling goal scoring titles I think that's ok.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh, I see, it's Mario stuff. It's not about "compiling" or not, there isn't anything new or interesting in Ovechkin's game now versus 2019. So, it doesn't matter to me for the question at hand.

Assuming he comes out with more of the same this year, it won't change my opinion because I've already seen this player to the fullest extent. Whether he quits tomorrow, has a 0 goal season, has a 42 goal season, breaks the record, ties the record, falls one short, whatever it is, has no bearing any longer for me unless a trivia question comes up about where he falls on the goals list.

Like I said, he could have quit five years ago too, I'd still have him way, way up on the list in terms of goal scorers as it pertains the thread. Hell, he could have quit a good ten years ago and I don't think it would have changed all that much. I got it.

If there is some positive adaptability to the game, then that's interesting...but otherwise, meh...it's like Connor McDavid having a six point night against Kingston in the last regular season of his draft year...like, "you didn't already make up your mind about him already? You don't already have all your notes? It's a game against Kingston that altered something...?"

 

[Midnight Judges]

Um... no.

I am saying that Lemieux at his best was better than Ovechkin at his best.

Do you rank Ray Whitney higher than Pavel Bure?

Ovechkin's peak goal scoring season adjusts higher than any season by Mario Lemieux:

NHL & WHA Single Season Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

1. Brett Hull (78), 2. Alex Ovechkin (72), 3. Mario Lemieux (71), 4. Cooney Weiland (70), Phil Esposito (70), 6. Wayne Gretzky (69), 7. Babe Dye (68), Wayne Gretzky (68), Steven Stamkos (68), Auston Matthews (68)

www.hockey-reference.com

Ovechkin has the highest raw total and the highest adjusted total of his era. Lemieux has neither.

Anyway, if you remove the 2011 and 2012 seasons, Ovechkin's GPG (the metric you cited) increases. You realize that, right?

In other words, by that measure he's held in higher regard if he quits for those seasons rather than leading his team in points and goals.

 

[Midnight Judges]

He certainly didn't. Would his goal scoring ability be better or worse if he did?

The ability is better if the player rests. Injuries reduce ability, and virtually all players who play sustain injuries.

 

[K Fleur]

I see adjusted stats are back to being important today and not fantasy.

Wonder why

 

[Midnight Judges]

I see adjusted stats are back to being important today and not fantasy.

Wonder why

Because accounting for environmental differences is logical and adjusted stats do a reasonable job of it.

Otherwise you end up with bizarre outcomes, such as the illustrious Dennis Maruk having a way higher peak than Sidney Crosby.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Because accounting for environmental differences is logical and adjusted stats do a reasonable job of it.

Otherwise you end up with bizarre outcomes, such as the illustrious Dennis Maruk having a way higher peak than Sidney Crosby.

Nothing you've said is inconsistent, the snarkiness directed towards you is unwarranted. PPG is a tool to assess performance just not an end all, when looked side by side with performance, be all for defining value.. specifically with players consistently on the shelf. Adjusting will always have merit because of drastically different scoring environment, which is just stats not fantasy.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Ability is but one piece. What you do with it is what matters. Longevity, IMO does factor into a measure of best. Otherwise Joe Malone hit the peak in 1920 and it's been all downhill since.

What does Lemieux quitting for 3 years have to do with his ability to score goals?

Ovechkin's peak goal scoring season adjusts higher than any season by Mario Lemieux:

NHL & WHA Single Season Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

1. Brett Hull (78), 2. Alex Ovechkin (72), 3. Mario Lemieux (71), 4. Cooney Weiland (70), Phil Esposito (70), 6. Wayne Gretzky (69), 7. Babe Dye (68), Wayne Gretzky (68), Steven Stamkos (68), Auston Matthews (68)

www.hockey-reference.com

Ovechkin has the highest raw total and the highest adjusted total of his era. Lemieux has neither.

Anyway, if you remove the 2011 and 2012 seasons, Ovechkin's GPG (the metric you cited) increases. You realize that, right?

In other words, by that measure he's held in higher regard if he quits for those seasons rather than leading his team in points and goals.

If Ovechkin was so much better than Lemieux(Or Gretzky), why did he never score more than 65 goals in a season?

Because accounting for environmental differences is logical and adjusted stats do a reasonable job of it.

Otherwise you end up with bizarre outcomes, such as the illustrious Dennis Maruk having a way higher peak than Sidney Crosby.

Dennis Maruk never won a scoring title.

 

[MadLuke]

Ovechkin's peak goal scoring season adjusts higher than any season by Mario Lemieux:

When he go into adjusted territory and a single goal difference (72-71) I think we can use the word tie and under that metric, it does not help us much to go one way or the other.

Player	G/A	Season
Alex Ovechkin	72	2007-08
Mario Lemieux*	71	1988-89
Mario Lemieux*	67	1995-96
Alex Ovechkin	62	2012-13
Alex Ovechkin	60	2014-15
Mario Lemieux*	59	1987-88
Alex Ovechkin	59	2008-09

Or adjusted per HR goal per game does it look something like this (not a rhetorical question, not sure my math is right with the to 82 games season adjusting going on):

Mario Lemieux*	0.96​	1995-96
Mario Lemieux*	0.96​	1992-93
Mario Lemieux*	0.91​	1988-89
Alex Ovechkin	0.88​	2007-08
Alex Ovechkin	0.84​	2019-20
Alex Ovechkin	0.76​	2009-10
Alex Ovechkin	0.76​	2012-13
Mario Lemieux*	0.75​	1987-88
Alex Ovechkin	0.75​	2008-09
Alex Ovechkin	0.74​	2013-14
Alex Ovechkin	0.74​	2014-15
Alex Ovechkin	0.72​	2015-16
Mario Lemieux*	0.68​	1996-97
Alex Ovechkin	0.64​	2005-06
Alex Ovechkin	0.64​	2018-19

Does it goes against the notion Mario the best, Ovechkin the greatest at it ? Seem perfectly in line with it.

 

[Professor What]

If Ovechkin was so much better than Lemieux(Or Gretzky), why did he never score more than 65 goals in a season?



Dennis Maruk never won a scoring title.

By your logic, if Crosby is so much better than Maruk, how come he never scored 136 points in a season?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Midnight Judges]

When he go into adjusted territory and a single goal difference (72-71) I think we can use the word tie and under that metric, it does not help us much to go one way or the other.

I could go along with that. It's reasonable enough. This is a 1.4% difference. I seriously doubt adjusted stats are anywhere near that accurate.

Player	G/A	Season
Alex Ovechkin	72	2007-08
Mario Lemieux*	71	1988-89
Mario Lemieux*	67	1995-96
Alex Ovechkin	62	2012-13
Alex Ovechkin	60	2014-15
Mario Lemieux*	59	1987-88
Alex Ovechkin	59	2008-09

Or adjusted per HR goal per game does it look something like this (not a rhetorical question, not sure my math is right with the to 82 games season adjusting going on):

Mario Lemieux*	0.96​	1995-96
Mario Lemieux*	0.96​	1992-93
Mario Lemieux*	0.91​	1988-89
Alex Ovechkin	0.88​	2007-08
Alex Ovechkin	0.84​	2019-20
Alex Ovechkin	0.76​	2009-10
Alex Ovechkin	0.76​	2012-13
Mario Lemieux*	0.75​	1987-88
Alex Ovechkin	0.75​	2008-09
Alex Ovechkin	0.74​	2013-14
Alex Ovechkin	0.74​	2014-15
Alex Ovechkin	0.72​	2015-16
Mario Lemieux*	0.68​	1996-97
Alex Ovechkin	0.64​	2005-06
Alex Ovechkin	0.64​	2018-19

Does it goes against the notion Mario the best, Ovechkin the greatest at it ? Seem perfectly in line with it.

It depends on if you think durability is exclusive from the quality of the player. It seems to me durability is a virtue in all professional sports. It's a prerequisite for "better" and a necessary characteristic. Reaching to a per game stat in this instance doesn't really achieve anything aside from the desire to ignore a key player attribute.

IMO, the per season metric is more indicative.

To put a guy with 3 goal scoring titles over a guy with 9, you have to really really want it.

 

[Midnight Judges]

By your logic, if Crosby is so much better than Maruk, how come he never scored 136 points in a season?

You can't have it both ways.

The average offensive output of a team in '81-82 was 3.95 goals.

For most of Crosby's career it's been closer to 2.7.

In other words, scoring was 46% higher back then. It's a huge difference that ought to be considered.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Honest question: If this was a thread about the 10 fastest skaters if you've ever seen, would you factor in seasons played...?

 

[Professor What]

The average offensive output of a team in '81-82 was 3.95 goals.

For most of Crosby's career it's been closer to 2.7.

In other words, scoring was 46% higher back then. It's a huge difference that ought to be considered.

I'm not actually arguing that Maruk is better than Crosby. But for one comparison he used raw statistics without context, but not for the other. It was inconsistent.

 

[MadLuke]

To put a guy with 3 goal scoring titles over a guy with 9, you have to really really want it.

And scored 56 goals his first 66 playoff games before turning 30 (70 goals per 82 pace, during high level-stake playoff hockey), 11 in 9 during the 1987 canada cup.

That's 67 goals in 75 big games, with death focus opposition, those are a bit soccer striker type of numbers, 133 goals his last juniors season, it is not just based on 3 regular seasons in the nhl. He was first in gpg in 1987 and first in 2001, 14 years later.

9 scoring title > 3, making one much greater at it than the other, best at scoring a goal during a game, it is still possible to have a conversation.

 

[Gorskyontario]

By your logic, if Crosby is so much better than Maruk, how come he never scored 136 points in a season?

You can't have it both ways.

My logic is that Maruk never won a major award.

Crosby certainly has.

Honest question: If this was a thread about the 10 fastest skaters if you've ever seen, would you factor in seasons played...?

No, I would not.

 

[Professor What]

My logic is that Maruk never won a major award.

Crosby certainly has.

If that's your logic, you're still inconsistent. Ovechkin has led the league in goals more than anyone else has. More goalscoring awards than anybody else. You're trying to put him down as though he can't be a better goal scorer than Gretzky or Lemieux because of raw numbers. There is a strong argument for him ahead of them. You might not subscribe to it, but it's there.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Honest question: If this was a thread about the 10 fastest skaters if you've ever seen, would you factor in seasons played...?

“Fastest” is an objective criteria. We can look at which skater achieved the highest mph and make an objective determination. We cannot make an objective determination about something like “best”. We can use objective data to reach a subjective opinion.

Like asking “who is the best team ever?” versus which team had the best winning (or point) percentage?

 

[Michael Farkas]

“Fastest” is an objective criteria. We can look at which skater achieved the highest mph and make an objective determination. We cannot make an objective determination about something like “best”. We can use objective data to reach a subjective opinion.

Like asking “who is the best team ever?” versus which team had the best winning (or point) percentage?

Sure, you can almost do that for the last 20 minutes. That leaves out a lot of hockey history. It also leaves out non-NHLers. It also leaves out important sub-factors that could make up fastest. Anyway, blah blah blah...objective...subjective...it does nothing for the question. A player that plays one game in the NHL and registered a 0.01 MPH higher speed than a 7-year vet...what's the answer really?

Anyhow, without getting bogged down in courtroom shenanigans, change my question to "best skater", which is the spirit of the situation to begin with...

 

[WarriorofTime]

Sure, you can almost do that for the last 20 minutes. That leaves out a lot of hockey history. It also leaves out non-NHLers. It also leaves out important sub-factors that could make up fastest. Anyway, blah blah blah...objective...subjective...it does nothing for the question. A player that plays one game in the NHL and registered a 0.01 MPH higher speed than a 7-year vet...what's the answer really?

Anyhow, without getting bogged down in courtroom shenanigans, change my question to "best skater", which is the spirit of the situation to begin with...

Best of a more specific skill I.e. best wrist shot is probably a better comparable.

 

[MadLuke]

it certainly a fair argument to make, even at sprinting, what made Bolt by far the best was the ability to always deliver (in a sport that constant injury, issue, extreme level of no second chance any bad single second finishing your run, false start and what not made it that no one did in the past).

Even if someone was ever faster for its time in something we can clock, being someone that can do it all the time, virtually never loosing an important race for like 9 years in a row that what obviously make him the greatest, but could also be the best. No one finished first at the olympics in a row before or since (before disqualification), Bolt did it 3 time.

Ovechkin won 9 rocket he his the best, relatively easy math.

A need a goal and I can have summer 87 to 93 Lemieux, motivated, somewhat mobile, I take him, does that make him the best ?

But we are quite in the semantic here, people can try to engage with do I take that Lemieux if a need a goal or 2008-2011 Ovechkin or not with arguments or just talk about career accomplishment.

 

[wetcoast]

The ability is better if the player rests. Injuries reduce ability, and virtually all players who play sustain injuries.

Except that's not how it works with like anything.

Take any activity and stop doing it for 3 years then come back to it....you aren't simply better because of rest if anything you are rusty.

There are arguments for Ovi but this certainly isn't a very good one at all.

 

[Gorskyontario]

If that's your logic, you're still inconsistent. Ovechkin has led the league in goals more than anyone else has. More goalscoring awards than anybody else.

I just don't consider rockets that important considering the caps sacrifice other offense to feed him goals.

Iginla won the art ross in 01-02 in a similar manner. The flames were out so they blew the rest of their season even more feeding Iginla as many points as possible. Ovechkin has done that since like 2011.

“Fastest” is an objective criteria. We can look at which skater achieved the highest mph and make an objective determination. We cannot make an objective determination about something like “best”. We can use objective data to reach a subjective opinion.

Like asking “who is the best team ever?” versus which team had the best winning (or point) percentage?

So why did Ovechkin never break 70 goals? If he's better than Lemieux.

 

[WarriorofTime]

it certainly a fair argument to make, even at sprinting, what made Bolt by far the best was the ability to always deliver (in a sport that constant injury, issue, false start and what not made it that no one did in the past).

Even if someone was ever faster for its time in something we can clock, being someone that can do it all the time, virtually never loosing an important race for like 9 years in a row that what obviously make him the greatest, but could also be the best. No one finished first at the olympics in a row before or since (before disqualification), Bolt did it 3 time.

Ovechkin won 9 rocket he his the best, relatively easy math.

A need a goal and I can have summer 87 to 93 Lemieux, motivated, somewhat mobile, I take him, does that make him the best ?

But we are quite in the semantic here, people can try to engage with do I take that Lemieux if a need a goal or 2008-2011 Ovechkin or not with arguments or just talk about career accomplishment.

Yes Michael Phelps may not have any records anymore but is still considered the best swimmer by probably everybody. You just can’t say the “fastest” in any particular event which would be the world record holder.

 

[The Panther]

Sometimes we need to take a breath and remember that Hockey Ref.'s "Adjusted Stats" are not actually, you know, real stats. One has to -- at minimum -- apply a little context and logic to them. They are certainly useful, as I said upthread, to give us 'ballpark figures' of how historical seasons might look under "normal" scoring conditions in an 82-game schedule... but that is all. (The flaws of adjusted stats are numerous and have been discussed many times in other threads.)

As I explained already, over a 636 / 676-game span in each's prime, Lemieux and Ovechkin scored (respectively) 0.88 goals per game (171 point pace) and 0.63 goals per game (93 point pace). That's a difference of 20 goals per season (and 78 points per season) -- over eight seasons -- in favor of Lemieux.

Now, the adjusted stats will tell us -- as @MadLuke showed, above -- that Lemieux also had not one but three peak goals-per-game seasons better than Ovechkin's best single season of 2007-08. (Lemieux isn't alone in having three seasons peaking higher than Ovechkin, either -- I would say Gretzky and Hull Jr. did, also, and it's probably debatable about Richard, Hull Sr., Esposito...)

In addition, we know that Lemieux did quite well (as @MadLuke , again, summarized nicely, above) in high-level international competition as a goal scorer. Conversely, Ovechkin has been relatively disappointing in this particular area.

Further, although both were superior playoff goal-scorers, I would say Lemieux in his prime (not 2001) was better than Ovechkin. From 1989 to 1997 (seven playoffs), Mario scored 70 goals in 89 games. Discounting the past three underwhelming playoffs, Ovechkin from 2008 to 2020 (twelve playoffs) scored 69 goals in 136 games. That's 1 fewer goal than Lemieux in 47 more games. Sure, we can "adjust" that discrepancy down somewhat per era, but Lemieux still wins easily.

So, let's add up the factors I'm taking into consideration here:

1) In each's best years, Lemieux scored 20 more *raw* goals per 82 games than Ovechkin. Adjusting that down for scoring environments, the difference is of course a lot closer, but Lemieux still wins.

2) In international hockey, Lemieux was clearly a better goal scorer.

3) In the NHL playoffs, Lemieux was clearly a better goal scorer.

4) While being a slightly better goal-scorer, Lemieux was also putting up 60-70-80 more points per season than Ovechkin. This obviously suggests that if Lemieux had played more like a winger than a center (i.e., less focus on playmaking), he almost surely would have scored more goals. (The same certainly applies to Gretzky's younger seasons, too.)

I understand that point (4) is pure speculation and not based on actual results, but when the preceding three important points that are based on actual results show Lemieux ahead in each category, I think then the context of each player's style / role also needs to be taken into consideration.

Anyway, the topic of "best goal scorer" is always a fun thread topic because there are different ways to look at it and not really a clear 'winner' when all points are taken into consideration. Again, much of this comes down to what one values most in players.

As I've stated many times on here, I'm less impressed by good aging and longevity than many people are, and I'm more impressed by (what I call) a player's "consistent prime", by which I mean consecutive seasons in a row at an elite level. Lemieux himself falters somewhat in this area, as he wasn't able to stay in the line-up long enough to put together a lot of elite and full seasons in a row. But overall he certainly played enough games, had enough full or near-full seasons, and was elite as a goal-scorer long enough (basically Jan. 1985 to April 2001, which is over sixteen years in span, albeit with many missed games/seasons) that I generally consider him the best goalscorer in hockey history.

Finally, I hope that certain Ovechkin-enthusiasts will note that I am not dissing the great man by rating him at the second-best goal scorer in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE SPORT.