Whose 894 will be better?

[PrimumHockeyist]

It's a pretty crazy difference. What we did see back then was a greater reliance on slapshots. I wonder how Gretzky would have adapted his game with a modern stick. His slapper, while not particularly powerful, was deadly accurate and he used it a fair bit. Wish we could do some sort of time travel stuff to see what a young Gretzky would do in the modern NHL with this kind of equipment and training.

I just found this:

"According to simulations, a composite stick can generate a slapshot speed of 66.4 mph, while a wooden stick can generate a speed of 54.9 mph. This represents a difference of approximately 11.5 mph, or around 21% faster swing speed for composite sticks.
Additionally, the lighter weight of composite sticks can reduce fatigue and strain on the player’s arms and shoulders, allowing for quicker and more efficient movements on the ice."

This is the most telling thing to me. That much less time for a D-man to cover.

 

[buffalowing88]

Ovechkin is the Aaron to Gretzky's Ruth. Gretzky will always loom larger because he was done chasing this record while relatively young. Ovechkin will be 40 when he hits it.

 

[MadLuke]

This is the most telling thing to me. That much less time for a D-man to cover.

how many millisecond would that be and would it be compensated by the d-man stick being faster ?

 

[Killer Orcas]

Why would have outscored Mike Gartner goal scoring by a large amount post 1991, they were scoring at a very similar rate before the injury and he aged really well ?

I don't wanna go researching all this so I did quick search and found this. I'm sure it explains it much better then I ever could. I'll just add I'm old and watched him in his prime and he was never the same after the hit.

 

[MadLuke]

I don't wanna go researching all this so I did quick search and found this. I'm sure it explains it much better then I ever could. I'll just add I'm old and watched him in his prime and he was never the same after the hit.

yes he probably still score 40 goals for a while without it, but that does not go over 1000 necessarily. say he score 41-48-42 in 92-93-94.

You add a nice 46 goals to his career and other 35 for the rest of it, still short. He could have obviously, but not sure it necessarily happen.

 

[Killer Orcas]

yes he probably still score 40 goals for a while without it, but that does not go over 1000 necessarily. say he score 41-48-42 in 92-93-94.

You add a nice 46 goals to his career and other 35 for the rest of it, still short. He could have obviously, but not sure it necessarily happen.

You might be right but he did dramatically fall off after the hit. Maybe I have rose colored glasses for him but regardless he would have more then he finished with we can agree.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

50 goals in 39 games in the '81-82 season (which had a 4.01 GPG per team avg.) is about like scoring 34 goals in 39 games in 2013 (2.72 GPG avg.) - which, incidentally, Ovechkin exceeded (43 goals in 45 games):

Not sure if I got this straight. Are you suggesting that as far as feats are concerned, Gretzky's 50 in 39 is a lesser achievement than scoring 34 goals in 39 games, which is less than a goal a game?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Not sure if I got this straight. Are you suggesting that as far as feats are concerned, Gretzky's 50 in 39 is a lesser achievement than scoring 34 goals in 39 games, which is less than a goal a game?

In 2013. Yes. That is how enormous the scoring environment difference is from Gretzky's era to Ovechkin's era.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Scoring distribution can change quite a bit and doing it from first game of the year vs best career stretch would be both a bit different.

Gretzky once scored 66 goals in 50 games if we look at his peak stretch around that time, only Bobby Hull outscored elite competition by more I think among the 50 in 50 players

https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/gamelogs-projects-best-games-streak.2855646/

Gretzky once score 39 goals in a 25 games stretch, he could have a 50 in less than 39 I am not sure but easy to imagine.

During that 43 goals stretch in 45 games, Toews ans Steen scored 24 and 23, he outscored them by 79% and 87%

During that (just quickly picked around that time) 45 games stretch of Gretzky in which he score 59:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Ciccarelli-Maruk scored 34-32, outscore them by 73.5% and 84%..

It could be closer than the HR adjusted gap would indicate

66 in 50 is indeed a better achievement than 50 in 39 (which kind of illustrates the non-utility of focusing on 50 games beyond the era when a season was 50 games) and yet again, it's still not better than Ovechkin's best streaks.

That equates to about 45 goals in 50 games in 2013 (again, 4.01 GPG to 2.72/2.74). Ovechkin had 48 goals in 50 games in 2013.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

In 2013. Yes. That is how enormous the scoring environment difference is from Gretzky's era to Ovechkin's era.

Thanks for the reply on that.

 

[Stephen]

In 2013. Yes. That is how enormous the scoring environment difference is from Gretzky's era to Ovechkin's era.

I don't think that works emotionally or intellectually at all... having gone through a low scoring, low event era, people don't sit around and marvel at the depressed numbers and celebrate them. And how people celebrate these numbers is a big part of what makes them special.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I don't think that works emotionally or intellectually at all... having gone through a low scoring, low event era, people don't sit around and marvel at the depressed numbers and celebrate them. And how people celebrate these numbers is a big part of what makes them special.

You are free to inject emotion as part of your criteria. I've seen people openly state that Canadiens players are simply more important than players from other franchises because they matter more to their community. Anyone is free to do that, and what is there to argue with?

For me, emotion is unnecessary as part of the criteria for athletic greatness. Everything worth supporting can be supported with facts and evidence alone.

I do not know why anyone would think adjusting for scoring environment doesn't work intellectually. Certainly there are lots of people who think that way. They think adjusting for scoring environment "penalizes" or "punishes" players like Gretzky when really it simply levels the playing field across eras. Otherwise you'd have the impression that Peter Stastny (career 1.27 PPG) was a superior per-game player to Sidney Crosby (career 1.25 PPG) even though this forum doesn't even regard Peter Statstny as a top 13 player of his own generation or a top 100 player of all time. Do you think it's plausible that Stastny was better than Crosby?

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

You are free to inject emotion as part of your criteria. I've seen people openly state that Canadiens players are simply more important than players from other franchises because they matter more to their community. Anyone is free to do that, and what is there to argue with?

For me, emotion is unnecessary as part of the criteria for athletic greatness. Everything worth supporting can be supported with facts and evidence alone.

I do not know why anyone would think adjusting for scoring environment doesn't work intellectually. Certainly there are lots of people who think that way. They think adjusting for scoring environment "penalizes" or "punishes" players like Gretzky when really it simply levels the playing field across eras. Otherwise you'd have the impression that Peter Stastny (career 1.27 PPG) was a superior per-game player to Sidney Crosby (career 1.25 PPG) even though this forum doesn't even regard Peter Statstny as a top 13 player of his own generation or a top 100 player of all time. Do you think it's plausible that Stastny was better than Crosby?

When you consider this way, are all NHL seasons the same based on that goal stat? Im just wondering if that is your only benchmark or if there are others.

If so, I would think you could offer some sort of Top 10 based on this metric alone. Who would be at the top? Where would 50 in 39 fit?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think Gretzky peaked higher but Ovi’s longevity is freakish so his 894 will be better.

Gretzky really limped through the back half of his career as a goal scorer due to Suter and his shoulder issues. Amazing to think what he would have set the bar at if he’d been relatively healthy, but he wasn’t so Ovi makes up a lot of ground.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Crazy how Gretzky’s play style earned him the moniker of “playmaker” instead of “goal scorer” yet he’s the all time leader in goals. Just goes to show how insane his assist record is. It’s probably unbeatable unless the game really changes

 

[MadLuke]

Crazy how Gretzky’s play style earned him the moniker of “playmaker” instead of “goal scorer” yet he’s the all time leader in goals

While also leading the leagues in shot 4 out of 5 seasons, probably get over bourque without missing the games in 1984.

How dominant you are to be seen as a playmaker while shooting the puck 4.5 times a night. That said, was the aura of playmaker more than goalscorer more something that start with his 2 assist per game challenge season ?

Hard to imagine that when he was scoring 80 goals a year in average.

(which kind of illustrates the non-utility of focusing on 50 games beyond the era when a season was 50 games) and yet again

Would the nhl start to have 100 games seasons and all the Ovechkin records get barely broken, I feel people looking at the player did the first 82 games of their team would not feel non-utile all of a sudden.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Would the nhl start to have 100 games seasons and all the Ovechkin records get barely broken, I feel people looking at the player did the first 82 games of their team would not feel non-utile all of a sudden.

That's why adjusted stats are more indicative of accomplishment - they account for season length and other factors. This is a more useful comparison than applying a 50 in 50 to a wildly different scoring environment in a season that is 64% longer.

 

[MadLuke]

That's why adjusted stats are more indicative of accomplishment - they account for season length and other factors. This is a more useful comparison than applying a 50 in 50 to a wildly different scoring environment in a season that is 64% longer.

If the nhl decided that the 2009 season would have been the first 100 games seasons and that Crosby would have scored 66 goals, not once and you know in your heart, not once in your mind the thought to look how many goals he scored the first 82 penguins games and say that less than 65 would have never occurred.

Some interest on how many games it took to reach 65 would not have existed ?

And you would have said to people that would have looked at it that it was a strange, useless way to look at it ?

I feel that just a natural and inevitable way that some people will look at things, when there is a giant change, once the generation that lived through the change is removed from the commentary then it stop.

The 50 goals record cannot be broken cleanly with how much the nhl changed and will forever (if scoring does not change widely) a special mark same for 50 in 50, being a round number helped a lot to that. And in general statistic that do not start and stop at the best cherry-picked place are more special and cannot be compared 1:1.

 

[Stephen]

You are free to inject emotion as part of your criteria. I've seen people openly state that Canadiens players are simply more important than players from other franchises because they matter more to their community. Anyone is free to do that, and what is there to argue with?

For me, emotion is unnecessary as part of the criteria for athletic greatness. Everything worth supporting can be supported with facts and evidence alone.

I do not know why anyone would think adjusting for scoring environment doesn't work intellectually. Certainly there are lots of people who think that way. They think adjusting for scoring environment "penalizes" or "punishes" players like Gretzky when really it simply levels the playing field across eras. Otherwise you'd have the impression that Peter Stastny (career 1.27 PPG) was a superior per-game player to Sidney Crosby (career 1.25 PPG) even though this forum doesn't even regard Peter Statstny as a top 13 player of his own generation or a top 100 player of all time. Do you think it's plausible that Stastny was better than Crosby?

It’s debatable that you need to level the playing field at all. It’s the outlier accomplishments that are special in the moment, resonate emotionally, are remembered in time and are the records people try to break. The entire exercise is always trying to shave down those Gretzky years and uplift some other’s season or career, both taken out of context.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It’s debatable that you need to level the playing field at all. It’s the outlier accomplishments that are special in the moment, resonate emotionally, are remembered in time and are the records people try to break. The entire exercise is always trying to shave down those Gretzky years and uplift some other’s season or career, both taken out of context.

It seems to me adjusted stats add context as opposed to removing it.

Gretzky is firmly the greatest player in history according to hockey reference's adjusted stats. It's just that instead of it being by cartoonish margins, it's merely by enormous margins.

 

[Stephen]

It seems to me adjusted stats add context as opposed to removing it.

Gretzky is firmly the greatest player in history according to hockey reference's adjusted stats. It's just that instead of it being by cartoonish margins, it's merely by enormous margins.

Hmmm, I think we will agree to disagree.

50 goals and 50 games is a historic benchmark that goes back to the Rocket. There’s a certain continuity to that games played to goals scored originally pegged to the length of an NHL season back in 1945. As each successive generation took its hack at that mark there’s a certain resonance to hitting that mark at that pace. Kind of like the 100 m dash even though we know so much has changed.

So when you era adjust it, change the number of goals and whatever, I think something is lost.

Everyone remembers or knows the reference to the Gretzky mark of 50 goals. In only 39 games. He knew it when he hit the mark. Ovi, whatever pace he was at in 2013 under the circumstances he played in, in the league shortened season, it doesn’t resonate.