Will Ovechkin hit 20 goals this season?

[Strangle]

If you think so.

“Goals not worth the same in 1982 as in 1999”

And

“What does this have to do with the thread”

If you think scoring a goal in a league where the average team scores 2.7 goals per game is the same as scoring a goal in a league where the average team scores 4 goals per game is the same, then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course you don’t, you are living in another world where reality doesn’t seem to exist.

It’s a fantasy land where Gretzky is the 9th best goal scorer in NHL history. It’s not real

I wouldn’t expect you to be able to come back to reality

 

[Midnight Judges]

Of course you don’t, you are living in another world where reality doesn’t seem to exist.

It’s a fantasy land where Gretzky is the 9th best goal scorer in NHL history. It’s not real

I wouldn’t expect you to be able to come back to reality

Who said Gretzky is the 9th best goal scorer in history?

 

[Strangle]

To the contrary, there are many:

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

1. Alex Ovechkin (974), 2. Gordie Howe (925), 3. Jaromír Jágr (841), 4. Wayne Gretzky (758), 5. Teemu Selänne (741), 6. Brett Hull (738), 7. Jarome Iginla (706), 8. Brendan Shanahan (672), 9. Phil Esposito (671), 10. Sidney Crosby (666)

www.hockey-reference.com

View attachment 806180

Who said Gretzky is the 9th best goal scorer in history?

Look at the various ‘all time’ rankings on the chart you posted, Gretzky is anywhere from 6th to 9th on various ones. I just picked one

 

[Bear of Bad News]

“Goals not worth the same in 1982 as in 1999”

And

“What does this have to do with the thread”

Yes:

"It took more goals to purchase an average victory in 1982 than in 1999"

and

"What does this have to do with whether or not "Ovechkin will score 20 goals this year?""

And I guess your answer to one was that goals are goals (no shit but not responding to what I said) and your answer to two was that yes, we're way off topic here.

So thanks, I guess.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

no one agrees, you will never hear anyone around the game try to claim this, especially in 10-20 years. it will always be boring cope

they might remember that time he couldn't get to 20 goals in a season tho

Nothing will be as bad as his 2010-2012 campaign, in the height of his prime, where he regressed like crazy, saw his goal scoring dip, then his assist rate of 50 average per season for 5 seasons get cut in half. Then rebrands himself into a goal scoring specialist.

 

[Strangle]

Yes:

"It took more goals to purchase an average victory in 1982 than in 1999"

and

"What does this have to do with whether or not "Ovechkin will score 20 goals this year?""

And I guess your answer to one was that goals are goals (no shit but not responding to what I said) and your answer to two was that yes, we're way off topic here.

So thanks, I guess.

That isn’t how we count goals. We don’t have games that go 2.67 to 0.97 for the visiting team based on a 3.0 gpg median.

It’s just not how we assign value to a goal

 

[Bear of Bad News]

That isn’t how we count goals. We don’t have games that go 2.67 to 0.97 for the visiting team based on a 3.0 gpg median.

It’s just not how we assign value to a goal

I understand that it's not how *you* assign value to a goal, but it needs to be a consideration. Individual goals have less value in high-scoring eras than in low-scoring eras.

Feel free to take your victory lap next - I promised that I wasn't going to do this once again, on a Friday not less. No one changes their mind.

 

[wetcoast]

If that were true, you could quote me. Feel free to do it.



Peak Ovechkin is objectively superior and the stats show it.

Wrong thread as the 2008 in his peak isn't the 8 goals as off right now and if he gets to 20 goals.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Nothing will be as bad as his 2010-2012 campaign, in the height of his prime, where he regressed like crazy, saw his goal scoring dip, then his assist rate of 50 average per season for 5 seasons get cut in half. Then rebrands himself into a goal scoring specialist.

I'm always amused how when Ovechkin scored 30-some goals and 80-some points (as Ovechkin did in 2011), Crosby fans want to dump on him.

But when Crosby basically did it for four years straight (2015-2018), it's somehow regarded as good.

 

[JackSlater]

If you don't like adjusted stats, there still remains many other stats that point to Ovechkin as the greatest goal scorer - such as the number of times he led the NHL (9), and the raw goal total differences between him and his peer group, and the number of 50 goal seasons, and the number of 50 goal seasons vs their peer group while they were in the NHL.

Edit: Of course, you responded to my post quicker than you could have possibly examined even a fraction of the data I provided. Maybe you are simply closed off to the idea?

The 50 goal threshold seems very arbitrary (basically going back to Richard in 1944) but I agree that you don't need adjusted totals to make Ovechkin's case. I'd put him as the top goal scorer ever because he led the NHL in goal scoring more than anyone else did and his peak as a goal scorer is as good as anyone's has ever been. How his totals arguably adjust doesn't matter. No one matches his combination of peak and consistency when it comes to scoring goals in the NHL.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The 50 goal threshold seems very arbitrary (basically going back to Richard in 1944) but I agree that you don't need adjusted totals to make Ovechkin's case. I'd put him as the top goal scorer ever because he led the NHL in goal scoring more than anyone else did and his peak as a goal scorer is as good as anyone's has ever been. How his totals arguably adjust doesn't matter. No one matches his combination of peak and consistency when it comes to scoring goals in the NHL.

Yeah I agree the 50 goal threshold is dynamic by era. But I think if you look at that threshold and the number of times it was achieved in a specific era, that can give some context. For example, in Wayne Gretzky's first 15 seasons, 50 goals in a season was achieved 122 times. For Ovechkin, that number is 22, and 8 of those were Ovie.

Even for people who hate adjusted stats, the significant difference in the scarcity of that threshold being achieved ought to tell them something.

 

[wetcoast]

TSN: Ovechkin’s goal-scoring record chase slows to a concerning crawl

Travis Yost: Alex Ovechkin’s goal-scoring record chase slows to a concerning crawl | TSN

Alexander Ovechkin is no longer defying the aging curve, which forces us to rethink the 38-year-old Russian sniper’s chase of the NHL’s all-time goal-scoring record, currently held by the venerable Wayne Gretzky. Travis Yost has more.

www.tsn.ca

This is obviously just hate speak propagated by a Canadian and I suspect also a Pens fan...right?

Maybe Ovi surges with 12 or more goals in his last 39 games, maybe he doesn't but does it even matter his place in history is already set.

Many will have Ovi as the top goal scorer of all time, possibly even the majority and most will have him as a top 10-15ish player and definitely as a top 5 winger as high as #2.

At this point he isn't going to pass anyone else on any all time lists.

 

[filinski77]

I understand that it's not how *you* assign value to a goal, but it needs to be a consideration. Individual goals have less value in high-scoring eras than in low-scoring eras.

Feel free to take your victory lap next - I promised that I wasn't going to do this once again, on a Friday not less. No one changes their mind.

This Strangle guy is completely out to lunch on adjusted stats debates (and I've tried multiple times with him). He's either not able to comprehend the theory of relativity, or he's happy living in ignorance.

Here's 3 easy questions for the crowd that refuses to acknowledge adjusting (acknowledge it at all, not necessarily taking the numbers as gospel).

1) Is someone that makes $1.1 million in 2023 richer (or is it better) than someone who made $1.0 million in 1980?

2) Crosby had a dominant 2013/2014 season with 104 points (2nd place was 87 points). Do you think a peak Crosby would have 'only' been tied for 9th in the 2022/2023 scoring race? Or to switch that question, did Pastrnak/Draisaitl/Kucherov/Mackinnon/Robertson/Tkachuk/Rantanen/Nuge all have better seasons than Crosby did simply because they had more points?

3) I think he's a leafs fan, so to put Matthews in perspective: Matthews in 2022 had his career year (1st in goals, 3rd in points/gp, and his /gp was VERY close to McDavid). Were 8/9/10/11th place 1993 point/gp players Kevin Stevens, Doug Gilmour, Robitaille, Recchi all better that year than Matthews was in 2022 (point production only) simply because of bigger numbers?

 

[Strangle]

I understand that it's not how *you* assign value to a goal, but it needs to be a consideration. Individual goals have less value in high-scoring eras than in low-scoring eras.

Feel free to take your victory lap next - I promised that I wasn't going to do this once again, on a Friday not less. No one changes their mind.

It has nothing to do with ‘me’. It’s not how the NHL assigns value to a goal. Its how some nerd who couldn’t understand Gretzky decided everyone should assign value to a goal.

Some people really have bought into it.

Why anyone would feel the need to change someone’s mind about how goals are counted just flies way above my head. We have the stats.

What purpose does adjusted stats have, other than to normalize NHL scoring against a median and why do people think NHL goals need to be normalized to begin with?

I think it’s because Gretzky destroyed every offensive stat the league measured and new fans need a cope to somehow understand why their favorite player can’t score like he did.

 

[Midnight Judges]

3) I think he's a leafs fan, so to put Matthews in perspective: Matthews in 2022 had his career year (1st in goals, 3rd in points/gp, and his /gp was VERY close to McDavid). Were 8/9/10/11th place 1993 point/gp players Kevin Stevens, Doug Gilmour, Robitaille, Recchi all better that year than Matthews was in 2022 (point production only) simply because of bigger numbers?

Clearly everyone was simply better back then. And this somehow includes the defensemen who were giving up those massive totals lol.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It has nothing to do with ‘me’. It’s not how the NHL assigns value to a goal. Its how some need who couldn’t understand Gretzky decided everyone should assign value to a goal.

It's absolutely how the NHL assigns value to a goal.

If you score three goals in a 6-3 loss, your goals are worth zero.

If you score three goals in a 3-2 victory, your goals are worth quite a bit.

This is the NHL's decision, not mine (and not yours). They count the number of goals each team scores in a game and assign value to the team that has more of them. This should be obvious.

The objective of hockey is TO WIN GAMES, not (necessarily) to score goals (despite what the forwards in my beer league think).

If you don't think that this matters at all, then you are wrong.

 

[Strangle]

It's absolutely how the NHL assigns value to a goal.

If you score three goals in a 6-3 loss, your goals are worth zero.

If you score three goals in a 3-2 victory, your goals are worth quite a bit.

The objective of hockey is TO WIN GAMES, not (necessarily) to score goals (despite what the forwards in my beer league think).

If you don't think that this matters at all, then you are wrong.

I know what point you’re trying to make here, but the goals players score in a loss still count. They were scored, they are immortalized on hockey cards and official NHL stat pages by official NHL stat keepers.

I remember as a child having a similar thought, but it didn’t take my young and underdeveloped brain long to realize how stupid it was:

“why end a game at 3-2? 4 of those goals cancel each other out. The game should end 1-0, because that’s the difference in the goals scored. The remaining 4 goals aren’t relevant to the result of the game, only the differential is”

That’s just an extension of what you’re saying now. Every time someone ties the game, just restart the score at 0-0. Brilliant

 

[filinski77]

It has nothing to do with ‘me’. It’s not how the NHL assigns value to a goal. Its how some need who couldn’t understand Gretzky decided everyone should assign value to a goal.

Some people really have bought into it.

Why anyone would feel the need to change someone’s mind about how goals are counted just flies way above my head. We have the stats.

What purpose does adjusted stats have, other than to normalize NHL scoring against a median and why do people think NHL goals need to be normalized to begin with?

I think it’s because Gretzky destroyed every offensive stat the league measured and new fans need a cope to somehow understand why their favorite player can’t score like he did.

"Why anyone would feel the need to change someone’s mind about how goals are counted just flies way above my head. We have the stats."
Nobody is changing how goals are counted. The issues are when ignorant people go "wow bigger number better, so player better"

"What purpose does adjusted stats have, other than to normalize NHL scoring against a median and why do people think NHL goals need to be normalized to begin with?"
It's for comparability purposes. For example: we all know that 88 points is more than 87 points. But Brian Bellows 88 points in 1993 when he finished 34th in league scoring is nowhere near as good as Jamie Benn's 1st place finish in 2015 of 87 points.

The crowd (like yourself) that refuses to acknowledge any sort of adjusted context is admitting the opposite of the above example. It's completely ludicrous.

TLDR: Bigger number =/= better.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If you're going to insist on equating my point to something a "young and underdeveloped brain" would come up with, then GTFO with the personal attacks.

f*** that.

 

[stranger]

Classy of the Caps coach to give Oshie a chance for the hattrick over the record hunt! Should be said Ovi was out there at a shift at 3 minutes where Blues could have pulled the goaltender early, so it could have went either way in that sense! With Ovy returning from injury they probably would not want him to play for 4 minutes straight at the end!

Ovi is currently an empty net specialist. Embarrassing.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm not going to wade into this beyond this level because I'm tired of it and it doesn't seem to change anyone's mind anyhow.

The reason adjusting for era is important is because the objective of hockey is not to score goals. The objective of hockey is to win games. And yes, one key way to accomplish this is to score goals.

However, in some eras it takes more goals to "buy" one win than it does in other eras. And it's important to recognize that.

Is it often done poorly? Yes. Much of the History forum's best efforts have been debates over various ways to do this in the least-poor fashion.

But it's important to recognize that individual goals weren't worth as much in 1982 as they were in 1999.

I'm also not sure why it matters in a thread titled "Will Ovechkin hit 20 goals this season?".

Thanks for saving me the effort. I was going to post pretty much the same thing.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

I'm always amused how when Ovechkin scored 30-some goals and 80-some points (as Ovechkin did in 2011), Crosby fans want to dump on him.

But when Crosby basically did it for four years straight (2015-2018), it's somehow regarded as good.

They're talking about the 11-12 season where Ovechkin had 65 points in 78 games. Crosby's never had a season that poor.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Thanks for saving me the effort. I was going to post pretty much the same thing.

Hopefully your brain doesn't get called young and underdeveloped.

 

[Midnight Judges]

They're talking about the 11-12 season where Ovechkin had 65 points in 78 games. Crosby's never had a season that poor.

Sure he has. Crosby scored a paltry 37 points that very same season.

Ovechkin could have sat out with his injuries, but he played through them and added value to his team. This idea that you would hold him in higher regard had he sat out runs counter to real life.

No player in history is measured by their worst seasons, except for the much-hated Ovechkin of course. No Canadian or Pens fan ever brings up Bobby Hull's 56 points at age 22, or Gordie Howe's 62 points at age 26, or Sidney Crosby scoring at a .89 PPG and .31 GPG in 62 playoff games from age 24-28.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Not that I want to get dragged into this debate either, but I'll offer an analogy. The purpose of earning money isn't to get the highest figure possible, it's to maximize your buying power. It's obviously true that, holding everything else constant, getting a raise is good. $100K in income is better than $80K in income. But when you're comparing financial data from different times and places, a straight-up comparison can be misleading. Is a $50K income good? If we're talking about $50K, in US dollars in 1980, you're doing well. If we're talking about $50K, in Canadian dollars in 2024, not so much. $50K USD in 1980 buys you vastly more (in terms of a housing, food, vehicles, entertainment) than $50K Canadian today. Anyone suggesting "a dollar is a dollar, no matter what you eggheads say!" fundamentally doesn't understand the premise.

The same analogy is true for goals. It costs more (in terms or goals) to win a hockey game in, say, 1982 compared to today. That's why it's misleading to compare stats across eras without taking this into account. 60 goals buys you far more wins today than it did 40 years ago.

Obviously, the mechanics of how to make these adjustments are open to interpretation. (This is also true in the case of financial data - inflation and purchasing power parity are estimates, and people won't always agree on how they're calculated). But we shouldn't pretend that there are no differences, just because there's some judgment in how to account for those differences.