Better GOALscoring season: Ovie 07-08 vs Matthews 23-24

[Stephen]

Era-adjusted stats are calculated through a mathematical formula. It's not going to be perfect as things are not linear and there's a huge variety of factors, but it is purely mathematical.

Any time the era adjusted xls gets fired up, someone is motivated to support the other number.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Ovechkin also played 5:43 (2nd) on the powerplay and Matthews 3:37 (44th) and that’s what makes me lean slightly towards Matthews here along with his defensive game.



Comes down to entirely different play styles, not a lack of ‘dog’ in Matthews

This is about goal scoring only, how would you figure it’s Ovechkin easily?

This seems a tad hypocritical. You keep talking about Matthews' defensive game, yet when someone talks about how dominant Ovechkin was outside of goal scoring, you say "but this is about goal scoring only!"

Which is it?

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Specious comment when Stamkos also hit 60 goals around that time.

60 goals only happens on the regular cause Matthews is doing it on the regular. Only other guys were Pastrnak and McDavid, who is a Top 5 player of all time.

Stamkos did it 4 years after Ovechkin. Ovechkin was the only player in 16 years to do it when Stamkos barely got there.

Matthews is the first 60 goal scorer since two different guys did it last year.

 

[Stephen]

Stamkos did it 4 years after Ovechkin. Ovechkin was the only player in 16 years to do it when Stamkos barely got there.

Matthews is the first 60 goal scorer since two different guys did it last year.

Matthews was the first guy to hit 60 since Stamkos. What’s the difference?

 

[notbias]

Ovechkin scored 65 in an era where we thought 60 would never be hit again.

Matthews scored 69 in an era where 60 happens on the reg.

For me it's Ovechkin.

"Happens on the reg"... no other player hit 60 this year.

Does 100 assists happen on the reg now?

 

[Regal]

Ovechkin was always used very heavily on PP, to the point where his efficiency was not too good (though better than that of any Caps player who could have replaced him). He had enough stamina to afford this use and delivered a lot of PP goals in return.



2007-08 was in fact the best Kovalchuk's season goal-scoring-wise (he had the same 52 goals in 2005-06 as well, but scoring was much higher then). So Ovechkin gets full credit for outscoring Kovalchuk in 2007-08, it is not like outscoring Pasta this season when Pasta was not close to his peak form.

It’s not about Ovechkin’s efficiency necessarily though. The issue is that Matthews hasn’t been afforded the same opportunities due to coaching. I do believe Ovechkin’s efficiency is hurt by the number of minutes he’s usually played on the PP, but his totals also wouldn’t have been the same with considerably fewer minutes.

Ovechkin was 1st among forward in PP ice time in 07-08, whereas Matthews was 30th this year. 30th in 07-08 would have been roughly 70% of the PP time Ovechkin received. Would he have scored the same number of goals if his PP time was reduced that much? Probably not.

The point about Pastrnak was more about dismissing Reinhart. Peak Pastrnak is only 3 more goals, so again, I don’t see the point in using name value to criticize the competition. And while those 3 goals would affect Matthews’ lead over 2nd, it should be noted that Pastrnak’s year was the best 2nd place finish since scoring went up:

If we look at 2nd place finishers in recent years, you get:

Reinhart 57
Pastrnak 60
Draisaitl 55
McDavid 48 pace
Pastrnak 56 pace

Reinhart’s season is actually one of the better ones.

And then if we compare it to Kovalchuk:

Lead over 3rd: 4% Kovy, 5.5% Reinhart
Lead over 5th: 20.9% Kovy, 16.3% Reinhart
Lead over 10th: 30% Kovy, 29.5% Reinhart
Lead over 20th: 62.5% Kovy, 54% Reinhart

I don’t think Reinhart’s year stands out as being worse than Kovalchuk’s enough to focus on

 

[Xspyrit]

Any time the era adjusted xls gets fired up, someone is motivated to support the other number.

I personally don't have any agenda and always used it as a black and white thing because it is

It always depends on how rational someone can be. This is something that is limited and varies from a person to another

 

[Regal]

My opinion, but the moment the era adjusted card gets played you may as well just say whomever you like save everyone the little song and dance. It’s pseudo scientific at best, and just say what you prefer.

Seems like a pretty anti-intellectual stance tbh. I can understand not caring to get that detailed or disagreeing with how people are adjusting numbers, but it’s obvious that straight comparisons are problematic, and I think suggesting that it’s all a song and dance to just state who you prefer is a bit glib

 

[Fish on The Sand]

"Happens on the reg"... no other player hit 60 this year.

Does 100 assists happen on the reg now?

There have been 4 60 goal seasons in the last 3 seasons. When Ovechkin did it there were 0 in the previous 12.

 

[Regal]

This seems a tad hypocritical. You keep talking about Matthews' defensive game, yet when someone talks about how dominant Ovechkin was outside of goal scoring, you say "but this is about goal scoring only!"

Which is it?

He’s suggesting that abandoning his defensive game could lead to greater goal numbers, not that the season is better because of defense

 

[Caps8112]

we just did this thread not even a month ago.
07-08 Ovi was better imo. played against better goalies, dmen. Also Ovi back then was all over the ice. 07-08 Ovi would would feast on the terrible goalies of today. Stacked teams are starting Georgievs because there arent very many good goalies anymore. Thats still not a knock on Matthews who had a ridiculous year but its being compared to a time when Ovi was the best player in the world.

another aspect is that the NHL had just started cracking down on obstruction. Players get penalties today for grazing another player

 

[notbias]

There have been 4 60 goal seasons in the last 3 seasons. When Ovechkin did it there were 0 in the previous 12.

0 69 goal scorers for longer than the 65 that Ovechkin did.

 

[Stephen]

Seems like a pretty anti-intellectual stance tbh. I can understand not caring to get that detailed or disagreeing with how people are adjusting numbers, but it’s obvious that straight comparisons are problematic, and I think suggesting that it’s all a song and dance to just state who you prefer is a bit glib

The era adjusted single goals Top 100 ranking is absurd. For context, Matthews current season is weighed the same as Gretzky’s 92 goal season. Era adjustment just comes down to a proportionate share which misses so much of the picture, length of season, health, sheer mechanical repetition. The adjustments are massive, and inappropriate.

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

Now of course the difference between Matthews and Ovechkin in real life are minuscule. 4 goals in raw goals and something like 3 goals in era adjustments. So who cares, pick who you like.

But for me, era adjusted production just isn’t interesting.

 

[Despote]

Ovechkin scored 65 in an era where we thought 60 would never be hit again.

Bure had hit 60 in a lower scoring season some years back and Stamkos scored 60 in a lower scoring year a few seasons after.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

0 69 goal scorers for longer than the 65 that Ovechkin did.

From 1996 until just this season Ovechkin's 65 was the highest total, and only even approached once.

Matthews is definitely the current standard for goal scoring, but I suspect you weren't a hockey fan in 2008 to really understand just how amazing it was.

Bure had hit 60 in a lower scoring season some years back and Stamkos scored 60 in a lower scoring year a few seasons after.

Bure hit 60 most recently in 1994.

Even if you want to count his close calls they were still nearly a decade prior.

 

[notbias]

From 1996 until just this season Ovechkin's 65 was the highest total, and only even approached once.

Matthews is definitely the current standard for goal scoring, but I suspect you weren't a hockey fan in 2008 to really understand just how amazing it was.

Been a hockey fan much longer than that.

So just so I understand, you were saying it is such a feat for Ovi and his 65 because it took 12 years for someone to hit 65, but then it is less of a feat for Matthews because some people hit 60 last year, even though it took 28 years to hit 69 again...

Can you help me understand this?

 

[amnesiac]

only sometimes... other times you need to reference era-adjusted numbers and ignore 3 full games more of PP time.



I'll sum up your entire post by the "what ifs are what ifs"

You say that while referencing era-adjusted stats...

so is there any better way to compare goals and points from different scoring eras? doesn't it make a lot more sense to compare the overall league's GPG avg (ie. a real statistic) than to just saying the: goalies, sticks, defense etc etc were better or worse?

my "whats ifs" comment was in relation to injuries. Saying Bernie Nicholls would not score anywhere close to 70G in the DPE isnt a "what if", its plain logic when you look at the numbers (GPG).

 

[notbias]

so is there any better way to compare goals and points from different scoring eras?

Than just raw era-adjusted, except the eras you don't think count? Yes.

 

[authentic]

Your two paragraphs seem contradictory.

In the first saying the thread is about goal scoring only, in the second giving Matthews a style boost to his goal scoring based on two way play.



Agreed, suggesting Ovie was one dimensional ignores a huge part of his game.

No it’s that his goal scoring is all the more impressive because he doesn’t cheat for offense and actually expends energy playing defensively

 

[amnesiac]

Than just raw era-adjusted, except the eras you don't think count? Yes.

Well lets hear it if you think there is a better way. Im waiting....

once again, this is how math works. Taking numbers from a GPG avg of a much smaller sample size doesnt not compare as well as those with a much larger sample size.

If you acutally think a player's numbers from pre WW2 can be translated to 2024 just as easily as a player's numbers from 2008 to 2024, I dont know what to tell you, because theyre not. Go take a course on statistics and come back when you have a better understanding.

 

[notbias]

Well lets hear it if you think there is a better way. Im waiting....

once again, this is how math works. Taking an era with a much smaller sample size doesnt not compare as well as those with a much larger sample size.

If you acutally think a player's numbers from pre WW2 can be translated to 2024 just as easily as a player's numbers from 2008 tp 2023, I dont know what to tell you. Go take a course on statistics and come back.

But you are ignoring specific eras... that is not how math works, that is how your math works.

You have decided that pre-WW2 can't translate but eras where rules and equipment are different are fine, this doesn't seem math-based.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Been a hockey fan much longer than that.

So just so I understand, you were saying it is such a feat for Ovi and his 65 because it took 12 years for someone to hit 65, but then it is less of a feat for Matthews because some people hit 60 last year, even though it took 28 years to hit 69 again...

Can you help me understand this?

Matthews incrementally improved upon an existing standard in an era where goal scoring is at it's easiest in recent memory.

Ovechkin single handedly turned back the clock when he hit 65.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The era adjusted single goals Top 100 ranking is absurd. For context, Matthews current season is weighed the same as Gretzky’s 92 goal season. Era adjustment just comes down to a proportionate share which misses so much of the picture, length of season, health, sheer mechanical repetition. The adjustments are massive, and inappropriate.

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

Now of course the difference between Matthews and Ovechkin in real life are minuscule. 4 goals in raw goals and something like 3 goals in era adjustments. So who cares, pick who you like.

But for me, era adjusted production just isn’t interesting.

JMO but the standard for adjusted stats isn't "Are they perfect?" it's "Are they more indicative than raw stats?"

 

[amnesiac]

But you are ignoring specific eras... that is not how math works, that is how your math works.

You have decided that pre-WW2 can't translate but eras where rules and equipment are different are fine, this doesn't seem math-based.

jesus christ...... has nothing to do with equipment..... has everything to do with how many teams and players there are in the league, and what the resulting GPG avg is over an entire season.

In 1925 there were 7 teams and 30GP

2008 there were 30 teams and 82GP

2024 there is 32 teams and 82GP

do I really need to explain further why the GPG avg from 1925 will not be as "accurate" in comparison to 2024, than 2008 is to 2024?

at this point, I feel like youre just arguing for the sake of trying to get the last word here with your one line sentence answers.

Sorry that math wasnt your strong suit, but this is how statistics work. Its not an opinion, its a science.

 

[notbias]

jesus christ...... has nothing to do with equipment..... has everything to do with how many teams and players there are in the league, and what the resulting GPG avg is over an entire season.

In 1925 there were 7 teams and 30GP

2008 there were 30 teams and 82GP

2024 there is 32 teams and 82GP

do I really need to explain further why the GPG avg from 1925 will not be as "accurate" in comparison to 2024, than 2008 is to 2024?

at this point, I feel like youre just arguing for the sake of trying to get the last word here with your one line sentence answers.

Sorry that math wasnt your strong suit, but this is how statistics work. Its not an opinion, its a science.

There are many different variables... how many teams are enough teams where era-adjusted is allowed?

Were 21 teams enough? It doesn't seem like it can be compared with the current league.

I'm done with this convo, you are telling me which variables are valid and which aren't, it is insanity to continue this, it is all your opinion about when to use and not use these era-adjusted stats.