Ovechkin's 65 and Gretzky's 92

[Poignant Discussion*]

Another telling sign is that after the 1994 season Gretzky only managed to score 25 goals in his best season. He never hit the 50 goal mark after 1989 which coincides with goal scoring dropping.

You look at Selanne and Mogilny scoring 76 at the beginning of their careers and then never following that up.

Simply put: 65 was much harder than 92 and its evident by the stats these players put up later on.

And Gretzky with the new training methods and new equipment would have scored 120 goals back then. Flawed argument

 

[Balance]

And Gretzky with the new training methods and new equipment would have scored 120 goals back then. Flawed argument

That makes no sense

 

[ted2019]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=116775357&postcount=19

Ovechkin with 5 seasons in the top 20 is ridiculous.

 

[Doctor No]

That makes no sense

It's consistent with your argument, so take them both or take neither.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

might want to also factor the elimination of 2 line offside, 4 on 4 hockey, far less hitting, 30 years of watching tape on Gretzky to see how he does his magic, better food, better equipment, and better training ...........oh and rubber band sling shot hockey sticks.

Also goaltenders that do more than just stand there

 

[BraveCanadian]

They are pretty close.. the crazy thing is Gretzky put up 120 assists while having a goal scoring season that is among the candidates for best of all time.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

It's consistent with your argument, so take them both or take neither.

No it's not. There are statistical data that indicate that it's objectively more difficult to score in the NHL now than 30 years ago. There are no statistical data that indicate the effect of "modern training" on performance.

 

[Crosbyfan]

No it's not. There are statistical data that indicate that it's objectively more difficult to score in the NHL now than 30 years ago. There are no statistical data that indicate the effect of "modern training" on performance.

Someone really needs to do a study. Need a few NHL volunteers to try this...

 

[One Blurred Eye]

They are pretty close.. the crazy thing is Gretzky put up 120 assists while having a goal scoring season that is among the candidates for best of all time.

Indeed--on top of taking faceoffs and attending to the other elevated-responsibilities inherent to his position. Not to paint him as a two-way beast or anything but, how many goals might he have scored had goals alone been his competitive focus that season? Hasn't he indicated some regret about not trying harder for 100? Just crudely applying Ovechkin's % of goals to total points to Gretzky's would give him 123 goals. Absurd. Even factoring in Gretzky's supporting cast, I think his 92 is far more impressive, partially for the simple possibility that it could easily have been considerably higher if the Great One had only willed it.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Indeed--on top of taking faceoffs and attending to the other elevated-responsibilities inherent to his position. Not to paint him as a two-way beast or anything but, how many goals might he have scored had goals alone been his competitive focus that season? Hasn't he indicated some regret about not trying harder for 100? Just crudely applying Ovechkin's % of goals to total points to Gretzky's would give him 123 goals. Absurd. Even factoring in Gretzky's supporting cast, I think his 92 is far more impressive, partially for the simple possibility that it could easily have been considerably higher if the Great One had only willed it.

Some great points that get overlooked.

 

[One Winged Angel]

I would have love to have seen what Gretzky would have done if he actually cared about strength and conditioning the way players care about it these days. Smartest player to ever play the game hands down and in terms of physical gifts, he's nowhere near the top of the class.

Think about what he could have done if he had today's training methods and tools. They could have improved his skating ten-fold and his shot would have been even better.

I would love to see what today's superstars and goaltenders would do with yesterday's tools and training methods.

 

[heretik27]

I would have love to have seen what Gretzky would have done if he actually cared about strength and conditioning the way players care about it these days. Smartest player to ever play the game hands down and in terms of physical gifts, he's nowhere near the top of the class.

Think about what he could have done if he had today's training methods and tools. They could have improved his skating ten-fold and his shot would have been even better.

I would love to see what today's superstars and goaltenders would do with yesterday's tools and training methods.

Gretzky? How about Mario? The guy was huge and didn't take his fitness seriously at all. Not to mention players before his era smoked regularly lol..

 

[Kuz]

I could definetely see prime Ovechkin score more than 90 in the 80s. One of the reasons are the depth are a lot better than in the 80s. More americans and Europeans are playing while back in the days teams brought a lot of goons with 0 hockey skill just to fight. The star players also got a lot more ice time and the speed and intensity of the game was lower because of longer shift and worse conditioning.

In goals he would definetely give Gretzky a race for 1st, but in assist and overall game etc Gretzky would of course beat him as he is number 1 hockey player all time only challenged by Lemieux who could have been at Gretzky level without injuries.

 

[One Blurred Eye]

I would have love to have seen what Gretzky would have done if he actually cared about strength and conditioning the way players care about it these days. Smartest player to ever play the game hands down and in terms of physical gifts, he's nowhere near the top of the class.

Think about what he could have done if he had today's training methods and tools. They could have improved his skating ten-fold and his shot would have been even better.

I would love to see what today's superstars and goaltenders would do with yesterday's tools and training methods.

I guess the thing with that is, Gretzky was constantly practicing or studying the game. Gretzky's gift wasn't that he automatically knew how to play hockey, but that he had the love, desire and self-discipline to make it seem that way. The more time and energy you put into the gym is time and energy away from the cerebral and skill components that defined his legacy. I think at best it's a wash--and maybe a bigger, stronger, faster Gretzky doesn't see the game as well, or have quite control over the stick and puck and flow of the game as he did. A bigger, stronger Gretzky probably takes more penalties, and probably has to scrap a bit. It'd have changed the way he approached the game. I could easily see it diminishing his totals as much as making them more preposterous.

Then again, maybe a bigger, stronger Gretzky remains undiminished after a Suter cheapshot, and he plays another five years or more than he did. Maybe his individual seasons go down but his career totals go up even more. But there's physical costs to carrying the extra mass on the joints, the increased likelihood of training injuries, etc. too, which could have easily shortened his career or steepened his decline, all of which conspires to make applying a training factor a dubious proposition indeed.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I would have love to have seen what Gretzky would have done if he actually cared about strength and conditioning the way players care about it these days. Smartest player to ever play the game hands down and in terms of physical gifts, he's nowhere near the top of the class.

Think about what he could have done if he had today's training methods and tools. They could have improved his skating ten-fold and his shot would have been even better.

I would love to see what today's superstars and goaltenders would do with yesterday's tools and training methods.

Gretzky worked on his hockey conditioning by playing hockey.

He had a single-minded focus on hockey. This idea that he was a skinny slow weakling is approaching caricature levels.

Gretzky had exceptional endurance and recovery, outstanding quickness and agility etc.

Being a bulky gym rat may make you able to bench more but it doesn't necessarily make you a better hockey player.

Ovechkin hardly looked like a model of fitness himself a couple of years ago when he was still popping 50 in this league.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

Era adjustments count for a lot, but I'm not sure they close the gap of a 27 goal difference between Gretzky and Ovechkin.

If you nerfed Gretzky's best season down to what it would look like in an age of better goalies, bigger equipment, bigger/faster players, and better defensive systems...what does he go from, 215 points to 170? 160? His goal totals drop maybe to 75 or 70 goals? Those would be MASSIVE dropoffs and still get him past Ovie.

So many variables involved here. Training and diet like other people mentioned, but also that Ovie plays in an era where the level of play was directly influenced and evolved by Gretzky. Ovie would have to be similarly influential in terms of how he gets his goals, in order to be comparable, and he isn't. I think Brett Hull/Ovie is the better comparison as far as goal scoring.

The whole "different eras" thing gets blown out of proportion anyway. 44 year old broken down Jaromir Jagr led the 2016 Panthers in scoring. 24 year old Jagr would pee on this entire league, and that Jagr finished with less points than 36 year old "Barely Give An F" Gretzky in the 96-97 season.

Prime Gretzky would still be wrecking everybody in goals and points, the totals just wouldn't be the same. Only the distance between him and everybody else.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

Gretzky worked on his hockey conditioning by playing hockey.

He had a single-minded focus on hockey. This idea that he was a skinny slow weakling is approaching caricature levels.

Gretzky had exceptional endurance and recovery, outstanding quickness and agility etc.

Being a bulky gym rat may make you able to bench more but it doesn't necessarily make you a better hockey player.

Ovechkin hardly looked like a model of fitness himself a couple of years ago when he was still popping 50 in this league.

Patrick Kane is a shrimp of a man-boy, and he led the league in scoring last year by a mile. I would beat Kane within an inch of his life in a street fight. He's a frail little turd. But the man can play!

 

[puckpilot]

The whole "different eras" thing gets blown out of proportion anyway. 44 year old broken down Jaromir Jagr led the 2016 Panthers in scoring. 24 year old Jagr would pee on this entire league, and that Jagr finished with less points than 36 year old "Barely Give An F" Gretzky in the 96-97 season.

I was just about to make this point using Jagr, too.

Jagr played in the dead puck era. In 00-01 he scored 52G 69A when the league goal average was 2.76, which is lower than when Ovi scored his 65. But very comparable in terms of being Ovi like numbers. So IMHO Jagr in his prime produced similarly to Ovi.

Why is this important? That's the same year Mario Lemieux made his come back after 3 years out of hockey.

What did Mario do? In 43 games he had 35G 41A. And this is an over the hill Mario with a bad back and way slower feet. Over the course of an 82 game schedule, that translates into aprox 67G 145pts. A little on the low side of what Mario could produce in his prime.

In 95-96 when goals were 3.14 Mario in 70games scored 69G 161pts. If you do the adjustment. It's still a 61G 142pt season.
Jagr in the same year 62G 149pts. Doing the adjustment that's still 55g 132pts.

What does this all mean? To me, it means that no matter the era, players like Mario, Jagr, and Gretzky, in their primes, would produce pretty much at the same rate as they always did. Maybe a little lower. Maybe a little more, but not by much.

In addition I think this shows that statistical adjustments like this are flawed. Jagr produced at around the same rate even when goals were really high.

So as it relates to this thread, to me Gretzky's 92 goals is still more impressive.

 

[Keaver]

07/08 GPG: 2.78
81/82 GPG: 4.01

65 / 2.78 * 4.01 = 93
93 > 92

But is that fair to Gretzky. How much did his 92 goals raise the league GPG? I don't know how to calculate what league average GPG would have been if you remove Gretzky's 92 and then adjust again for era.

Multiply total number of games by GPG then remove 92 and the divide by total number of games. Do this again with Ove to get league GPG minus the 2 league leading goal scorers.

 

[JFHockey]

Multiply total number of games by GPG then remove 92 and the divide by total number of games. Do this again with Ove to get league GPG minus the 2 league leading goal scorers.

Why talk about math when doing math is so much more fun!

30 teams * 82 games / 2 teams per game = 1230 games per season (it takes two teams to play one game)

1230 * 2.78 gpg = 3419 goals

3419 - 65 = 3354 goals

3354 / 1230 = 2.73 gpg

Ovie single handedly raised gpg by 0.05

By the Power of Math!

 

[AcerComputer]

The best regular-season goal-scoring statistical result in NHL history is Brett Hull of St.Louis in 1990-91.

1981-82 isn't even Gretzky's best goal-scoring season, though if you're going to compare it to 2008 or whatever, I think there's more than just average-GPG to look at. In 1982, basically all NHL teams had prolific second-lines (many of which scored more than today's first lines). Since that didn't exist in 2008, it's quite unfair to Gretzky's 92 (or, more impressively, his 87 in 74 games in 1984) to just look at League-wide GPG.

A tidbit about Brett Hull in 1990-91: in addition to being the best regular-season goal-scoring statistical result in NHL history, I believe Hull in 1990-91 is also the most NHL (regular season) games in which one player (Hull) scored 1 or more goals. He scored at least one goal in 56 NHL games in that regular season (and never scored more than 3 in one game).


(Of course, Hull's 1990-91 likely isn't even one of the top-20 seasons in history overall --and he was outscored by his teammate that same season -- but that's getting off-topic...)

I'm confused by these statements. Not sure what I am missing but:
Brett Hall in 1990-91 scored 86 goals in 78 games = 1.103 GPG
W. Gretzky 1981-82 scored 92 goals in 80 games = 1.150 GPG
W. Gretzky 1983-84 scored 87 goals in 74 games = 1.176 GPG

So "statistically" GPG goes to Gretzky. Best single season for goals, again Gretzky.

In Hull's 1990-91 he scored 86 goals, but was not outscored teammates, who were 27 and 25 goals.

 

[Doctor No]

I'm confused by these statements. Not sure what I am missing but:
Brett Hall in 1990-91 scored 86 goals in 78 games = 1.103 GPG
W. Gretzky 1981-82 scored 92 goals in 80 games = 1.150 GPG
W. Gretzky 1983-84 scored 87 goals in 74 games = 1.176 GPG

So "statistically" GPG goes to Gretzky. Best single season for goals, again Gretzky.

In Hull's 1990-91 he scored 86 goals, but was not outscored teammates, who were 27 and 25 goals.

Don't forget J. Malone 1917-18 scored 44 goals in 20 games = 2.200 GPG.

If you're wondering why the conversation is interesting, then I'd suggest reading the thread start to finish. (Short version: scoring environment matters).

 

[Regal]

Below are the players that have had the highest standard deviation from the Top 100 Goal Scorers for a particular year since 1980. The top 3 highest scores (Gretzky’s 92 and 87 goal seasons and Hull’s 86 goal season) did not surprise me, I was however surprised to see Steven Stamkos’ 60 goal season come in at 4th.

Player - Season - Goals - Standard Deviations from Mean

1. Gretzky - 81/82 - 92 - 5.61
2. Hull - 90-91 - 86 - 5.44
3. Gretzky - 84/84 - 87 - 5.31
4. Stamkos - 11/12 - 60 - 4.92
5. Lemieux - 88/89 - 85 - 4.85

Really interesting, but I think using the top 100 goal scorers ends up hurting the players in years with more teams. In a 30 team league, the top 100 scorers are almost all going to be top liners, whereas in a 20 team league, you're now looking at all top liners plus 2/3rds of the 2nd liners. Even if we don't assume a secondary talent increase that coincides with the number of teams, we're still looking at likely more offensive opportunities and PP time for the same level players, which would increase their totals.

 

[hatterson]

Below are the players that have had the highest standard deviation from the Top 100 Goal Scorers for a particular year since 1980. The top 3 highest scores (Gretzky’s 92 and 87 goal seasons and Hull’s 86 goal season) did not surprise me, I was however surprised to see Steven Stamkos’ 60 goal season come in at 4th.

Player - Season - Goals - Standard Deviations from Mean

1. Gretzky - 81/82 - 92 - 5.61
2. Hull - 90-91 - 86 - 5.44
3. Gretzky - 84/84 - 87 - 5.31
4. Stamkos - 11/12 - 60 - 4.92
5. Lemieux - 88/89 - 85 - 4.85

I'd be curious how that number changes as you decrease the Top X. Do their deviations above mean increase, decrease or stay the same when you compare to Top 50, Top 20 or Top 10?

 

[The Panther]

I'm confused by these statements. Not sure what I am missing but:
Brett Hall in 1990-91 scored 86 goals in 78 games = 1.103 GPG
W. Gretzky 1981-82 scored 92 goals in 80 games = 1.150 GPG
W. Gretzky 1983-84 scored 87 goals in 74 games = 1.176 GPG

So "statistically" GPG goes to Gretzky. Best single season for goals, again Gretzky.

In Hull's 1990-91 he scored 86 goals, but was not outscored teammates, who were 27 and 25 goals.

Sorry, by "outscored", I meant points (and other things). Not just goals. I was saying that in terms of overall seasons by forwards, Hull's 1990-91 probably isn't even a top-20 all time season.

However, in terms of goals-only (if there is such a thing as "goals only"), I pick Hull in 1990-91 as the most impressive goal-scoring regular season in NHL history, or at least since 1967 expansion.

Yes, Gretzky had two seasons of better GPG, and needless to say Gretz's top 10 or 12 seasons are all better than Hull's best, overall. But I think Hull is more impressive purely in terms of goal-scoring because League-scoring was slightly lower in 1991 than in 1982 and 1984, and also because St.Louis in '91 was not an offensive juggernaut (though I suppose they were strong enough, at 4th-overall in offense). Anyway, Hull (with Oates) had to carry the team offensively, as, after Brett's 86 goals, the next-best goal-scorer on St.Louis had 27 goals, a ridiculous difference of almost 60 (!).

You could also throw in a few lesser points like Hull's not scoring any of his 86 on an empty net (I think Gretz had 4 empty-net goals in 1981-82), and his goal-scoring being more consistent. As I mentioned, above, Hull scored goals (1 or more) in more NHL games during 1990-91 than any player in history ever did, including Gretzky and Lemieux.


My opinion about Gretzky (in his prime) as a goal-scorer is that he mainly scored goals when it suited the play for him to shoot (or to charge the net, though he rarely did that after about 1987/88), but he wasn't bothered with scoring goals unless the play demanded that he do so. He was a playmaking center, who was so good offensively that he led the NHL in goals 5 times and scored more goals in two seasons than any other player ever has. Even during his 92-goal season, he spent about two or three weeks trying to set-up Dave Lumley for goals, and consequently he didn't score for several games (yes, during a 92-goal season he had a goal-scoring 'slump').

Partly as a consequence of this, Gretzky was a more large-volume goal-scorer (in a way, more 'streaky') than Hull was during 1990-91. Gretz might go five or six games without a goal, and then suddenly score 7 in two games. Hull was more consistent in his very best season.

Just my opinion about it. I'm open to other ideas.