Ovechkin's 65 and Gretzky's 92

[Moon Man]

Ovechkin has nothing on Gretzky. Absolutely nothing.

 

[jth359]

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?

I would imagine that there deviations would go down as we get into smaller and smaller sample sizes of elite numbers, that's just an assumption and I'll take a look cause I'm curious now.

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.

That's a good point that I didn't consider, I'll make some smaller sample sizes and see what will happen.




I wanted to see how many goals Ovechkin would have if he played the same years as Gretzky. This is based off of Z-Scores from those respective years.

Age 20 Year - Gretzky Actual: 92 - Ovechkin Projected (63.47)
Age 21 Year - Gretzky Actual: 71 - Ovechkin Projected (57.95)
Age 22 Year - Gretzky Actual: 87 - Ovechkin Projected (81.26)
Age 23 Year - Gretzky Actual: 73 - Ovechkin Projected (79.28)
Age 24 Year - Gretzky Actual: 52 - Ovechkin Projected (66.06)
Age 25 Year - Gretzky Actual: 62 - Ovechkin Projected (38.74)
Age 26 Year - Gretzky Actual: 40 - Ovechkin Projected (49.25)
Age 27 Year - Gretzky Actual: 54 - Ovechkin Projected (75.29)
Age 28 Year - Gretzky Actual: 40 - Ovechkin Projected (74.89)
Age 29 Year - Gretzky Actual: 41 - Ovechkin Projected (78.01)
Age 30 Year - Gretzky Actual: 31 - Ovechkin Projected (66.29)

Gretzky actual age 20-30: 643
Ovechkin Projected age 20-30: 730.53

 

[supsens]

Is there anyway to adjust the fact that old 99 scored that many goals while being a team player and trying to set up his team all night? If the great one spend every shift of every game doing nothing but trying to score, the goal totals would be stupid

 

[Thenameless]

20 or 30 years from now, Gretzky's 92 will still be the more impressive number, as others will be able to match Ovechkin's 65 in the next two to three decades. In the end, people will be comparing the guys that got to numbers like 60-70 and scratching their heads on as to how this one guy got to 92.

 

[Alwalys]

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.

The reason it's not consistent is that it tries to make a case based on the effect of these things on Gretzky in a vacuum, when the entire league would have access to the same technology and training. They would not only be available to one player.

 

[rick hawk]

I don't have my calculator handy but I believe that 92 is better than 65.

 

[Doctor No]

I don't have my calculator handy but I believe that 92 is better than 65.

If the goal is simply to get the biggest number, Tony Hand had 105 one year. Better than Gretzky!

Or you could, you know, read the thread so that you actually know what's going on here.

Also, where does one purchase a calculator that answers which of two numbers is "better"?

 

[One Blurred Eye]

Also, where does one purchase a calculator that answers which of two numbers is "better"?

The oracle department at the Turing Machine store of course.

How might one go about weighting the meaningfulness of their goals and comparing them across eras? I suspect a good chunk of Ovechkin's goals were probably quite vital to the Capitals' 40 odd wins that year whereas I wonder how many of Gretzky's came after the outcome had more or less been confidently decided. Or if perhaps the reverse was true. Maybe factoring the strength of opponents against which their goals were scored into the equation, etc. My gut still says Gretzky, but placing every goal in the context not only of the seasons/eras but of their individual games would probably yield something of interest--except of course it entails opening that Pandora's Box of calculating the value of an individual goal... hmm.

 

[Doctor No]

Your point is a good one.

The arguments I don't like (and there are some in this thread) that suggest that Ovechkin "would have scored" X goals in Gretzky's era (or vice versa). That's not provable.

What *is* provable is the currency argument - in Gretzky's era, it took more goals to "buy" a victory than it did in Ovechkin's season. Significantly more.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

This is an interesting comparison. Taking nothing away from Gretzky, but Ovechkin's 65 goal campaign is incredibly impressive given the era he plays in. It is so much harder to score today than in the 80s. Very close to me.

 

[Thenameless]

I'm not a fan of Gretzky - not at all. And I even like it when I see adjusted numbers go in favour of someone like Ovechkin who I like more. But for me, you can really only adjust so much to remain within reason. Gretzky wasn't playing in the minor leagues, he was still in the NHL. I want to be objective, and 92 is just so much more than 65 - almost half again as much. Great goal scorers have traditionally been measured by the 50-goal mark. Gretzky was approaching double that and regrets not trying harder to actually reach 100.

I could see McDavid one day doing what Ovechkin did, but I don't see McDavid being able to do what Gretzky did in his time.

 

[Rebuilt]

I would imagine that there deviations would go down as we get into smaller and smaller sample sizes of elite numbers, that's just an assumption and I'll take a look cause I'm curious now.



That's a good point that I didn't consider, I'll make some smaller sample sizes and see what will happen.




I wanted to see how many goals Ovechkin would have if he played the same years as Gretzky. This is based off of Z-Scores from those respective years.

Age 20 Year - Gretzky Actual: 92 - Ovechkin Projected (63.47)
Age 21 Year - Gretzky Actual: 71 - Ovechkin Projected (57.95)
Age 22 Year - Gretzky Actual: 87 - Ovechkin Projected (81.26)
Age 23 Year - Gretzky Actual: 73 - Ovechkin Projected (79.28)
Age 24 Year - Gretzky Actual: 52 - Ovechkin Projected (66.06)
Age 25 Year - Gretzky Actual: 62 - Ovechkin Projected (38.74)
Age 26 Year - Gretzky Actual: 40 - Ovechkin Projected (49.25)
Age 27 Year - Gretzky Actual: 54 - Ovechkin Projected (75.29)
Age 28 Year - Gretzky Actual: 40 - Ovechkin Projected (74.89)
Age 29 Year - Gretzky Actual: 41 - Ovechkin Projected (78.01)
Age 30 Year - Gretzky Actual: 31 - Ovechkin Projected (66.29)

Gretzky actual age 20-30: 643
Ovechkin Projected age 20-30: 730.53

contrary to 99% of those on here..............I was THERE for both these eras. You cant just 'water down' one era to tip the scales for another.

Check out the GPG from 1976 to 1979 . Then the GPG in 1980-1986 when Gretzky .

Gretzky INVENTED the water down era because he played the game a different way than others before him.

You cant just take an Ovechkin with 30 years HINDSIGHT and re insert the clown back to where nobody else BUT OVECHKIN has this hindsight and claim he could do this or that blah blah.....

You guys simply WANT TO PROVE your generations players are worth something . We who have been around get that.

Anyone and Everyone can take current players and simply time warp them backwards to the high scoring era and claim this that and the other thing. Its ridiculous regardless.

 

[Doctor No]

contrary to 99% of those on here..............I was THERE for both these eras.

Were you an Oilers (and Gretzky) fan during the 1980s, or is that a new thing?

I'd suggest that you are biased.

(To your point, there were many influences that altered the scoring environment between the late 1970s and the early 1980s).

 

[Rebuilt]

Were you an Oilers (and Gretzky) fan during the 1980s, or is that a new thing?

I'd suggest that you are biased.

(To your point, there were many influences that altered the scoring environment between the late 1970s and the early 1980s).

I would suggest a lot of things but I have been saving them for years now.

And yes, I was an Oiler fan in the 1980s. In fact, I remember when Gretzky played in the WHA briefly.

What about you? Perhaps you could shed some light on where you are coming from by explaining your own experience instead of guessing at others motives.

 

[Juicy Pop]

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.

I'll simply say that the best looking body isn't necessarily the most "fit" body, especially in a sport where endurance is so crucial.

 

[boredmale]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

In 1982 the average Goals a team scored per game was 4.01

In 2008 the average Goals a team scored per game was 2.78

If I had to prorate Gretzky's total in 2008 numbers I would say he would have got 92 * (2.78/4.01) = 63.78 goals so given prorating really isn't 100% accurate(it just gives you a rough idea) I would say his 92 goals was more impressive since my unscientific model basically say they relatively even(especially when you factor in the 2 extra games in which case Gretzky would have 65.38 goals over 82 games)

 

[rick hawk]

If the goal is simply to get the biggest number, Tony Hand had 105 one year. Better than Gretzky!

Or you could, you know, read the thread so that you actually know what's going on here.

Also, where does one purchase a calculator that answers which of two numbers is "better"?

Or you can waste everyone's time by trying to create a debate when there really isn't one. Gretzky was and will always be considered light years better than Ovechkin at the game of hockey by most people. The rest of this mumbo jumbo is tedious and irrelevant.

 

[Thenameless]

How about Ovechkin's 65 goal year compared to Gretzky's 87 goal year in 83/84? Gretzky was injured, missing 6 games. If you pro-rate this, he comes up with 94 goals, without yet factoring recovery to pace and timing after injury so he could potentially have had more.

 

[Doctor No]

What about you? Perhaps you could shed some light on where you are coming from by explaining your own experience instead of guessing at others motives.

Avalanche fan, Canucks fan before that. I've always been a fan of the Oilers, actually, and have no love for the Capitals.

More relevant to this, I think that Wayne Gretzky's the best player in the history of the sport.

And although I was giving you any possible benefit of the doubt, I wasn't guessing at your motives.

 

[Doctor No]

Or you can waste everyone's time by trying to create a debate when there really isn't one. Gretzky was and will always be considered light years better than Ovechkin at the game of hockey by most people. The rest of this mumbo jumbo is tedious and irrelevant.

"Wasting everyone's time" would be characterizing this debate as about who (Gretzky or Ovechkin) was "better at the game of hockey".

No one's discussing that, and few would argue for Ovechkin in that situation. Surely you understand that. Do you understand that?

"Wasting everyone's time" would also be ignoring what everyone's said so far (and why this is an interesting conversation) to point out that "hey, guys, 92 is a larger number than 65".

Pretty far down the list on "wasting everyone's time" would be me pointing out the naivety of your comment.

But feel free to carry on. You're the one trying to "create a (lack of) debate when there is one."

 

[Doctor No]

I have the ability to recognize sarcasm. When it's done well, and when there aren't enough people on here that say the same thing as non-sarcasm.

Do you believe that the poster "Rebuilt" is being sarcastic, by way of example?

 

[Diatomic]

I don't have my calculator handy but I believe that 92 is better than 65.

Im guessing you also presume a dollar today has the same worth as a dollar back in 1980?

 

[Rebuilt]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

In 1982 the average Goals a team scored per game was 4.01

In 2008 the average Goals a team scored per game was 2.78

If I had to prorate Gretzky's total in 2008 numbers I would say he would have got 92 * (2.78/4.01) = 63.78 goals so given prorating really isn't 100% accurate(it just gives you a rough idea) I would say his 92 goals was more impressive since my unscientific model basically say they relatively even(especially when you factor in the 2 extra games in which case Gretzky would have 65.38 goals over 82 games)

And whose fault is it that the GPG was 4.01 ?

What was it when Gretzky entered the league in 1979?

No. You dont have to 'pro rate' anything. You are erroneously choosing to.

 

[Rebuilt]

Here is a neat trick.

We cant go forward to 2046 to show how much of a CHUMP Ovechkin is compared to the top goal scorer then with all the 30 years benefit of watching Ovi and improvements to players and the game.

So we shall go back from 1981-82 to 1951-52 to see how Wayne Gretzky would do using his 30 years hindsight experience against the 6 team league. Assuming of course the Leafs would have put him on their protective list at age 4 or whenever they felt he was good enough to play in the NHL. Probably age 7.

That year Terry Sawchuck had a 1.90 GAA and Gordie how had 86 points in 70 games including 47 goals.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1952_leaders.html

Good ol Wayne would teleport being 6ft and 170lbs which is actually a little large for a forward back in those days.

He would also enjoy a curved stick which nobody would have. Thus his wrister would be far beyond what either Makita or Hull could invent years later. He would also be able to slap the puck at amazing speed which nobody else had mastered yet. Geofferion was just a rookie and Bobby Hull was unfounded yet.

His skates would be dramatically better than the joker skates with little ankle support that they had then. He could freak goalies out by shooting it at their bare heads. He could deke around them as they had cumbersome bulky equipment.

According to those who wanna 'pro rate' Gretzky, because the average goals per game was 3 or whatever for this year, Gretzky would have only scored what? 60 in a 70 game season or whatnot?

Or with all these advantages, he would have scored 150 , causing the other players to immediately adopt what he was doing and league scoring would start to skyrocket?

Which one is it?

Well for those of us who SAW IT first hand starting in 1979 , we can tell you Gretzky changed the game with vastly superior skill.............and all others who followed started to copy his tactics and the scoring flourished.

Edit : Or ovechkin using SIXTY YEARS hindsight would show up in 51-52 and only score 40? lol. 'Pro rating' him of course.

 

[Rebuilt]

Avalanche fan, Canucks fan before that. I've always been a fan of the Oilers, actually, and have no love for the Capitals.

More relevant to this, I think that Wayne Gretzky's the best player in the history of the sport.

And although I was giving you any possible benefit of the doubt, I wasn't guessing at your motives.

Nobody asked you to afford me the benefit of your doubt. Your goal should be to post your thoughts on the topic, not your thoughts on the poster or their motives.