Top 5 Goal Scorers all Time

[Golden_Jet]

Ovechkin lead the league in GPG 8 times on 18 years
Lemieux lead the league in GPG 6 times in 17 years

The difference is not that big, then you consider cancer+dpe+competition+back problems and its even closer.


I said two of his 17 seasons were at 38 and 40, which impacts his finishes, nobody expects a 38/40 yo to finish 1st in goalscoring. Realistically, at the same age Lemieux has 6/15 while Ovi has 8/18, which is 40% for each in GPG lead, literally the same number of top finishes relative to years played at 37 YO.

Using raw numbers is unfair to a guy that had chemo and a bad back. Mario Lemieux came back from chemotherapy on his first game of the 00-01 season and scored at a 0.81 GPG, best in the league at 35 years old, besting Pavel Bures 0.72 ( 0.09 difference), which is almost a 8 goals difference over 82 games. By comparison, Ovis best goalscoring per game lead post 30 is .07, at 30 flat.

So yeah, Lemieux matched Ovis goalscoring dominance at 35, over Bure and not Patrick Kane.


Im unsure of the statistical significance of 22-75 to 77-82 lol.. Why did you take out 75 and 76 ? Does it make your analysis look worse ? Anyway, why are you using 5 games vs 53? What a weird selection.

Ya , if you care about pace, compared to actual results
6 more rocket trophies make it not close.

 

[Randyne]

Im unsure of the statistical significance of 22-75 to 77-82 lol.. Why did you take out 75 and 76 ? Does it make your analysis look worse ? Anyway, why are you using 5 games vs 53? What a weird selection.

Half from bottom and half from top by gp. From 22 to 75 gp he played 9 seasons and from 77 to 82 gp he played 9 seasons. He didn't play 76 games seasons, 75 is in. What 5 games?
If slice it by 41 gp (0-41, 41-82) the difference only increases
0-41 gp ~ .50 gpg, 1.47 ppg
41-82 gp ~.46 gpg, 1.24 ppg

 

[dr robbie]

Gretz, Lemieux, Ovi, Hull, Richard

 

[Mrb1p]

Ya , if you care about pace, compared to actual results
6 more rocket trophies make it not close.

Injuries and illness are a function of circumstances, not scoring ability.

The question is "Who are the top five goalscorers ever" not "Who scored the most goals" or "Who had the most rockets", or even "Who is the greatest". Those are all slanted heavily towards Ovechkin compared to everyone else.

You should view this as: In any given year, if you dropped every single player in the NHL at the same level of fitness, hockey knowledge, competition, health and had them play X number of games, who would be the top goal scorer. In this case, there is very little discernable difference between Lemieux, Gretzky and Ovechkin.

Half from bottom and half from top by gp. From 22 to 75 gp he played 9 seasons and from 77 to 82 gp he played 9 seasons. He didn't play 76 games seasons, 75 is in. What 5 games?

Ah, I understand, I thought you took every single season and compared his production there.

Your statistical analysis is flawed because it assumes a statistical value out of incertainty. A better way to go about this would be to compare season by season, in quantiles either split in 50-50, 30-30-30 or 25-25-25-25 and then compare his point production year by year.

For the record, I did 50-50 a few months ago and he produces more in the second half on something like 66% of his seasons.

 

[Randyne]

For the record, I did 50-50 a few months ago and he produces more in the second half on something like 66% of his seasons.

It's common sense to keep energy for the playoffs or to win a playoff spot or a higher seed, many players heat up in the second half.
You just didn't compare season's length. Overall more games - less pace, it's obvious.
'

 

[Golden_Jet]

Injuries and illness are a function of circumstances, not scoring ability.

The question is "Who are the top five goalscorers ever" not "Who scored the most goals" or "Who had the most rockets", or even "Who is the greatest". Those are all slanted heavily towards Ovechkin compared to everyone else.

You should view this as: In any given year, if you dropped every single player in the NHL at the same level of fitness, hockey knowledge, competition, health and had them play X number of games, who would be the top goal scorer. In this case, there is very little discernable difference between Lemieux, Gretzky and Ovechkin.


Ah, I understand, I thought you took every single season and compared his production there.

Your statistical analysis is flawed because it assumes a statistical value out of incertainty. A better way to go about this would be to compare season by season, in quantiles either split in 50-50, 30-30-30 or 25-25-25-25 and then compare his point production year by year.

For the record, I did 50-50 a few months ago and he produces more in the second half on something like 66% of his seasons.

That’s flawed and poor , and lol, every player judged as if perfect conditions forever.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

I just posted this but in the wrong thread lol

I was also saying this :

This was always a debate but yes age when the player stopped playing plays a factor. For example, Mike Bossy unfortunately had to stop at 30 y/o so he didn't had to experience natural decline aging into his 40's like many other all-time greats. Same with Bure, 2 great careers cut short so I unfortunately have to rule them out but they were insane goal scoring talents. Lemieux retired at 40 y/o but didn't play that much after 31 y/o so his numbers are influenced by this factor as well but his 0.67 GPG gives him a good lead over some down the list. Stamkos turns 33 y/o soon so it depends how the rest of his career plays out. Auston Matthews is obviously off to an incredible start and could end up in that top-5. Kovalchuk can't be considered as he only played 156 games in the NHL after 29 y/o. Crosby career is not over and his GPG will probably decline in the next few years

Ovechkin is the best goal scorer of all-time, it's not even a debate.

Lemieux has to be there

Maurice Richard has to be voted in the top-5 too.

Bobby and Brett Hull played into their 40's and were among the best scorers of all-time

Howe played a NHL season at 51 y/o and went to the WHA at 43. He's Top-5 as well.

Esposito should also be considered


I am voting Ovechkin, Maurice Richard, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe

Edit : why is Cam Neely an option?

No Gretzky is just wacky

 

[Mrb1p]

It's common sense to keep energy for the playoffs or to win a playoff spot or a higher seed, many players heat up in the second half.
You just didn't compare season's length. Overall more games - less pace, it's obvious.
'

Its obvious because he missed 4 seasons of his prime to less games, lol. Its a direct statistical error.

Picture that:
If you draw blue and red balls out of a box, and note the amount of time you have each color, over a large enough sample you should have 50/50 providing theyve been placed in the box in a random manner(Actually probably 51/49, but lets not get into randomization and whatever, its boring and reminds me of my statistics classes.).

In this case, Crosbys blue balls (lol), his higher PPG in lower games seasons, are all in his prime years, which means the likeliness isn't 50-50, its not a coin flip anymore, you added way more blue balls than red balls.

Of course, with greater chances at producing more, he is going to produce more no matter the games. His offensive peak, just like every other forward ever is 22-26.

Also, if you suscribe to the idea that players produce more in the back half of the season... How exactly do you expect Crosbys production to go down significantly if the average player heats up in the back half ? In 2010-2011 he didn't play after January and in 2011-2012 he had 1.5 in his first stretch and 1.8 in his second, should we suscribe to the idea that he wouldve had an average between 1.5 and 1.8 in the 2011-2012 season ?

That’s flawed and poor , and lol, every player judged as if perfect conditions forever.

What is flawed or poor ? Are we not trying to determine who is the best goalscorer ? If we say who is the best defender ever, are we going to look solely at points ? Youre going to have Orr, but youre also going to have Coffey, Karlsson and Housley.

Best: of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.

 

[norrisnick]

Youre making a false dichotomy here.

Were talking about Mario, he is the definition of consistency, injury plagued or not he was the best offensive player in the league for 10 years and the 1-2 for 15.

Bure and Bossy dont even have that great of a peak as I indicated in my prior post. Bossy finished 1st one time in GPG and only 3 2nd place, being beaten by Simmer, Lafleur and Gretzky.

As for Ovi, Im not sure. Do you believe Mario wouldnt have scored 800+ goals had he not had the circumstance he was given? Injuries and especially illness are chaotic by nature, it is a card dealt almost completely randomly. Some could argue about fitness and endurance being a skill but then you think about the current Ironman of the NHL and then you can realize its a bit of BS.

Bottom line is I think theres a top 3 in goalscoring that separates himself from the rest. To me, there is arguments to be made in this group for all of them.

Then another 3 in Hull, Howe and Richard. Same can be said about this group, but I think youd be hard pressed to have anyone make an argument for them in the top 3.

You have a very interesting definition of consistency.

 

[Randyne]

in 2011-2012 he had 1.5 in his first stretch

8 games in first half is so tiny portion to make any extrapolations. Zillions players have 1.5 stretches over 8 games. It's a guesswork not analysis.

In 2010-2011 he didn't play after January

As you said he has 34% worse production in the second half than in the first. Who knows what kind of stretches it was in 2010-2011.
It's also a guesswork not analysis.
No one knows what his pace could've been in 82 games. Any extrapolations bad or good is a fairy tale.

 

[Xspyrit]

No Gretzky is just wacky

Greatest playmaker and 2nd best offensive player overall (Mario #1 IMO) but not among Top-5 best goal scorers. Of course, I might be "different" because different eras play a huge factor for me. IMO, there's a massive difference between scoring on Darren Pang and on Ben Bishop.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I said two of his 17 seasons were at 38 and 40, which impacts his finishes, nobody expects a 38/40 yo to finish 1st in goalscoring. Realistically, at the same age Lemieux has 6/15 while Ovi has 8/18, which is 40% for each in GPG lead, literally the same number of top finishes relative to years played at 37 YO.

Lemieux played precisely 36 games at an older age than current Ovechkin. It's not going to impact his averages all that much.

Conversely, Ovechkin has already played 200 more games than Lemieux after age 31. The only reason this hasn't drastically reduced his career averages is because he's aged extraordinarily well.

At this point, playing games at an older age is factoring in to Ovie's career numbers far more than Mario's.

You count half seasons as leading the league for a season in a per game stat. I don't think that's valid.

I also don't think Lemieux could have sustained that for a full season, because in fact he didn't, and never would again. In his last 6 games in 2001 (playoffs) he dropped to .5 PPG and 0.00 GPG despite playing roughly 24 minutes per game. In has last 18 games we was .33 GPG and .94 PPG despite playing roughly 24 minutes a game on a line with the best player in the world (Jagr). So after game 43 he dropped off, by a lot.

Nevermind that he couldn't be bothered to start the season with the rest of the players despite years of rest. It's not something that ought to count in his favor.

Conversely, you count Stamkos as beating Ovie in GPG by .03 (.68 to .65) having played just 37 games to Ovie's 78 in 2014. I think a reasonable person should conclude that Mario did not lead the league in GPG in 2001, and Ovechkin legitimately did in 2014, which leaves their records at 5 and 9.

Using raw numbers is unfair to a guy that had chemo and a bad back. Mario Lemieux came back from chemotherapy on his first game of the 00-01 season and scored at a 0.81 GPG, best in the league at 35 years old, besting Pavel Bures 0.72 ( 0.09 difference), which is almost a 8 goals difference over 82 games. By comparison, Ovis best goalscoring per game lead post 30 is .07, at 30 flat.

So yeah, Lemieux matched Ovis goalscoring dominance at 35, over Bure and not Patrick Kane.

Bure scored 59 goals. Lemieux scored 35. Peak Jagr was stapled to Lemieux's hip. Who did Bure have?

Lemieux didn't best Bure at all. I'd be willing to wager that scoring at a .72 GPG pace for 82 games is more scarce, and more difficult, than scoring at a .81 GPG for 43 games. Peak Jagr or no (but obviously having peak Jagr is a huge help).

 

[Mrb1p]

Lemieux played precisely 36 games at an older age than current Ovechkin. It's not going to impact his averages all that much.

Conversely, Ovechkin has already played 200 more games than Lemieux after age 31. The only reason this hasn't drastically reduced his career averages is because he's aged extraordinarily well.

At this point, playing games at an older age is factoring in to Ovie's career numbers far more than Mario's.

You count half seasons as leading the league for a season in a per game stat. I don't think that's valid.

I also don't think Lemieux could have sustained that for a full season, because in fact he didn't, and never would again. In his last 6 games in 2001 (playoffs) he dropped to .5 PPG and 0.00 GPG despite playing roughly 24 minutes per game. In has last 18 games we was .33 GPG and .94 PPG despite playing roughly 24 minutes a game on a line with the best player in the world (Jagr). So after game 43 he dropped off, by a lot.

Nevermind that he couldn't be bothered to start the season with the rest of the players despite years of rest. It's not something that ought to count in his favor.

Conversely, you count Stamkos as beating Ovie in GPG by .03 (.68 to .65) having played just 37 games to Ovie's 78 in 2014. I think a reasonable person should conclude that Mario did not lead the league in GPG in 2001, and Ovechkin legitimately did in 2014, which leaves their records at 5 and 9.



Bure scored 59 goals. Lemieux scored 35. Peak Jagr was stapled to Lemieux's hip. Who did Bure have?

Lemieux didn't best Bure at all. I'd be willing to wager that scoring at a .72 GPG pace for 82 games is more scarce, and more difficult, than scoring at a .81 GPG for 43 games. Peak Jagr or no (but obviously having peak Jagr is a huge help).

I dont know why i waste sometimes

The evidence is before you, you can chose to believe whatever you want.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I dont know why i waste sometimes

The evidence is before you, you can chose to believe whatever you want.

Sounds a bit like a pot meet kettle.

 

[Beerz]

Hasek is a top 3 goal scorer of all time.

 

[wetcoast]

The NHL was not a particularly strong league from 1940 up until about 1950. That accounts for 3 of Richard’s 5 goalscoring titles. The most famous of those titles, 1945, came in the single most non-competitive season in league history.

That doesn’t mean Richard wouldn’t have won goalscoring titles in a fully competitive environment. But he damned sure wasn’t scoring 50 in 50, or 45 in 60. Those are marks of a war-weakened league, and there’s no doubt that his reputation is inflated by the scale of those numbers, even to this day.

Howe’s goalscoring titles are straightforward. The NHL was mature and stable during the 50s and 60s, flush with talent in the post-war generation. Howe’s triple-consecutive titles during that decade are as solid as it comes — and they were won by margins that resemble what Richard was doing in the 1940s. Winning the title 49-32 in 1953 is more impressive than winning it 45-30 in 1947.

And, in much the same manner as Gretzky, Howe was also winning assist titles at the same time. It’s not like he was a volume shooter. He likely could have scored a few more goals if he settled for Richard’s level of total point production.

This isn’t meant to shit on Richard. I bothered to mention him above because he’s a conventional choice in this debate. But there is a reality to the NHL in the 1940s which also applies to guys like Bill Durnan and Ebbie Goodfellow. Statistical marks, and even postseason awards from that era can’t be taken at face value, knowing what we know about the quality of competition.

(By the way, I should note that you’ve cleverly framed “1-5-7 before Howe entered the league”, by balancing Howe’s rookie season against Richard’s second goalscoring title.)

Agree with all of this except that Howe was really a high volume shooter.

We don't have SOG figures for before 59-60 but even then from age 31-36 Howe led the NHL in SOG over Bobby Hull and led the league 3 times during that stretch and had 9 straight years in the top 3 in SOG, being 1st or second every year until the 9th year when he was 3rd.

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

1959-60 NHL 354 (1st)

1960-61 NHL 357 (1st)

1961-62 NHL 346 (2nd)

1962-63 NHL 351 (1st)

1963-64 NHL 345 (2nd)

1964-65 NHL 341 (2nd)

1965-66 NHL 274 (2nd)

1966-67 NHL 293 (2nd)

1967-68 NHL 301 (3rd)

1968-69 NHL 284 (10th)

1969-70 NHL 268 (8th)

Career NHL 3803 (36th) Heck he is 36th all time in SOG and that's only counting from age 31-42 and his age 51 season with Hartford.

 

[wetcoast]

You have a very interesting definition of consistency.

You, like many, are confusing consistency of excellence with health they are 2 different things.

Mario was an extremely consistent elite offensive player and goal scorer.

To try to say otherwise is entering the pretzel zone.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Agree with all of this except that Howe was really a high volume shooter.

We don't have SOG figures for before 59-60 but even then from age 31-36 Howe led the NHL in SOG over Bobby Hull and led the league 3 times during that stretch and had 9 straight years in the top 3 in SOG, being 1st or second every year until the 9th year when he was 3rd.

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

1959-60 NHL 354 (1st)

1960-61 NHL 357 (1st)

1961-62 NHL 346 (2nd)

1962-63 NHL 351 (1st)

1963-64 NHL 345 (2nd)

1964-65 NHL 341 (2nd)

1965-66 NHL 274 (2nd)

1966-67 NHL 293 (2nd)

1967-68 NHL 301 (3rd)

1968-69 NHL 284 (10th)

1969-70 NHL 268 (8th)

Career NHL 3803 (36th) Heck he is 36th all time in SOG and that's only counting from age 31-42 and his age 51 season with Hartford.

You're right of course. I was using "volume shooter" as a shorthand for a player who just wings the puck at the net every time it's on his stick, as opposed to making the best available play.

Given his assist totals, I imagine that Howe led the NHL in shots because he legitimately created more scoring opportunities than anyone else. A large number of those turned into shots, but clearly he was also passing a lot of pucks in those situations.

 

[NVious]

Ovie/Bossy/Lemieux/Gretzky/Hull/Howe=tier 1

Everyone else, although I'm just going on record and saying Matthews has a chance to join them as hes pacing pretty similar to Ovie's first 6 years.

 

[authentic]

I do find it interesting the fact that Bossy was a better goal scorer against good teams than Gretzky, as well as the postseason, both of which are born out in the numbers. Without diving into it too deep against other competition, I do wonder if he gets underrated a bit when simply looking at scoring titles or pure goal totals compared to Gretzky when he played for a team that wasn’t running up the score to the same degree against the have nots. His contemporaries seem to hold him in a much higher light than the numbers show, and I think there might be something to that.

Yeah I used to be in the Bossy overrated camp but after Ovechkin, Lemieux, Hull and Gretzky he’s as deserving of the 5th spot as any other. I gave my vote to Bure though because most will not have him number 5 when based on ability he most likely was.