Top Ten goalscorers of all-time

[daver]

I think there is a clear Top 6 of Wayne, Mario, Hull, Howe, OV and Richard.

Who would be the best candidates for spots #7 to 10. Bossy, Esposito and Goeffrion come to mind.

Click to read more...

 

[Nick Hansen]

Bossy for sure. Hull Jr deserves a mention too. Here is all time goals per game.

NHL All-Time Goals per Game Leaders

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think there is a clear Top 6 of Wayne, Mario, Hull, Howe, OV and Richard.

Who would be the best candidates for spots #7 to 10. Bossy, Esposito and Goeffrion come to mind.

Drop Geoffrion. Lafleur, Charlie Conacher, Jagr, Dionne. Short term, Steve Shutt, Richard Martin, Reg Leach, Tim Kerr, Steve Stamkos, Patrick Kane.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

HF member Zuluss' method provides some very insightful results about goal-scoring dominance over peers. I am quite impressed by the methodology.

The principle behind Zuluss' system is that the degree to which a player dominates should not be compared directly at the top of the goal-scoring race but instead against the rest of the league. His findings are that goal-scoring around the 10th-placed finish tends to level out, creating a basis of comparison for players who separate themselves at the top of the scoring race. There may be some years where multiple players dominate, and so one player's ability should not be diminished in value just because another player is also having a very dominant season.

He also devised a conversion method between eras based on level of competition, the difference between scoring eras, and the number of first-line forwards in the league (a multiplier of 0.6 for pre-1970 seasons and 0.9 for seasons between 1970 and 1997).

He provided numerous calculations in the By The Numbers section for players such as Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, Bobby Hull, Wayne Gretzky.

*AS OF December 11, 2017, the system outlined in this post has been replaced by a newer system. This post is here for archival purposes. Refer to Post #81 for the new Adjusted % Lead Over 10th system.*

Now, let's look at the dominance of the best five goal-scorers all-time (Richard, Howe, Bobby Hull, Gretzky, Ovechkin) over peers. The number of goal-scoring titles / top3 finishes is one measure of that. However, not all goal-scoring titles are created equal and the margin of the win matters.

My favorite measure is the % lead over the 10th place. 10th place totals are very stable within an era (e.g., since 2009 they went 35-34-36-34-33-33-34), and the comparison to #10 does not have an element of randomness the comparison with #2 would have (what if #2 is another all-time great? what if the strongest challenger got injured?).

So, here are the % leads over #10 for all the seasons the five players in question finished in the top10, from best to worst

Hull: 108-93-92-79-71-63-56-47-32-22-19-19-15
Howe: 145-105-96-83-58-57-52-46-32-30-29-27-22-19-16-8-4-0
Richard: 117-100-80-76-73-58-40-38-35-17-14-13

Gretzky: 85-85-59-48-48-17-15-13-9

Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6

The first thing that catches the eye is that Bobby Hull/Howe/Richard blow everyone out of the water. For example, 3rd-best season for Gretzky would be 7th-best for Hull, and 3rd-best season by Ovechkin would be 8th-best for Hull. Most likely, that's the era effect (6 teams, 18 first-line players, many OK players do not have a fair chance to crack top10 in a career season).

So I looked at the average margins in the O6 era (starting with 1943, the first year Richard appeared in top10) vs. the current low-scoring era (1997-2017). It turns out the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #10 in the 06 era was 75%, while in 1997-2017 it is 44%. That means, for example, that Hull had only four seasons when he led #10 by the margin that would be not worse than the margin of an average goal-scoring title winner, and Ovechkin had six such seasons (seven if we count the 43% margin).

Now, probably the average margin of a goal-scoring title winner was so high in 1943-1967 because the wins by Hull, Richard, and Howe were all in that interval. So let's look at the margin of a runner-up over #10. It was 45% in the O6 era vs. 30% in the modern times.
44/75=0.6, 30/45=0.65 - we get roughly the same conclusions that the lead margins are now 60-65% of what they used to be.

So, let's adjust the margins of Hull/Howe/Richard by multiplying them by 0.6 to make them "modern":

Hull (60% adj): 65-56-55-48-42-38-34-28-19-13-12-9
Howe (60% adj): 87-63-58-50-35-34-31-28-19-18-16-13-11-10-10-5-2-0
Richard (60% adj): 70-60-52-48-46-44-35-24-23-21-10-9-8
Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6

All four look close. Richard and Howe have a better 3-year peak than Ovechkin, but starting with the fourth season Ovechkin really takes over, especially if we compare him to Howe. Hull and Ovechkin have a similar 3-year peak, but then again after that Ovechkin starts gaining ground on Hull. Somewhat surprisingly for me, Howe seems like the strongest competition for Ovechkin (even though I always thought Bobby Hull was a better goal-scorer than Howe), because it is not clear how much of strong non-peak seasons one has to have to compensate for a visible difference in peaks (it is a matter of taste, of course, but then also trying to beat Howe on longevity seems a lost cause).

Now, what do we do with Gretzky? If we take his lead margins as they are, he seems a bit better Howe with a shorter prime

Howe (60% adj): 87-63-58-50-35-34-31-28-19-18-16-13-11-10-10-5-2-0
Gretzky: 85-85-59-48-48-17-15-13-9

and then again, it is a matter of taste whether the fact that Ovechkin beats Gretzky by a lot on the tail end (starting with the 6th season) is enough to compensate for a better 3-year/5-year peak.

I compared lead margins in the higher-scoring era (1970-1996) with the modern (1997-2017) ones: 1st-over-10th they are 59% vs 44% (44/59=0.75), 2nd-over-10th they are 33% vs 30% (30/33=0.9). The reason for that is that the league was still 22 teams vs. 30 teams now, and that Soviet talent (and some Czech) was not in. The difference seems minor though, so let's adjust Gretzky's leads by multiplying them by 0.9 - it would be something, but nothing dramatic


Hull (60% adj): 65-56-55-48-42-38-34-28-19-13-12-9
Howe (60% adj): 87-63-58-50-35-34-31-28-19-18-16-13-11-10-10-5-2-0
Richard (60% adj): 70-60-52-48-46-44-35-24-23-21-10-9-8
Gretzky (90% adj): 77-76-53-43-43-16-13-12-8
Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6

Gretzky and Howe now seem comparable in the best five years (and then it is all Howe), Gretzky still clearly has the 3-year peak on Ovechkin, and then Ovechkin takes over.

To sum up, one can already make a case for Ovechkin being the best goal-scorer of all-time if one does not put too much weight on the 3-year peak and values consistency (that is, the ability to produce big, meaningful leads over #10 for almost a decade). My own impression from the analysis with the lead margins is that Ovechkin is really close to Richard and even Bobby Hull, but he still has not topped Howe (he will probably need two more season with 40-50% leads over #10 to tie Howe, one such season would probably be enough to pass Richard and maybe Bobby Hull). I would already rank Ovechkin over Gretzky as a goal-scorer, which is supported by my previous post with the count of goal-scoring titles and top3/top5/top10 finishes.

Some mentions of Bure, Selanne, Hull, and Bossy here, so I've used Zuluss' method to calculate the % leads for those players.

...

Below are the calculations for Pavel Bure, Mike Bossy, Mario Lemieux, and Phil Esposito. I've also included Teemu Selanne's results, considering his name is sometimes thrown into the same class as some of these other goal scorers.

Pre-1970 seasons have been adjusted at 60% as specified by Zuluss; 1970-71 to 1996-97 season have been adjusted at 90% as also specified.

Pavel Bure:

61-55-48-27-10

Teemu Selanne:

58-37-21-21-20

Mario Lemieux:

76-42-41-26-25-17-4-4-0

Mike Bossy:

65-38-29-29-25-23-23-8-8

Brett Hull:

82-60-54-22-10-0-0-0

Phil Esposito:

100-80-66-47-34-26-18-10-5

At face value, one can conclude from these numbers that Mike Bossy and Teemu Selanne have the shortest, smallest peaks of the group.

Zuluss states that 44% is the baseline for what would be considered an average goal-scoring lead over the 10th-placed scorer in each respective season.

Selanne and Bossy each have only one of those; Selanne's top-ranked season is not his 1992-93 season -- it is instead his 1997-98 season that is his best, according to these calculations. Selanne has the lowest peak, while Bossy has the biggest drop-off after one season despite playing on a dynasty team.

Brett Hull has three -- all of which were played alongside Adam Oates, who seems to have been the catalyst for his success.

Mario Lemieux has only one, although Zuluss' instructions here only account for end-of-year totals.

Pavel Bure has three, all of which were post-injury finishes (1997-98, 1999-00, 2000-01) on notoriously bad teams with virtually no help. His top-ranked season, the 1999-00 season, was tallied in 74 games played (a pace of 64 goals in 82 games). His second-highest ranked season is his 1997-98 season. All three of these seasons were in a lower-scoring period than Ovechkin's peak (1997-98: 2.64 GPG, 1999-00: 2.75 GPG, 2000-01: 2.76 GPG vs 2007-08: 2.78 GPG).

...

Phil Esposito has four, although these all took place during Bobby Orr's peak with the Boston Bruins -- as with Brett Hull, perhaps another case of a goal scorer capitalizing on the abilities of a high-end teammate.

There seems to be the notion that Bure is in a tier with Brett Hull, Teemu Selanne, and Mike Bossy -- that debate needs to be resolved before we move on the argument of where Bure places among the top-tier scorers (and it could only ever be an argument based on peak dominance). Even with Oates on his line, Brett Hull's second-and-third best seasons are not better than Bure's best based on these numbers; take Oates away and I'm not sure even two of those seasons stay above the 44% threshold. Selanne and Bossy are well below both in terms of the lack of dominant goal-scoring seasons that they had (just one each) and, with regards to Bossy especially, based on the talent that they played with.

We need to first be clear that Bure was a better goal scorer than Bossy, Selanne, and Brett Hull were.

I've decided to calculate the % leads for a few more highly-regarded goal scorers. All of the numbers have been adjusted accordingly based on era. Each number represents a Top 10 finish and the percentage lead over the 10th-placed goal scorer that season. Highlighted in green are those finishes that are above the 44% "above average" threshold. Here are their results:

Cam Neely:

20-12-8-3

Steve Yzerman:

37-34-12-7-6-4

Jarome Iginla:

41-26-25-24

Joe Sakic:

35-8-6-5-0

Guy Lafleur:

50-45-29-27-27-6

Jari Kurri:

49-43-26-10

Peter Bondra:

58-28-13-10-9-5

Kurri, even with Gretzky's help, only surpassed the 44% mark once, and has a rather low peak relative to the truly "elite" goal scorers.

We see that Joe Sakic, Jarome Iginla, and Steve Yzerman are in a lower tier compared to the others that have been discussed in this thread -- none of them break the 44% threshold.

Peter Bondra has the same peak in the same year as Teemu Selanne (52 goals in 1997-98), but an even larger drop-off than Selanne. He has just one season above the 44% mark.

Lafleur and Kurri have a very similar peak in terms of goal-scoring.

Cam Neely doesn't have much to show for his career; his 20% leading season is his 1989-90 season with Craig Janney as his center. His 12% lead is his 1990-91 season, before the Ulf Samuelsson incident.

Neely's 1993-94 season was cut short, but we can evaluate the number of goals he would have needed to score to reach certain % lead thresholds. The 10th-placed scorers that season scored 46 goals. To reach a 44% percentage lead, Neely would have needed to score 69 goals (for a 45% lead over 10th place). For a 50% lead, he would have needed to score 72 goals (51% lead). For a 60% percentage lead, Neely would have needed to score 77 goals that season (61%).

Neely was still quite a long way away from having an elite goal-scoring season in 1993-94.

Zuluss states that 44% is the baseline for what would be considered an average goal-scoring lead over the 10th-placed scorer in each respective season. I have highlighted those seasons in green. Listed are all Top 10 finishes; the numbers represent the % lead over the 10th-placed finisher in that year's goal-scoring race (for example: in 1992-93, Brett Hull had the 10th-placed finish with 54 goals; to calculate Teemu Selanne's percentage lead that season over 10th place, we calculate ((76 / 54) - 1) * 0.9 = 37%. Selanne led the 10th-place scorer by a difference of 37% that season).

Pre-1970 seasons receive an adjustment of *0.6 and seasons between 1970-71 and 1996-97 receive an adjustment of *0.9 during calculations. Below are the final results, post-adjustment, and in order of each player's most dominant to least dominant Top 10 goal-scoring finishes:

The quoted posts contain contextual information. Below are the results for players whose % leads have been calculated so far; the players have been separated into two groups -- players with 44%+ lead seasons, and players without.

Howe: 87-63-58-50-35-34-31-28-19-18-16-13-11-10-10-5-2-0
Richard: 70-60-52-48-46-44-35-24-23-21-10-9-8
Gretzky: 77-76-53-43-43-16-13-12-8
Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6
Bobby Hull: 65-56-55-48-42-38-34-28-19-13-12-9
Charlie Conacher: 48-47-47-33-26

Bure: 61-55-48-27-10
Brett Hull: 82-60-54-22-10-0-0-0
Esposito: 100-80-66-47-34-26-18-10-5
Bossy: 65-38-29-29-25-23-23-8-8
Selanne: 58-37-21-20-19-0
Lemieux: 76-42-41-26-25-17-4-4-0

Stamkos: 67-46-38-32-30-9
Lafleur: 50-45-29-27-27-6
Geoffrion: 55-44-23-15-15-13-6-0
Howie Morenz: 50-40-39-34-26-24-18-16-11
Bondra: 58-28-13-10-9-5
Kurri: 49-43-26-10

Marcel Dionne: 43-43-19-16-15-11-0-0-0
Iginla: 41-26-25-24
Patrick Kane: 39-10-0
Yzerman: 37-34-12-7-6-4
Jagr: 35-30-29-21-17-13-11-6
Sakic: 35-8-6-5-0

Harvey "Busher" Jackson: 30-28-14-7-6-0
Heatley: 25-25-11-11-3-0
Neely: 20-12-8-3
Amonte: 19-13
Robitaille: 15-14-9-6-4-0-0-0-0
Andreychuk: 14
Gartner: 8-8-0-0-0

We can determine the degree to which players dominated their field in the goal-scoring race using this method. We can also more accurately estimate the degree to which a player would have needed to dominate a field to reach a certain threshold.

For example: Cam Neely's 1993-94 season was cut short, but we can evaluate the number of goals he would have needed to score to reach certain % lead thresholds that year. The 10th-placed scorers that season scored 46 goals. To reach a 44% percentage lead -- the baseline for an above-average goal-scoring season by a leading scorer --, Neely would have needed to score 69 goals (for a 45% lead over 10th place). For a 50% lead, he would have needed to score 72 goals (51% lead). For a 60% percentage lead, Neely would have needed to score 77 goals that season (61%).

The 1993-94 equivalent of Ovechkin's 2007-08 65-goal campaign would have been a 78-goal season (63% lead).

BELOW IS THE NEW ADJUSTED % LEADS OVER 10th SYSTEM (December 12, 2017):

@Zuluss,

I have an update. I am proposing a more nuanced system based on the preliminary % lead model. I re-assessed your original post and realized that the 0.9 modifier used for the 1970-97 era was determined by dividing the 2nd place over 10th place averages. While the 2nd place over 10th percentage leads between the two eras are more similar than the 1st over 10th percentage leads, the same applies to all 2nd place over 10th leads -- the further down the list, the more similar the margins in many cases. It would not be precise solely to pick and choose the multiplier based on whichever-placed finish has the most similar % leads compared to those of the modern era.

I have, thus, devised a model that takes the multipliers of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd placed percentage leads over 10th of each era and averages them out to create a new multiplier.

Here are the % leads and % lead multipliers of each era for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place over 10th:

---------------------------------------------------------------
1917-18 to 1922-23:

1st place over 10th:
Average: 139.70137096134%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1917-1923 era): 0.3262829140345794

2nd place over 10th:
Average: 121.0213741366992%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1917-1923 era): 0.24754920144493

3rd place over 10th:
Average: 91.18465706120505%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1917-1923 era): 0.272941223574166
---------------------------------------------------------------
1923-24 to 1940-41:

1st place over 10th:
Average: 73.2620751799498%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1923-1941 era): 0.622179624313544

2nd place over 10th:
Average: 52.11469769003309%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1923-1941 era): 0.5748617156621746

3rd place over 10th:
Average: 41.98403386354883%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1923-1941 era): 0.5927980134153855
---------------------------------------------------------------
1941-42 to 1946-47:

1st place over 10th:
Average: 70.67110711561513%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1941-1947 era): 0.6449901844231923

2nd place over 10th:
Average: 32.33627547128691%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1941-1947 era): 0.9264748054212349

3rd place over 10th:
Average: 27.1068068722531%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1941-1947 era): 0.9181476810148292

You'll notice that the 1st-over-10th % lead is so much higher than the 2nd and 3rd place over 10th % leads. In fact, the multipliers are >0.9 for 2nd and 3rd place, making clear that the league's players, for the most part, did not dominate their peers in the goal-scoring leader boards to a degree much greater than in the modern era. We must recall that this takes into account dominance over peers. We will take the average of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place multipliers in each era to determine our final modifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
1947-48 to 1969-70:

1st place over 10th:
Average: 74.79654266560749%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1947-1970 era): 0.6094154727936524

2nd place over 10th:
Average: 47.12100941712862%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1947-1970 era): 0.6357831654263735

3rd place over 10th:
Average: 35.9512521282787
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1947-1970 era): 0.6922721851431556
---------------------------------------------------------------
1970-71 to 1996-97:

1st place over 10th:
Average: 57.32026999682465%
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1970-1997 era): 0.795219045800323

2nd place over 10th:
Average: 32.78734923766489
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1970-1997 era): 0.9137287771617871

3rd place over 10th:
Average: 24.75942837229907
Multiplier (1997-2017 era / 1970-1997 era): 1.005194929997691
---------------------------------------------------------------
1997-98 to 2016-17:

1st place over 10th:
Average: 45.58217041189178

2nd place over 10th:
Average: 29.95874452530799

3rd place over 10th:
Average: 24.88805186947602
---------------------------------------------------------------
We notice with these figures that the differences of the multipliers between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place over 10th within each era are different compared to the differences of those in other eras; for example, in the 1970-1997 era, the multipliers are each separated by approximately 0.1. In the 1947-1970 era, they are separated by ~0.05. In the 1941-1947 era, we see the effects of WWII, where the 2nd and 3rd placed finishers led the 10th-placed finisher by a much smaller margin than the 1st-placed finisher. This means that, in this era, a 50 goal over 23 goal lead by 1st over 10th (Maurice Richard, 1944-45) would be than a 52 goal over 25 goal lead by 1st over 10th in the 1947-1970 era (Bobby Hull, 1966-67). Such a lead in the WWII era was an anomaly and out of the ordinary, whereas in the subsequent era it was much more standard; the frequency with which the top players recorded large goal totals was much greater in the 1947-1970 era, making such leads less significant and more of a product of the era.

In order to determine final multipliers to be used for determining the adjusted % leads of any player, we determine the average of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd over 10th percentage leads of each era. The resultant numbers take into account the climate of goal-scoring within the era, whereas the preliminary model was much less clearly defined in its estimation of the climate.

Here are the final multipliers:

FINAL MULTIPLIERS (AVERAGE OF 1st, 2nd, 3rd OVER 10th):

====================================================

1917-18 to 1922-23:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.2822577796845585

====================================================

1923-24 to 1940-41:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.5966131177970347

====================================================

1941-42 to 1946-47:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.8298708902864188

====================================================

1947-48 to 1969-70:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.6458236077877272

====================================================

1970-71 to 1996-97:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.9047142509866004

====================================================

To calculate the adjusted % lead of any player's finish over 10th, use the formula: [([the player's goal total / the goal total of the 10th-placed finisher that year] - 1) * (final multiplier for the era that the season took place within)] * 100 =

We can use whole numbers for the final % leads, as the difference between tenths is less than one goal.

For example, Bobby Hull's 1966-67 season % lead (52 goals / 25 goals) is a 70% adjusted lead. Maurice Richard's 1944-45 season % lead (50 goals / 23 goals) is a 97% adjusted lead.

*Note: You can copy and paste numbers into the standard Calculator program in Windows. This ensures precision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average % lead of the 1st-place finisher over 10th in the modern era (1997-2017) was 45.58217041189178%. Those seasons with % leads higher than the 46% baseline are to be deemed at the level of an above-average 1st-place finish by modern era standards. One could deem these, for our purposes, "elite goal-scoring seasons" -- better than the average first-place finish in the modern era.

Adjusted Percentage Leads Over 10th:

Richard: 97-66-65-56-49-47-38-29-26-24-12-11-8
Howe: 94-68-62-54-38-37-34-30-21-19-19-17-14-12-11-10-5-2-0
Esposito: 101-80-67-47-34-28-20-11-5
Gretzky: 77-76-53-43-43-16-13-12-8
Lemieux: 77-42-41-26-25-17-4-4-0
Bobby Hull: 70-60-60-51-46-40-36-30-29-20-12-12-10
Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6

Bure: 61-55-48-28-10
Brett Hull: 82-60-54-22-10-0-0-0
Charlie Conacher: 48-47-46-33-26
Stamkos: 67-46-38-32-30-9
Joe Malone: 67-39-30-12
Bossy: 66-38-30-29-25-24-23-8-8
Bernie Geoffrion: 60-47-25-16-16-13-6-0

Selanne: 58-37-21-20-19-0
Bondra: 58-28-13-10-9-5
Howie Morenz: 50-40-39-34-26-24-18-16-11
Lafleur: 50-45-29-27-27-6
Kurri: 49-43-26-10
Marcel Dionne: 43-43-19-16-15-12-0-0-0
Iginla: 41-26-25-24

Patrick Kane: 39-10-0
Yzerman: 37-34-12-7-6-4
Jagr: 35-30-29-21-17-13-11-6
Sakic: 35-8-6-5-0
Heatley: 25-25-11-11-3-0
Neely: 20-12-8-3
Robitaille: 15-14-9-6-4-0-0-0-0

FINAL MULTIPLIERS (AVERAGE OF 1st, 2nd, 3rd OVER 10th):

====================================================

1917-18 to 1922-23:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.2822577796845585

====================================================

1923-24 to 1940-41:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.5966131177970347

====================================================

1941-42 to 1946-47:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.8298708902864188

====================================================

1947-48 to 1969-70:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.6458236077877272

====================================================

1970-71 to 1996-97:

Average of Multipliers for 1st + 2nd + 3rd Averages Over 10th: 0.9047142509866004

====================================================

To calculate the adjusted % lead of any player's finish over 10th, use the formula: [([the player's goal total / the goal total of the 10th-placed finisher that year] - 1) * (final multiplier for the era that the season took place within)] * 100 =

We can use whole numbers for the final % leads, as the difference between tenths is less than one goal.

For example, Bobby Hull's 1966-67 season % lead (52 goals / 25 goals) is a 70% adjusted lead. Maurice Richard's 1944-45 season % lead (50 goals / 23 goals) is a 97% adjusted lead.

*Note: You can copy and paste numbers into the standard Calculator program in Windows. This ensures precision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average % lead of the 1st-place finisher over 10th in the modern era (1997-2017) was 45.58217041189178%. Those seasons with % leads higher than the 46% baseline are to be deemed at the level of an above-average 1st-place finish by modern era standards. One could deem these, for our purposes, "elite goal-scoring seasons" -- better than the average first-place finish in the modern era.

Adjusted Percentage Leads Over 10th:

Richard: 97-66-65-56-49-47-38-29-26-24-12-11-8
Howe: 94-68-62-54-38-37-34-30-21-19-19-17-14-12-11-10-5-2-0
Esposito: 101-80-67-47-34-28-20-11-5
Gretzky: 77-76-53-43-43-16-13-12-8
Lemieux: 77-42-41-26-25-17-4-4-0
Bobby Hull: 70-60-60-51-46-40-36-30-29-20-12-12-10
Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6

Bure: 61-55-48-28-10
Brett Hull: 82-60-54-22-10-0-0-0
Charlie Conacher: 48-47-46-33-26
Stamkos: 67-46-38-32-30-9
Joe Malone: 67-39-30-12
Bossy: 66-38-30-29-25-24-23-8-8
Bernie Geoffrion: 60-47-25-16-16-13-6-0

Selanne: 58-37-21-20-19-0
Bondra: 58-28-13-10-9-5
Howie Morenz: 50-40-39-34-26-24-18-16-11
Lafleur: 50-45-29-27-27-6
Kurri: 49-43-26-10
Marcel Dionne: 43-43-19-16-15-12-0-0-0
Iginla: 41-26-25-24

Patrick Kane: 39-10-0
Yzerman: 37-34-12-7-6-4
Jagr: 35-30-29-21-17-13-11-6
Sakic: 35-8-6-5-0
Heatley: 25-25-11-11-3-0
Neely: 20-12-8-3
Robitaille: 15-14-9-6-4-0-0-0-0

 

[bobholly39]

I think there is a clear Top 6 of Wayne, Mario, Hull, Howe, OV and Richard.

Who would be the best candidates for spots #7 to 10. Bossy, Esposito and Goeffrion come to mind.

I would bump Howe down a tier.

So top 5 of Richard lemieux Gretzky hull and ov. In whatever order.

 

[Neutrinos]

I've never seen Bossy vs Bure discussed

Discuss

 

[Zuluss]

I would bump Howe down a tier.

So top 5 of Richard lemieux Gretzky hull and ov. In whatever order.

What would be the reason to knock Howe down? He has 5 goal-scoring titles, the biggest number of top3 finishes in goals (12), and by some metrics (the leads over #10 or #5) the best 1-year peak and the best 3-year peak.
I'd put Howe second (behind Bobby Hull), and some ways to cut the data even seem to put him first.

 

[Zuluss]

I've never seen Bossy vs Bure discussed

Discuss

Bossy has a better 1-year peak, Bure has a better 3-year peak, Bossy has longevity on Bure (as weird as that sounds). Without a thorough analysis, seems like a tie, if Bure's peak years had been consecutive, I would have gone with Bure

 

[Canadiens1958]

I would bump Howe down a tier.

So top 5 of Richard lemieux Gretzky hull and ov. In whatever order.

Really????. O6 scorers faced elite checkers dedicated to stopping them every game. Known and repeated match-ups. Hull/Provost, Hull/Armstrong, Hull Westfall, etc. Even Mario Lemieux had to play against Carbonneau who held goalless on the PP head-to-head.

Ovy, on the other hand has never had to face a classic individual match-up.

Likewise facing elite defencemen and goalies. Howe face Jacques Plante and Doug Harvey in over 225 games. Lemieux rarely faced Lidstrom, Bourque, Chelios or Roy, Hasek, Brodeur. Likewise Ovy rarely faces the elite d-men and goalies.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bossy has a better 1-year peak, Bure has a better 3-year peak, Bossy has longevity on Bure (as weird as that sounds). Without a thorough analysis, seems like a tie, if Bure's peak years had been consecutive, I would have gone with Bure

Bossy had a nine season peak with five exceptional outlier years. You are using his outlier years to punish him.

Mike Bossy Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[GlitchMarner]

Bossy has a better 1-year peak, Bure has a better 3-year peak, Bossy has longevity on Bure (as weird as that sounds). Without a thorough analysis, seems like a tie, if Bure's peak years had been consecutive, I would have gone with Bure

I'm not sure Bossy's best season for scoring was better than Bure's. Bure outscored the second-highest goal scorer (Nolan) by 14 goals in 2000. Bossy outscored Dionne by ten goals in each of the seasons in which he led the NHL in goals.

 

[Zuluss]

Bossy had a nine season peak with five exceptional outlier years. You are using his outlier years to punish him.

Mike Bossy Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

% leads over the 10th place
Bossy: 73-42-33-33-28-26-25-9-9
Bure: 61-55-48-30-11

Some reference points:
- the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #10 in the 70s and 80s was 61%, the average lead of #2 in goals over #10 was 35%
- the same averages for the 90s were 47% and 28%

So in fact Bossy had one outlier season, outside of which he was a bona fide #2 for 6 years.
Whereas Bure was running laps around an average #2 of his era for three seasons.

 

[Zuluss]

Really????. O6 scorers faced elite checkers dedicated to stopping them every game. Known and repeated match-ups. Hull/Provost, Hull/Armstrong, Hull Westfall, etc. Even Mario Lemieux had to play against Carbonneau who held goalless on the PP head-to-head.

Ovy, on the other hand has never had to face a classic individual match-up.

Likewise facing elite defencemen and goalies. Howe face Jacques Plante and Doug Harvey in over 225 games. Lemieux rarely faced Lidstrom, Bourque, Chelios or Roy, Hasek, Brodeur. Likewise Ovy rarely faces the elite d-men and goalies.

That argument should apply to everyone within an era. What is the reason to believe that Stamkos or Kovalchuk would have done better against individual match-ups or Roy/Hasek than Ovechkin and thus would have taken some of OV's Richards?

Also, in basketball and soccer individual defensive coverage schemes make the forwards life easier. The flip side of individual match-ups is that 2-3 people do not gang up on you.

 

[Canadiens1958]

That argument should apply to everyone within an era. What is the reason to believe that Stamkos or Kovalchuk would have done better against individual match-ups or Roy/Hasek than Ovechkin and thus would have taken some of OV's Richards?

Also, in basketball and soccer individual defensive coverage schemes make the forwards life easier. The flip side of individual match-ups is that 2-3 people do not gang up on you.

Yet you fail to define era. I defined the O6 and match-ups you have a phantom for Stamkos and Kovalchuk. When the Islanders played the Canadiens it was Bossy vs Gainey.

Point is that in individual match-ups star players do worse otherwise no point in maintaining the match-up. Why you raise better is a mystery.

Flip side of individual match-ups????? Actually defensive strategy is to profit by creating odd man situations with defensive triangles., funneling the puck carrier or dangerous scorer into a situation wher he is out-numbered. True in hockey, basketball, soccer. Likewise offensive strategy is about creating odd man situations that free the best scorer or another player for better opportunities.

 

[blogofmike]

Individual matchups are more a basketball thing.

Also unlike basketball, the matchups aren't static and much more prone to forward vs defender. (When Ovechkin plays Ottawa it's Karlsson who has a headache, Mark Stone less so.)

That being said, I don't know if you can credit one Guy for Mario Lemieux not scoring on a PP, especially in a 5-on-4 matchup. These are team games. It would be like saying Joe Nieuwendyk murdered Carbonneau on the PP. (Or Cam Neely murdered Keane or whoever his winger was in the playoffs.)

 

[Canadiens1958]

% leads over the 10th place
Bossy: 73-42-33-33-28-26-25-9-9
Bure: 61-55-48-30-11

Some reference points:
- the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #10 in the 70s and 80s was 61%, the average lead of #2 in goals over #10 was 35%
- the same averages for the 90s were 47% and 28%

So in fact Bossy had one outlier season, outside of which he was a bona fide #2 for 6 years.
Whereas Bure was running laps around an average #2 of his era for three seasons.

So you found an artificial benchmark or two that favour Bure.

Since when is the game played with the objective of an individuals % margin in goal scoring over the 10th place scorer?

Game is played to win. How an individual's goal scoring contributes to winning is what matters.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Individual matchups are more a basketball thing.

Also unlike basketball, the matchups aren't static and much more prone to forward vs defender. (When Ovechkin plays Ottawa it's Karlsson who has a headache, Mark Stone less so.)

That being said, I don't know if you can credit one Guy for Mario Lemieux not scoring on a PP, especially in a 5-on-4 matchup. These are team games. It would be like saying Joe Nieuwendyk murdered Carbonneau on the PP. (Or Cam Neely murdered Keane or whoever his winger was in the playoffs.)

Effectively you have illustrated that you do not know or care about match-ups. Fine. Neely and Keane were RWs - never match-up.

Climbing Mount Chara: Eric Staal Meeting the Challenge

Others appreciate the importance of match-ups. Chara/Staal in the 2009 playoffs.

 

[Fantomas]

Game is played to win.

Maybe not in the mind of Bure though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Maybe not in the mind of Bure though.

We will never know with certainty.

 

[blogofmike]

Effectively you have illustrated that you do not know or care about match-ups. Fine. Neely and Keane were RWs - never match-up.

Climbing Mount Chara: Eric Staal Meeting the Challenge

Others appreciate the importance of match-ups. Chara/Staal in the 2009 playoffs.

They were powerplays. Carbonneau wouldn't match up with Mario either. After the faceoff it would be odd to just hang out with Mario on the left wing boards while his teammates were 3 on 4. Carbo would be creating Steve Young's answer to the real most dangerous scorer - the uncovered one.

As for Chara/Staal, yeah that's a defender and a forward. RW/LW matchups are less frequent and certainly not automatic. Unless Montreal's PK dictated that Carbo took the C, Keane took the LW, defenders took each other for some reason (matchups!), and that left Roy to cover Neely.

But that gets back to the Steve Young answer.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Maybe not in the mind of Bure though.

Bure always talked about winning, but in 1997-98 he recognized that scoring had started to become much more difficult and adjusted his game, compartmentalizing the roles of the players: scorers score, shutdown players defend.

This was not a successful strategy with the Florida Panthers, although Mike Keenan seemed to endorse it.

When Bure arrived in New York, Bure's style of game changed, and reports were that he and Matthew Barnaby were the only two players on the team who played with hustle and a consistent level of effort. Bure was praised for remodeling his game.

Playing for bad teams made winning that much more difficult, as it had to always be solely on the back of Bure. Reliance on one player never works -- to succeed as a team, the team needs to be better than other teams.

We have had this conversation in another thread with ample evidence. You can refer to that for the sources across the first three pages.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...re-from-defence-than-an-elite-center.2414959/

% leads over the 10th place
Bossy: 73-42-33-33-28-26-25-9-9
Bure: 61-55-48-30-11

Some reference points:
- the average lead of the goal-scoring title winner over #10 in the 70s and 80s was 61%, the average lead of #2 in goals over #10 was 35%
- the same averages for the 90s were 47% and 28%

So in fact Bossy had one outlier season, outside of which he was a bona fide #2 for 6 years.
Whereas Bure was running laps around an average #2 of his era for three seasons.

I notice your calculations here do not use the 60% and 90% adjustments that you specified in your other analysis.

Accounting for the era adjustments as you instructed in another thread, the differences in peak are even more apparent:

Bure: 61-55-48-27-10
Bossy: 65-38-29-29-25-23-23-8-8

With 44% being the baseline for an "above-average season" for a leading scorer, Bossy only breaches that mark once -- that was his 1978-79 season when he scored 69 goals; the 10th-placed finisher, Ron Sedlbauer, had 40 goals - -a 65% difference. His next-largest total was 68 goals in 1980-81, but the 10th-placed finisher had 48 goals -- a difference of 38% (a 68-goal year isn't as significant in a year when there are eight other 50-goal scorers and 18 total 40-goal scorers; Selanne's 76-goal season suffers for the same reason -- scoring was easier across the field). The margins between Bossy's totals throughout his career and the rest of the field were much smaller than in 1978-79. His leads over 10th throughout his career were not particularly large compared to the rest of the field. He surpassed 44% only once.

That is just the raw calculation, never mind what happens when one factors in contextual evidence such as team quality and injuries. Bossy played on a dynasty team with a wealth of talent to take pressure off of him; Bure played on bad teams, allowing opponents to place all of their best defensive coverage on him. Bossy's peak season took place early in his career; Bure's took place post-injury on a bad knee.

Bure had three seasons above 44%, and his best season is very similar to Bossy's best season -- both within a few points of one another, and both above the 60% lead threshold.

With regards to those seasons being in consecutive years played, they were. Bure did not play in 1998-99, but was very dominant with 13 goals in 11 games. That brief period is sandwiched by the 55% season (1997-98), 61% season (1999-00), and 48% season (2000-01).

Bure played only one more full season after his 48% lead season. His knee rapidly deteriorated during his peak, robbing him not only of more years but also potentially a higher peak.

The raw % leads, however, are enough to put Bure over Bossy.





If you want an example of an eight-time 40-goal scorer who never dominated 10th place, look no further than Mike Gartner. Gartner was the 10th-placed finisher in Bossy's 68-goal season; he scored 48. He scored 50 goals, ranked ninth, in the year that Bossy scored 58. He scored 40, one of 24 players to do so, in the second of two years that Bossy scored 51.

Gartner: 8-8-0-0-0

Bossy only dominated the field once.

 

[seventieslord]

If Gretzky could score 92 goals while also putting up 120 assists, doesn't it stand to reason that if he had wanted to focus solely on goals he could have scored 100-110?

That's why simple adjustments focusing only on goals don't quite do it for me. They do a good job of adjusting them to a baseline for statistical significance, but don't necessarily say who was literally "better at scoring goals".

 

[Canadiens1958]

They were powerplays. Carbonneau wouldn't match up with Mario either. After the faceoff it would be odd to just hang out with Mario on the left wing boards while his teammates were 3 on 4. Carbo would be creating Steve Young's answer to the real most dangerous scorer - the uncovered one.

As for Chara/Staal, yeah that's a defender and a forward. RW/LW matchups are less frequent and certainly not automatic. Unless Montreal's PK dictated that Carbo took the C, Keane took the LW, defenders took each other for some reason (matchups!), and that left Roy to cover Neely.

But that gets back to the Steve Young answer.

You really do not understand defensive hockey or the PK. The Carbonneau / Lemieux match-up was also about handedness - both were RHS. Advantages to Carbonneau on the faceoffs and easier to cover passing/shooting lanes that originate on the LW boards. Basic hockey applied at a high level. Forcing Pittsburgh to move the puck in directions and thru lanes that were not preferred.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If Gretzky could score 92 goals while also putting up 120 assists, doesn't it stand to reason that if he had wanted to focus solely on goals he could have scored 100-110?

That's why simple adjustments focusing only on goals don't quite do it for me. They do a good job of adjusting them to a baseline for statistical significance, but don't necessarily say who was literally "better at scoring goals".

Depends if it is possible to properly interpret and adjust for first assists. Differentiating between first assists that are passing or playmaking assists and rebound assists which are also first assists but reflect an attempt to score.

Initial scoring chances - a look at SOGs, type of first assists would provide a better answer. Also a question that I do not recall anyone asking about Gretzky is how many rebound goals did he score?

You are correct that simple adjustments are normative and not descriptive.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bure always talked about winning, but in 1997-98 he recognized that scoring had started to become much more difficult and adjusted his game, compartmentalizing the roles of the players: scorers score, shutdown players defend.

This was not a successful strategy with the Florida Panthers, although Mike Keenan seemed to endorse it.

When Bure arrived in New York, Bure's style of game changed, and reports were that he and Matthew Barnaby were the only two players on the team who played with hustle and a consistent level of effort. Bure was praised for remodeling his game.

Playing for bad teams made winning that much more difficult, as it had to always be solely on the back of Bure. Reliance on one player never works -- to succeed as a team, the team needs to be better than other teams.

We have had this conversation in another thread with ample evidence. You can refer to that for the sources across the first three pages.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...re-from-defence-than-an-elite-center.2414959/

Maurice Richard always talked about hating to lose. Trust you see the difference.

So you admit Bure's game required remodeling. Interesting to say the least. Provide the specifics of the remodeling. Doubt you can.