Top Ten goalscorers of all-time

[Nick Hansen]

Does anyone think Crosby needs to be considered? 394 goals in 812 games, eight seasons with +30 goals including one with 51 goals. Two Richards.

 

[Zuluss]

The way I see it, there are five players who have a legitimate argument for first (depending on what specific traits/accomplishments are valued). In chronological order these are Richard, Howe, Hull senior, Gretzky and Lemieux.

Next there are four players who have no argument for first, but clearly deserve to be in the top ten. Again in chronological order we have Esposito, Bossy, Hull junior and Ovechkin.

That leaves tenth place up for grabs. Personally I’d vote for Jagr but there are several players with good arguments for the tenth spot (including Conacher, Geoffrion, Bure and Selanne).

I really do not see any statistical argument for taking Lemieux' goal-scoring over Ovechkin's.
And the gap between Gretzky and Ovechkin, even if you see it going Gretzky's way (which I do not), is not large enough to say they are different tiers.
On the other hand, I do not think either of the three have an argument for #1, which has to be either Howe or Bobby Hull or Richard.

 

[Nick Hansen]

The way I see it, there are five players who have a legitimate argument for first (depending on what specific traits/accomplishments are valued). In chronological order these are Richard, Howe, Hull senior, Gretzky and Lemieux.

Next there are four players who have no argument for first, but clearly deserve to be in the top ten. Again in chronological order we have Esposito, Bossy, Hull junior and Ovechkin.

That leaves tenth place up for grabs. Personally I’d vote for Jagr but there are several players with good arguments for the tenth spot (including Conacher, Geoffrion, Bure and Selanne).

Yeah, that seems about right.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I really do not see any statistical argument for taking Lemieux' goal-scoring over Ovechkin's.
And the gap between Gretzky and Ovechkin, even if you see it going Gretzky's way (which I do not), is not large enough to say they are different tiers.
On the other hand, I do not think either of the three have an argument for #1, which has to be either Howe or Bobby Hull or Richard.

Lack of playoff production is what (so far) keeps Ovechkin out of the top tier.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Are you saying that all players from the O6 era face tougher competition than today's players or some players faced easier competition while some face harder competition based on the teams they played for and who was injured?

Game in, game out the O6 was a much tougher league. Some variance in scoring mainly due to players playing on three or four line teams which impacts TOI - no one has ever scored while resting on the bench, how players support each other offensively and the distribution of responsibilities.

Injuries on a team or within the league are always a factor. True in all eras.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The way I see it, there are five players who have a legitimate argument for first (depending on what specific traits/accomplishments are valued). In chronological order these are Richard, Howe, Hull senior, Gretzky and Lemieux.

Next there are four players who have no argument for first, but clearly deserve to be in the top ten. Again in chronological order we have Esposito, Bossy, Hull junior and Ovechkin.

That leaves tenth place up for grabs. Personally I’d vote for Jagr but there are several players with good arguments for the tenth spot (including Conacher, Geoffrion, Bure and Selanne).

Lafleur though flawed defensively, definitely over Geoffrion and Bure.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Does anyone think Crosby needs to be considered? 394 goals in 812 games, eight seasons with +30 goals including one with 51 goals. Two Richards.

Beliveau level with a shorter career. Complete offensive package group.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lack of playoff production is what (so far) keeps Ovechkin out of the top tier.

Also Ovechkin is the most one dimensional scorer under consideration.

 

[Zuluss]

Lack of playoff production is what (so far) keeps Ovechkin out of the top tier.

The gap in regular season scoring is too big to close by another 100 games.
Ovechkin has 6 goal-scoring titles vs. 3 for Lemieux. If you start parsing it down further, it turns out that two of Lemieux' goal-scoring titles are not even particularly strong, whereas all Ovechkin's in fact are.
Blade Paradigm above did the leads over #15 in goals (he found that #15 is very stable and most of the time several players share this place, making injuries/off-seasons non-issue)
Ovechkin: 86-71-65-60-60-56-52-37-24-12-0-0
Lemieux: 71-46-45-33-30-27-8-7-7-0
The regular season is just not comparable at all.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The gap in regular season scoring is too big to close by another 100 games.
Ovechkin has 6 goal-scoring titles vs. 3 for Lemieux. If you start parsing it down further, it turns out that two of Lemieux' goal-scoring titles are not even particularly strong, whereas all Ovechkin's in fact are.
Blade Paradigm above did the leads over #15 in goals (he found that #15 is very stable and most of the time several players share this place, making injuries/off-seasons non-issue)
Ovechkin: 86-71-65-60-60-56-52-37-24-12-0-0
Lemieux: 71-46-45-33-30-27-8-7-7-0
The regular season is just not comparable at all.

Shopping for a benchmark does not advance the discussion.

 

[Zuluss]

Shopping for a benchmark does not advance the discussion.

Any benchmark will lead to the same conclusion.
Take % leads over #5 for a change

Ovechkin: 51-43-40-39-38-32-7-4-0
Lemieux: 67-37-35-15-4-4

Still not comparable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Any benchmark will lead to the same conclusion.
Take % leads over #5 for a change

Ovechkin: 51-43-40-39-38-32-7-4-0
Lemieux: 67-37-35-15-4-4

Still not comparable.

And of course these benchmarks explain the objectives of the game.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Does anyone think Crosby needs to be considered? 394 goals in 812 games, eight seasons with +30 goals including one with 51 goals. Two Richards.

I'd have a tough time finding room for Crosby in the top 20. But he's still adding to his resume and he might get there eventually.

Lafleur though flawed defensively, definitely over Geoffrion and Bure.

I think you're right about this. I thought about Lafleur and dismissed him initially on the basis that he had little to offer outside of his peak years. But I don't think it's fair for me to say that about him, while including Bure and Conacher on the list.

The gap in regular season scoring is too big to close by another 100 games.
Ovechkin has 6 goal-scoring titles vs. 3 for Lemieux. If you start parsing it down further, it turns out that two of Lemieux' goal-scoring titles are not even particularly strong, whereas all Ovechkin's in fact are.
Blade Paradigm above did the leads over #15 in goals (he found that #15 is very stable and most of the time several players share this place, making injuries/off-seasons non-issue)
Ovechkin: 86-71-65-60-60-56-52-37-24-12-0-0
Lemieux: 71-46-45-33-30-27-8-7-7-0
The regular season is just not comparable at all.

Which two of Lemieux's goal-scoring titles aren't strong? In 1989 he led the NHL by 25% over a player who was Gretzky's teammate. The year before he led the NHL by 21% over a player who spent a quarter of the season as Lemieux's own linemate, then the remainder as Gretzky's linemate. Then in 1996 he led the league by 11% over his linemate Jagr (but by 25% over the nearest non-linemate).

Also, a hundred playoff games are worth more than a hundred regular season games. At one point Lemieux scored 52 goals in 60 playoff games which, even accounting for the fact that it was a higher-scoring era, dwarfs anything Ovechkin has accomplished in the postseason. Bourque and Chelios, both in their primes, were tasked with containing Lemieux in the conference finals & Stanley Cup finals in 1992. He scored 9 goals in 7 games, facing two of the best defensive defensemen of all-time for the majority of his time on the ice. The year before, he scored 10 goals in 10 games in the conference & Stanley Cup finals (once against facing off against Bourque and the Bruins). I find that more impressive than Ovechkin's more consistent regular season production. Ovechkin has by far the weakest playoff resume of any of the top nine candidates, and that's a strike against him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'd have a tough time finding room for Crosby in the top 20. But he's still adding to his resume and he might get there eventually.



I think you're right about this. I thought about Lafleur and dismissed him initially on the basis that he had little to offer outside of his peak years. But I don't think it's fair for me to say that about him, while including Bure and Conacher on the list.



Which two of Lemieux's goal-scoring titles aren't strong? In 1989 he led the NHL by 25% over a player who was Gretzky's teammate. The year before he led the NHL by 21% over a player who spent a quarter of the season as Lemieux's own linemate, then the remainder as Gretzky's linemate. Then in 1996 he led the league by 11% over his linemate Jagr (but by 25% over the nearest non-linemate).

Also, a hundred playoff games are worth more than a hundred regular season games. At one point Lemieux scored 52 goals in 60 playoff games which, even accounting for the fact that it was a higher-scoring era, dwarfs anything Ovechkin has accomplished in the postseason. Bourque and Chelios, both in their primes, were tasked with containing Lemieux in the conference finals & Stanley Cup finals in 1992. He scored 9 goals in 7 games, facing two of the best defensive defensemen of all-time for the majority of his time on the ice. The year before, he scored 10 goals in 10 games in the conference & Stanley Cup finals (once against facing off against Bourque and the Bruins). I find that more impressive than Ovechkin's more consistent regular season production. Ovechkin has by far the weakest playoff resume of any of the top nine candidates, and that's a strike against him.

Playoff games are worth significantly more, easily double since the results are achieved against playoff eligibile teams. In Ovechkin's time 14 of the 30 teams did not make the playoffs producing a padded RS result.

Also, playoff results are produced in different circumstances where the opposition has upwards of seven consecutive games dedicated to stopping a specific player. Not so during the regular season.

 

[Zuluss]

And of course these benchmarks explain the objectives of the game.

Well, it is not like you present better evidence. Or any evidence at all.

 

[Zuluss]

Which two of Lemieux's goal-scoring titles aren't strong? In 1989 he led the NHL by 25% over a player who was Gretzky's teammate. The year before he led the NHL by 21% over a player who spent a quarter of the season as Lemieux's own linemate, then the remainder as Gretzky's linemate. Then in 1996 he led the league by 11% over his linemate Jagr (but by 25% over the nearest non-linemate).

20-25% lead over 2nd is nothing special, Ovechkin leads in all Richard-winning seasons but two were about that big. (The exceptions are the lockout-shortened 12/13, when Stamkos was 2nd, and 15/16, Kane's career year).

If you look at leads over 5th/10th, which should be immune from who was whose linemate and who had a career year/off-season, Lemieux leads in 87/88 and 95/96 were 37% and 35% (46% and 47%). That's a bit below par for the course for a goal-scoring title winner of 1970-96 (38% and 59% leads) and 1.5-2 times better than the lead of a typical runner-up over 5th/10th (16% / 33%).

Ovechkin has 5 seasons when his lead over 5th is 38% or better (plus another 32% lead) and 5 seasons when his lead over 10th is 50% and more (plus two more with 44% and 43% leads). The average leads of #1 and #2 over 5th/10th have also shrunk during his time, making all goal-scoring titles by Ovechkin better than average (oftentimes significantly so) and roughly twice better than a typical runner-up campaign for the era.

Also, a hundred playoff games are worth more than a hundred regular season games.

That's true, but are they worth more than 700 games or so, which are the goal-scoring prime of Lemieux and Ovechkin? I doubt that.
Plus, we do not know how Ovechkin would have fared in the playoffs had he spent his peak years on a team comparable to Pens of the early 90s. Lemieux was on the right team at the right time. Ovechkin was not. Of course, you cannot credit Ovechkin for the games he did not play, but it is also not as if he played them and did not do anything. He just did not have a chance.

 

[Killion]

He just did not have a chance.

Yes, agreed. How McPhee lasted down there as long as he did no idea, had one of the most exciting & generational players to come along in ages... bottom line ownership in Washington running a very tight ship, risk averse, playing it conservative, never really going for the Brass Ring & here we are. Ovi playing out the best years of his career in the Siberian Star Chamber of the NHL, your Washington Capitals.

Never had a chance, he as a player and we as fans? ROBBED. Same thing with Bure' in Vancouver though not to the same extent. Frankly I feel Gypped, feel badly for Alexander Ovechkin, Caps fans. Moron Coaches, GM & Owner throw a yoke on a thoroughbred, expecting him to break track records doing everything himself... no real support. Look. Mustangs, you gotta let them run & gun. Why would you cripple your greatest asset in insisting he completely reinvent his game?

Crazy. Ted Leonsis one of the most powerful & influential members on the all powerful NHL Executive Committee. A "model of astute ownership".... Are you Freakin Kiddin Me?!!!!... K.... I gotta step away from the keyboard.... need wine... booze... blood pressure rising... and what about Alex? How much did he lose in endorsements.... what might have been had he been playing for a club that actually had Stanley Cup ambitions?.....

 

[Nick Hansen]

I'd have a tough time finding room for Crosby in the top 20. But he's still adding to his resume and he might get there eventually.

I've looked into it and agree with you. Outside of the two Richards there isn't much to write home about. Not in this particular discussion any way.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Can we come Old-Old Timers like Joe Malone and Cy Denneny with these metrics?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

20-25% lead over 2nd is nothing special, Ovechkin leads in all Richard-winning seasons but two were about that big. (The exceptions are the lockout-shortened 12/13, when Stamkos was 2nd, and 15/16, Kane's career year).

If you look at leads over 5th/10th, which should be immune from who was whose linemate and who had a career year/off-season, Lemieux leads in 87/88 and 95/96 were 37% and 35% (46% and 47%). That's a bit below par for the course for a goal-scoring title winner of 1970-96 (38% and 59% leads) and 1.5-2 times better than the lead of a typical runner-up over 5th/10th (16% / 33%).

Ovechkin has 5 seasons when his lead over 5th is 38% or better (plus another 32% lead) and 5 seasons when his lead over 10th is 50% and more (plus two more with 44% and 43% leads). The average leads of #1 and #2 over 5th/10th have also shrunk during his time, making all goal-scoring titles by Ovechkin better than average (oftentimes significantly so) and roughly twice better than a typical runner-up campaign for the era.

That's true, but are they worth more than 700 games or so, which are the goal-scoring prime of Lemieux and Ovechkin? I doubt that.
Plus, we do not know how Ovechkin would have fared in the playoffs had he spent his peak years on a team comparable to Pens of the early 90s. Lemieux was on the right team at the right time. Ovechkin was not. Of course, you cannot credit Ovechkin for the games he did not play, but it is also not as if he played them and did not do anything. He just did not have a chance.

I understand the math you've presented, but it doesn't take into account the quality of competition. Here are the top twenty goal-scoring seasons from 2006-2017 excluding Ovechkin (more than twenty due to ties):

• Stamkos 3x
• Kovalchuk 2x
• Heatley 2x
• Malkin 2x
• Cheechoo
• Jagr
• Lecavalier
• Crosby
• Iginla
• Perry
• Gionta
• Selanne
• Gagne
• Carter
• Kane
• Parise
• Staal

Here are the top twenty from 1985-1997 (more with ties) excluding Lemieux:

• Hull 3x
• Yzerman 3x
• Gretzky 2x
• Bossy 2x
• Bure 2x
• Kurri 2x
• Kerr 2x
• Mogilny
• Selanne
• Robitaille
• Jagr
• Turgeon

It's obvious that Lemieux faced tougher high-end competition, which surely contributed to Ovechkin having larger percentage leads over his peers.

Regarding the playoffs - Ovechkin played on three President's Trophy winners (during those regular seasons he won two goal-scoring titles, and was one goal away the third season). Let's not pretend that he never had a chance to go on a deep playoff run.

To be clear, I'm not faulting Ovechkin personally for not winning the Stanley Cup. But the reality is he's only had a few playoff series where he dominated with his goal-scoring (the 2nd round in 2009, the 1st round in 2010, and the 1st round in 2008). But Lemieux had a higher peak as goal-scorer in the playoffs, and was more consistent. His playoff resume is more than just another ~100 regular season games. I'm sure any Capitals fan would gladly trade three of Ovechkin's goal-scoring crowns for some of the seven playoff series where Lemieux scored 5+ goals (Oveckin had two such series).

(I don't want to overstate my case against Ovechkin. He's at worst 7th on my list. He has a non-trivial chance of ending up as the greatest goal-scorer of all time - but, among other things, he'd need to add at least one or two strong playoff runs to get there).

 

[Regal]

20-25% lead over 2nd is nothing special, Ovechkin leads in all Richard-winning seasons but two were about that big. (The exceptions are the lockout-shortened 12/13, when Stamkos was 2nd, and 15/16, Kane's career year).

If you look at leads over 5th/10th, which should be immune from who was whose linemate and who had a career year/off-season, Lemieux leads in 87/88 and 95/96 were 37% and 35% (46% and 47%). That's a bit below par for the course for a goal-scoring title winner of 1970-96 (38% and 59% leads) and 1.5-2 times better than the lead of a typical runner-up over 5th/10th (16% / 33%).

Ovechkin has 5 seasons when his lead over 5th is 38% or better (plus another 32% lead) and 5 seasons when his lead over 10th is 50% and more (plus two more with 44% and 43% leads). The average leads of #1 and #2 over 5th/10th have also shrunk during his time, making all goal-scoring titles by Ovechkin better than average (oftentimes significantly so) and roughly twice better than a typical runner-up campaign for the era.



That's true, but are they worth more than 700 games or so, which are the goal-scoring prime of Lemieux and Ovechkin? I doubt that.
Plus, we do not know how Ovechkin would have fared in the playoffs had he spent his peak years on a team comparable to Pens of the early 90s. Lemieux was on the right team at the right time. Ovechkin was not. Of course, you cannot credit Ovechkin for the games he did not play, but it is also not as if he played them and did not do anything. He just did not have a chance.

I don't see how any discussion about Lemieux can ignore games played and GPG. Staying healthy is important sure, but so is ability when healthy

 

[Zuluss]

I understand the math you've presented, but it doesn't take into account the quality of competition. Here are the top twenty goal-scoring seasons from 2006-2017 excluding Ovechkin (more than twenty due to ties):

Stamkos 3x
Kovalchuk 2x
Heatley 2x
Malkin 2x
Cheechoo
Jagr
Lecavalier
Crosby
Iginla
Perry
Gionta
Selanne
Gagne
Carter
Kane
Parise
Staal

Here are the top twenty from 1985-1997 (more with ties) excluding Lemieux:

Hull 3x
Yzerman 3x
Gretzky 2x
Bossy 2x
Bure 2x
Kurri 2x
Kerr 2x
Mogilny
Selanne
Robitaille
Jagr
Turgeon

It's obvious that Lemieux faced tougher high-end competition, which surely contributed to Ovechkin having larger percentage leads over his peers.

I am not sure I understand this argument. I think you are trying to argue that Lemieux had smaller leads over #10 than Ovechkin because #10 was better in Lemieux years. But would not that imply that all goal-scoring title winners in Lemieux years should have thinner leads over #10 than they currently do? I think it should.

As I said, the average margin over 5th/10th for a goal-scoring title winner is 38% / 59% in 1970-1996 (higher scoring era) and 27% / 44% in 1997-2017 (current lower-scoring era). A similar, though smaller difference exists for the leads of #2 over #5/#10 (16% / 33% vs. 14% / 30%). I think it goes against your hypothesis that large leads over #10 were harder to open in Lemieux years because everyone in top10 was so good.

I re-did the averages exactly for the years you specified (1985-1997 and 2006-2017), though small samples are a bit of a concern. For #1 vs. #5/#10 they are 34%/51% in 1985-1997 and 32%/48% in 2006-2017. For #2 vs. #5/#10 they are 15%/30% in 1985-1997 and 17%/31% in 2006-2017. So it is more or less a wash.

As for the intuition of why it is so I think a longer list of people who can potentially have a strong season and push up the breakpoint for #10 in goals means more than a shorter list of people who were on average very good. In each particular year, the best four of the modern list may be harder to beat by a large margin than the best four of the old list, just because the modern list is so long and so many players can potentially jump into top5.

Regarding the playoffs - Ovechkin played on three President's Trophy winners (during those regular seasons he won two goal-scoring titles, and was one goal away the third season). Let's not pretend that he never had a chance to go on a deep playoff run.

Probably, but the reality is that he never did, and we did not see what Ovechkin can do in 4 rounds during his peak years.
Lemieux, however, did go 4 rounds during his peak years, and the games from his peak years take a larger fraction of his playoff resume than Ovechkin's. So he looks better, and a lot of it is due to his team being better than Ovechkin's and making those rounds. Lemieux deserves credit for that, sure, but it is not like he waged a one-man war there and it is not like it is all due to his goal-scoring (his play-making was equally good).

His playoff resume is more than just another ~100 regular season games. I'm sure any Capitals fan would gladly trade three of Ovechkin's goal-scoring crowns for some of the seven playoff series where Lemieux scored 5+ goals (Oveckin had two such series).

Well, Caps fans are not the most objective ones in this particular matter
But anyway, even if you say that the better part of Lemieux' playoff resume is worth one dominant regular-season title and the rest cancels out (remember, Ovechkin is also 1st in playoff gpg post-lockout, even though the margin of his lead over the field is not as good as Lemieux') - it still does not close the gap.

Here are the % leads over the 5th place in goals (regular season)
Ovechkin: 51-43-40-39-38-32-7-4-0
Lemieux: 67-37-35-15-4-4
Even if you fudge in another 50 (that's about the margin of his playoff gpg lead in 1985-1997) into the Lemieux line as an award for the playoffs, Ovechkin is still ahead. And if you want to fudge in 50 twice, I think I will start to object, because two regular seasons is 160 games, Lemieux played in 107 playoff games, Ovechkin played in 97 playoff games and has something to show for those too. Even if playoff games are twice as valuable, to trade Lemieux playoff resume for two regular season goal-scoring titles you need to use almost all of it - and if you do, you have to give Ovechkin something (like two narrow wins).

 

[Zuluss]

I don't see how any discussion about Lemieux can ignore games played and GPG. Staying healthy is important sure, but so is ability when healthy

Ovechkin (goals): 6*1st, 8*top3, 10*top5, 10*top10
Lemieux (gpg): 6*1st, 8*top3, 9*top5, 11*top10

Ovechkin real finishes in goals are exactly the same as Lemieux' pro-rated ones. I guess I'd take the real thing.

 

[Regal]

Ovechkin (goals): 6*1st, 8*top3, 10*top5, 10*top10
Lemieux (gpg): 6*1st, 8*top3, 9*top5, 11*top10

Ovechkin real finishes in goals are exactly the same as Lemieux' pro-rated ones. I guess I'd take the real thing.

But that's where dominance and competition come into play. If we look at GPG and compare to the 15th place as a baseline (minimum 41 games for everyone including Lemieux), we get them leading by these percentages:

Lemieux:
96.5, 82.5, 70.7, 65.3, 62.3, 49.2, 38.2, 37.5, 32.7, 7.0, 3.0

Ovechkin:
75.6, 67.5, 60.5, 58.5, 54.8, 53.7, 47.9,
28.0, 14.3, 11.4

I think it's pretty clear that when healthy, Lemieux was a more prolific goalscorer. Ovechkin is arguably a greater goalscorer, but that's based on health

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Can we come Old-Old Timers like Joe Malone and Cy Denneny with these metrics?

Yes. One would have to find the average % lead over 15th for that era in order to determine the conversion multiplier.

Actually, looking at the Goals For league averages over the course of the past 100 years, I think we can further define the pre-1970 era.

Between 1997 and 2017, the GF average has been relatively stable at a sub-3.00 GF average. Between 1970 and 1996, the GF league average was between 3 and 4 GF. Pre-1970, we might want to separate the first 53 years into four eras.

Between 1947-48 and 1969-70, the GF league average was once again sub-3.00. However, during and slightly after WWII, the GF was once again at a GF that ranged between 3 and 4 per game.

The GF in 1940-41 was almost 0.5 goals lower than the 1941-42 average. Between 1923-24 and 1940-41, the average around the league was below 3 again.

Between 1917-18 and 1922-23, the GF league average was once again above 3 and at times closer to 4.

We can, thus, define the eras as:

1917-18 to 1922-23
1923-24 to 1940-41
1941-42 to 1946-47
1947-48 to 1969-70
1970-71 to 1996-97
1997-98 to 2016-17

I think that's something we should keep in mind. I think new, more-specific conversion multipliers should be determined for the pre-1970 eras.

To calculate the multipliers for each era, we need to divide the 1st-place finisher's total in each year by the 15th-placed finisher within a particular era for the % leads in each season (and subtract 1.0 for the % difference between 1 vs 15 -- we get the number we are looking for after subtracting 1.0), then determine the average % lead in that era of the 1st-place over 15th by dividing by the number of seasons. The same would apply to finding the multiplier for % Lead Over 10th by dividing 1st over 10th in every year of a particular era and finding the average. We divide the number representing the average % lead of that era by the average % lead of the 1997-2017 era to find the multiplier.

Please let me know if you agree.

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com