Top Ten goalscorers of all-time

[Zuluss]

@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.

The problem with using 1st places for normalizing anything is that sometimes the 1st place is an obvious outlier. That should be dubbed "the Gretzky effect" I think, but it happens with other players too (peak Howe, peak Hulls, etc.)
That's the reason why, for example, the VsX measure normalizes goals/points to #2 totals, not #1 (otherwise everyone who played during Gretzky's prime would look undeservedly bad).
Similarly, one can argue that 1970-1996 had such great leads of #1 over #10 not because it was easier to open large leads back then compared to now, but because this period had Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, and peak Hull, and the 1997-2017 does not have as many great goal-scorers.
Looking at #2 leads over #10 and comparing them across eras avoids this criticism, though averaging #1, #2, and #3 can at least greatly attenuate this concern as well.

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.

That seems to be an interesting observation, because it suggests that leads of #3 over #10 (and, presumably, #5 over #10) are more comparable across eras and probably should not be adjusted by the same multiplier we apply to peak seasons. On the other hand, the difference in the adjustment factor seems to be minor, and probably we are close to the point where the measurement error of the method is greater than the extra adjustments we can make (I mean, if we are adjusting O6-era leads by multiplying them by 0.6, we are not sure it is 0.6 precisely, it is somewhere in the ballpark - but then 0.65 is somewhere in the ballpark too, and we will never know which one it is, so changing the adjustment factor to 0.65 for some or all leads may be not that important).

 

[Blade Paradigm]

To give us an idea of who the 10th-placed scorers were every year over the past 100 years, I have compiled a list. Here are all of the players who were tied in goals that season with the 10th-placed goal scorer:

1917-18:
Eddie Gerard* • OTS 13
Alf Skinner • TRA 13

1918-19:
Ken Randall • TRA 8
Jack McDonald • MTL 8
Corb Denneny • TRA 8

1919-20:
Punch Broadbent* • OTS 19

1920-21:
Didier Pitre* • MTL 16

1921-22:
Billy Boucher • MTL 17
Sprague Cleghorn* • MTL 17
Reg Noble* • TRS 17

1922-23:
Goldie Prodgers • HAM 13

1923-24:
Frank Nighbor* • OTS 11
Red Green • HAM 11

1924-25:
Billy Boucher • MTL 17
Jimmy Herbert • BOS 17

1925-26:
Hooley Smith* • OTS 16
Babe Siebert* • MTM 16

1926-27:
Hib Milks • PTP 16
Pit Lepine • MTL 16
Duke Keats* • 2TM 16
Bill Carson • TOR 16

1927-28:
Hib Milks • PTP 18
Bill Cook* • NYR 18

1928-29:
Bun Cook* • NYR 13
Bob Connors • DTC 13
King Clancy* • OTS 13

1929-30:
Pit Lepine • MTL 24
Bun Cook* • NYR 24

1930-31:
Marty Barry* • BOS 20
Johnny Gottselig • CBH 20

1931-32:
Jimmy Ward • MTM 19
Baldy Northcott • MTM 19
Pit Lepine • MTL 19
Johnny Gagnon • MTL 19

1932-33:
Aurele Joliat* • MTL 18
Nels Stewart* • BOS 18

1933-34:
Bun Cook* • NYR 18
Hooley Smith* • MTM 18

1934-35:
John Sorrell • DET 20
Leroy Goldsworthy • 2TM 20
Herb Cain • MTM 20
Marty Barry* • BOS 20

1935-36:
Larry Aurie • DET 16
Syd Howe* • DET 16
Mush March • CBH 16

1936-37:
Paul Thompson • CBH 17
Aurele Joliat* • MTL 17
Syd Howe* • DET 17
Dit Clapper* • BOS 17
Marty Barry* • DET 17

1937-38:
Alex Shibicky • NYR 17
Charlie Sands • BOS 17
Busher Jackson* • TOR 17
Bryan Hextall* • NYR 17
Bill Cowley* • BOS 17
Neil Colville* • NYR 17
Toe Blake* • MTL 17

1938-39:
Johnny Gottselig • CBH 16
Syd Howe* • DET 16
Nels Stewart* • NYA 16

1939-40:
Murray Armstrong • NYA 16

1940-41:
Art Jackson • BOS 17
Bill Cowley* • BOS 17
Bobby Bauer* • BOS 17

1941-42:
Flash Hollett • BOS 19

1942-43:
Gaye Stewart • TOR 24

1943-44:
Art Jackson • BOS 28
Gerry Heffernan • MTL 28
Ray Getliffe • MTL 28

1944-45:
Clint Smith* • CBH 23
Carl Liscombe • DET 23
Mud Bruneteau • DET 23

1945-46:
Pete Horeck • CBH 20
Red Hamill • CBH 20
Ab DeMarco • NYR 20
Adam Brown • DET 20

1946-47:
Syl Apps* • TOR 25
Bill Mosienko* • CBH 25

1947-48:
Buddy O'Connor* • NYR 24
Jim McFadden • DET 24
Tony Leswick • NYR 24

1948-49:
Bud Poile* • 2TM 21

1949-50:
Max Bentley* • TOR 23
Ted Lindsay* • DET 23
Paul Ronty • BOS 23

1950-51:
Bill Mosienko* • CBH 21
Elmer Lach* • MTL 21
Max Bentley* • TOR 21

1951-52:
Max Bentley* • TOR 24
Paul Meger • MTL 24

1952-53:
Sid Smith • TOR 20

1953-54:
Johnny Peirson • BOS 21
Harry Watson* • TOR 21

1954-55:
Don McKenney • BOS 22
Ken Mosdell • MTL 22

1955-56:
Andy Hebenton • NYR 24
Dean Prentice • NYR 24
Johnny Wilson • CBH 24

1956-57:
Vic Stasiuk • BOS 24

1957-58:
Jean Beliveau* • MTL 27
Bernie Geoffrion* • MTL 27

1958-59:
Tod Sloan • CBH 27
Vic Stasiuk • BOS 27

1959-60:
Norm Ullman* • DET 24
Bob Pulford* • TOR 24
Jean-Guy Gendron • BOS 24

1960-61:
Don McKenney • BOS 26
Andy Hebenton • NYR 26

1961-62:
Norm Ullman* • DET 26
Dave Keon* • TOR 26
Earl Ingarfield • NYR 26
Alex Delvecchio* • DET 26

1962-63:
Norm Ullman* • DET 26

1963-64:
Murray Oliver • BOS 24
Phil Goyette • NYR 24
Rod Gilbert* • NYR 24
Dave Balon • MTL 24

1964-65:
Ralph Backstrom • MTL 25
Alex Delvecchio* • DET 25
Rod Gilbert* • NYR 25

1965-66:
Bob Pulford* • TOR 28

1966-67:
Yvan Cournoyer* • MTL 25
Gordie Howe* • DET 25
Dennis Hull • CBH 25
Doug Mohns • CBH 25

1967-68:
John Bucyk* • BOS 30
Mike Walton • TOR 30

1968-69:
Norm Ferguson • OAK 34
Danny Grant • MNS 34

1969-70:
Dave Balon • NYR 33
Red Berenson • STL 33
Bobby Orr* • BOS 33

1970-71:
Dave Balon • NYR 36

1971-72:
Paul Henderson • TOR 38

1972-73:
René Robert • BUF 40
Marcel Dionne* • DET 40
Yvan Cournoyer* • MTL 40
John Bucyk* • BOS 40

1973-74:
Pete Mahovlich • MTL 36
Rod Gilbert* • NYR 36

1974-75:
René Robert • BUF 40

1975-76:
Errol Thompson • TOR 43
Chuck Lefley • STL 43

1976-77:
Guy Charron • WSH 36

1977-78:
Jean Pronovost • PIT 40

1978-79:
Ron Sedlbauer • VAN 40

1979-80:
Steve Shutt* • MTL 47

1980-81:
Mike Gartner* • WSH 48

1981-82:
Marcel Dionne* • LAK 50
Mark Messier* • EDM 50
Bryan Trottier* • NYI 50

1982-83:
Glenn Anderson* • EDM 48
Mark Messier* • EDM 48

1983-84:
Rick Middleton • BOS 47

1984-85:
Bernie Nicholls • LAK 46
Steve Larmer • CBH 46
Marcel Dionne* • LAK 46

1985-86:
Dale Hawerchuk* • WIN 46

1986-87:
Doug Gilmour* • STL 42

1987-88:
Michel Goulet* • QUE 48
Mike Gartner* • WSH 48
Mike Bullard • CGY 48

1988-89:
Luc Robitaille* • LAK 46

1989-90:
Joe Nieuwendyk* • CGY 45
Mark Messier* • EDM 45
Mario Lemieux* • PIT 45
Mike Gartner* • 2TM 45

1990-91:
John MacLean • NJD 45
Joe Nieuwendyk* • CGY 45
Luc Robitaille* • LAK 45
Tomas Sandstrom • LAK 45

1991-92:
Owen Nolan • QUE 42
Joe Mullen* • PIT 42

1992-93:
Dave Andreychuk* • 2TM 54
Brett Hull* • STL 54

1993-94:
Wendel Clark • TOR 46
Jeremy Roenick • CHI 46

1994-95:
John LeClair • 2TM 26
Mikael Renberg • PHI 26

1995-96:
Eric Lindros* • PHI 47
Mark Messier* • NYR 47

1996-97:
Brett Hull* • STL 42

1997-98:
Alexei Yashin • OTT 33
Ray Whitney • 2TM 33
Mats Sundin* • TOR 33
Jason Allison • BOS 33

1998-99:
Luc Robitaille* • LAK 39
Paul Kariya* • MDA 39

1999-00:
Milan Hejduk • COL 36
Luc Robitaille* • LAK 36

2000-01:
Scott Young • STL 40
Alexei Yashin • OTT 40
Bill Guerin • 2TM 40
Patrik Elias • NJD 40

2001-02:
Brendan Shanahan* • DET 37
Miroslav Satan • BUF 37
Eric Lindros* • NYR 37
Daniel Alfredsson • OTT 37

2002-03:
Brett Hull* • DET 37
Alex Kovalev • 2TM 37
Ziggy Palffy • LAK 37
Mats Sundin* • TOR 37

2003-04:
Keith Tkachuk • STL 33
Joe Sakic* • COL 33

2005-06:
Brendan Shanahan* • DET 40
Teemu Selanne* • MDA 40

2006-07:
Jason Blake • NYI 40

2007-08:
Daniel Alfredsson • OTT 40
Vincent Lecavalier • TBL 40

2008-09:
Mike Cammalleri • CGY 39
Dany Heatley • OTT 39

2009-10:
Alexandre Burrows • VAN 35
Bobby Ryan • ANA 35

2010-11:
Patrick Sharp • CHI 34
Bobby Ryan • ANA 34
Michael Grabner • NYI 34
Daniel Briere • PHI 34

2011-12:
Matt Moulson • NYI 36

2012-13:
Logan Couture • SJS 21
Rick Nash • NYR 21
James Neal • PIT 21

2013-14:
Jamie Benn • DAL 34
Patrick Sharp • CHI 34

2014-15:
Zach Parise • MIN 33
Corey Perry • ANA 33

2015-16:
Filip Forsberg • NSH 33
Tyler Seguin • DAL 33
Jason Spezza • DAL 33
John Tavares • NYI 33

2016-17:
David Pastrnak • BOS 34
Anders Lee • NYI 34
Patrick Kane • CHI 34

 

[Blade Paradigm]

The problem with using 1st places for normalizing anything is that sometimes the 1st place is an obvious outlier. That should be dubbed "the Gretzky effect" I think, but it happens with other players too (peak Howe, peak Hulls, etc.)
That's the reason why, for example, the VsX measure normalizes goals/points to #2 totals, not #1 (otherwise everyone who played during Gretzky's prime would look undeservedly bad).
Similarly, one can argue that 1970-1996 had such great leads of #1 over #10 not because it was easier to open large leads back then compared to now, but because this period had Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, and peak Hull, and the 1997-2017 does not have as many great goal-scorers.
Looking at #2 leads over #10 and comparing them across eras avoids this criticism, though averaging #1, #2, and #3 can at least greatly attenuate this concern as well.



That seems to be an interesting observation, because it suggests that leads of #3 over #10 (and, presumably, #5 over #10) are more comparable across eras and probably should not be adjusted by the same multiplier we apply to peak seasons. On the other hand, the difference in the adjustment factor seems to be minor, and probably we are close to the point where the measurement error of the method is greater than the extra adjustments we can make (I mean, if we are adjusting O6-era leads by multiplying them by 0.6, we are not sure it is 0.6 precisely, it is somewhere in the ballpark - but then 0.65 is somewhere in the ballpark too, and we will never know which one it is, so changing the adjustment factor to 0.65 for some or all leads may be not that important).

I think it is beneficial to have the Adjusted % Leads Over 10th model. What I would like to do next is create a new Adjusted % Leads Over 15th model, although I am also contemplating a different approach.

As I said, the goal-scoring totals on the leader board tend to level out around the 15th scorer on the list. Sometimes, it evens out a few spots later.

Instead of setting the benchmark specifically at 15th place, perhaps it would be a worthwhile endeavor to average out the goal totals of the 15th to 20th placed scorers and use that as a benchmark instead for each individual season (i.e., the benchmark would be a different number from season to season -- 100 benchmarks, logged so that we could use them in future calculations).

Let's look very quickly at what I mean when I say that the scoring levels out around 15th. Here are the 10th to 20th places on the goal-scoring leader boards from 1919-20, 1929-30, 1939-40, 1949-50, 1959-60, 1969-70, 1979-80, 1989-90, 1999-00, and 2009-10 (scroll down for the list).

We see that this happens every year. The scoring levels out among many players. 15th to 20th is, in almost all cases, the placement of the pool of players that the top goal scorers have entirely separated themselves from. The difference between 15th and 20th place is almost always one or two goals.

If we were to use the average of that 15th-to-20th pool as the benchmark instead of a a static 15th-placed finish, I think the calculations would yield even more accurate measurements of dominance over one's peers. We would be measuring them against the "average" NHL goal scorer in each respective season.

The only other consideration would be how we would want to determine a multiplier to convert numbers across eras. We could, once again, average out the multipliers for the 1st place, 2nd place, and 3rd place finishes. This was the method we used with the Adjusted % Leads Over 10th model partly because, in the case of the 1970-1997 era, the 3rd-placed % Lead Over 10th was 100% of the corresponding figure in the modern era. Using the average of the top three finishes allows us to incorporate data about the trend of dominance within an era into our conversions.

1919-20:

10. Punch Broadbent* • OTS 19
11. Cy Denneny* • OTS 16
Sprague Cleghorn* • OTS 16
13. Harry Cameron* • 2TM 15
14. Didier Pitre* • MTL 14
15. Thomas McCarthy • QBC 12
16. George Carey • QBC 11
Bert Corbeau • MTL 11
Babe Dye* • TRS 11
Mickey Roach • TRS 11
20. Ken Randall • TRS 10

Average: 11

1929-30:

10. Pit Lepine • MTL 24
Bun Cook* • NYR 24
12. Ace Bailey* • TOR 22
13. Hooley Smith* • MTM 21
Johnny Gottselig • CBH 21
Frank Finnigan • OTS 21
Baldy Cotton • TOR 21
17. Charlie Conacher* • TOR 20
Herbie Lewis* • DTC 20
19. Aurele Joliat* • MTL 19
Butch Keeling • NYR 19

Average: 20.25

1939-40:

10. Murray Armstrong • NYA 16
11. Kilby MacDonald • NYR 15
12. Syd Howe* • DET 14
13. Syl Apps* • TOR 13
Bill Cowley* • BOS 13
Dutch Hiller • NYR 13
16. Tom Anderson • NYA 12
Doug Bentley* • CBH 12
Busher Jackson* • NYA 12
Lynn Patrick* • NYR 12
Lou Trudel • MTL 12

Average: 12.375

1949-50:

9. Max Bentley* • TOR 23
Ted Lindsay* • DET 23
Paul Ronty • BOS 23
12. Sid Smith • TOR 22
Edgar Laprade* • NYR 22
14. Doug Bentley* • CBH 20
Ted Kennedy* • TOR 20
Bert Olmstead* • CBH 20
17. Milt Schmidt* • BOS 19
Billy Reay • MTL 19
Bud Poile* • 2TM 19
Tony Leswick • NYR 19
Leo Gravelle • MTL 19
Harry Watson* • TOR 19

Average: 19.3333333333333

1959-60:

10. Norm Ullman* • DET 24
Bob Pulford* • TOR 24
Jean-Guy Gendron • BOS 24
13. George Armstrong* • TOR 23
14. Gary Aldcorn • DET 22
Dickie Moore* • MTL 22
16. Phil Goyette • MTL 21
17. Don McKenney • BOS 20
Doug Mohns • BOS 20
Murray Oliver • DET 20
Tod Sloan • CBH 20

Average: 20.71428571428571

1969-70:

8. Dave Balon • NYR 33
Red Berenson • STL 33
Bobby Orr* • BOS 33
11. Jean Ratelle* • NYR 32
Jacques Lemaire* • MTL 32
Dave Keon* • TOR 32
14. John Bucyk* • BOS 31
Gordie Howe* • DET 31
16. Pit Martin • CBH 30
17. Bill Collins • MNS 29
Phil Goyette • STL 29
Danny Grant • MNS 29
John McKenzie • BOS 29

Average: 29.71428571428571

1979-80:

10. Steve Shutt* • MTL 47
11. Blair MacDonald • EDM 46
12. Rick Martin • BUF 45
13. Mike Rogers • HAR 44
14. Real Cloutier • QUE 42
Al MacAdam • MNS 42
Steve Payne • MNS 42
Bryan Trottier* • NYI 42
18. Gilbert Perreault* • BUF 40
Kent Nilsson • ATF 40
Rick Middleton • BOS 40
Peter McNab • BOS 40
Lanny McDonald* • 2TM 40
Bill Barber* • PHI 40
Darryl Sittler* • TOR 40

Average: 40.72727272727273

1989-90:

9. Joe Nieuwendyk* • CGY 45
Mark Messier* • EDM 45
Mario Lemieux* • PIT 45
Mike Gartner* • 2TM 45
13. Pat Verbeek • HAR 44
14. John Ogrodnick • NYR 43
15. John MacLean • NJD 41
Dino Ciccarelli* • WSH 41
17. Dave Andreychuk* • BUF 40
Dave Gagner • MNS 40
Wayne Gretzky* • LAK 40
Steve Thomas • CHI 40
Pierre Turgeon • BUF 40

Average: 40.28571428571429

1999-00:

9. Milan Hejduk • COL 36
Luc Robitaille* • LAK 36
11. Steve Yzerman* • DET 35
Patrik Elias • NJD 35
Mariusz Czerkawski • NYI 35
Valeri Bure • CGY 35
15. Jeremy Roenick • PHX 34
16. Miroslav Satan • BUF 33
Teemu Selanne* • MDA 33
18. Mats Sundin* • TOR 32
19. Chris Simon • WSH 29
Glen Murray • LAK 29
Shawn McEachern • OTT 29
Jarome Iginla • CGY 29
Marian Hossa • OTT 29
Jonas Hoglund • TOR 29
Ray Whitney • FLA 29

Average: 30.45454545454545

2009-10:

10. Alexandre Burrows • VAN 35
Bobby Ryan • ANA 35
12. Anze Kopitar • LAK 34
13. Rick Nash • CBJ 33
Jeff Carter • PHI 33
Nicklas Backstrom • WSH 33
16. Jarome Iginla • CGY 32
Dustin Penner • EDM 32
18. Mike Richards • PHI 31
19. Matt Moulson • NYI 30
Phil Kessel • TOR 30
Patrick Kane • CHI 30
Jussi Jokinen • CAR 30
Patric Hornqvist • NSH 30
Mikael Samuelsson • VAN 30

Average: 31.16666666666667

 

[Canadiens1958]

One must note that the % lead model is not the be-all-end-all of analysis; it offers one aspect of a player's performance that could be used as part of a larger argument. Its purpose is to measure one's numerical dominance over their peers -- it does not account for the strength of the competition, but it considers the scoring trends of the top scorers and adjusts the % leads in accordance with the trends of each era. Likewise, the more goals that are scored by the competition, the less substantial each additional goal is for the player whose season is being measured. If Player A scores 70 goals, but many players are scoring 50, Player A is not as dominant as he would be in a season when he scores 50 and his competition scores 25. The method also measures the trend of top-end players scoring by large margins. For example, during the WWII era the second-and-third places did not separate themselves from the pack to a very great extent, so Maurice Richard's 1944-45 goal-scoring season relative to his peers is measured as a much more dominant season than a similar season in an era where the top players perennially dominated their peers -- Richard's season went against the trend, whereas such seasons were not as rare in the subsequent era and thus not as significant.

To summarize, the model takes into account two factors: 1) the raw percentage leads; 2) the trend of dominance during each particular era. #2 can be broken down into two additional factors: a) margins over 10th within an era; b) margins between #1, #2, and #3 over 10th.

To summarize you are interested in dominance as opposed to performance which is what actually drives the game.

You talk about the value of goals within eras but your method has a distinct flaw in that due to its focus on dominance, goals in blowout games have greater value(they create dominance) then goals in low scoring, one goal games which reflect performance.

As an example by your measures, Maurice Richard scoring five goals in a blowout playoff victory has more value than Maurice Richard scoring 6 playoff overtime goals. One dominant game is worth more than six high performance games. Or one victory is now worth more than six.

Not how the game works.

 

[Thenameless]

I tend to favour the players who were great goal scorers AND playmakers because to me it makes the goal scoring seem all that more impressive. But either way this is my personal top 10.

I like that. It might take a little bit of Black Magic to quantify but I definitely agree that a player who gets 50 goals and 90 assists, is "probably" a better goal scorer than a player who gets 50 goals and 30 assists.

 

[Plural]

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 don't think so. Is he better than Jagr in goal-scoring? Better than Selanne? Bure?

 

[Blade Paradigm]

To summarize you are interested in dominance as opposed to performance which is what actually drives the game.

You talk about the value of goals within eras but your method has a distinct flaw in that due to its focus on dominance, goals in blowout games have greater value(they create dominance) then goals in low scoring, one goal games which reflect performance.

As an example by your measures, Maurice Richard scoring five goals in a blowout playoff victory has more value than Maurice Richard scoring 6 playoff overtime goals. One dominant game is worth more than six high performance games. Or one victory is now worth more than six.

Not how the game works.

The numbers represent raw dominance over one's peers. One can not easily distinguish or rank the value of each goal in a player's seasonal total, and most assessments of a player's goal totals completely ignore the context. I agree with your point of view that the context tends to be ignored in most assessments of a player's totals. However, this is the nature of most assessments. A player's ranking on a goal-scoring leader board does not account for when during a game the goal was scored -- if a player leads a goal-scoring race, that goal total is accepted at face value. A 1st-place finish and the Rocket Richard Trophy do not account for context. All goals have equal value in terms of most, if not all, numerical evaluations of seasonal goal totals and career goal totals. The contextual data needs to be quantified as well, but that is not the purpose of this measurement.

This method simply offers a different point of view and another basis of analysis that can be drawn upon in a larger discussion.

The Adjusted % Leads Over 10th model measures dominance. If one wants to adjust those seasons further, they can develop another modifier to adapt these percentage leads to another system.

Richard's 1944-45 50-goal season and Howe's 1952-53 49-goal season both feature very similar % Leads Over 10th, and aside from Phil Esposito's peak % lead season, those two seasons stand atop all of the seasons listed. I will also look at Mike Bossy's 1978-79 season just for the sake of comparison.

If we consider a four-goal difference to be a blowout, then we can look at their game logs to determine which goals were not "throwaway blowout goals." The only way to analyze seasons in a very nuanced way is to do so individually, and to analyze on a case-by-case basis. If a four-goal lead is the baseline for what is considered to be a blowout, then we can count all of the goals in a particular season that were scored while each player's respective team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead.

In Maurice Richard's 1944-45 season, 7 goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 43 of his goals were not blowout goals.

In Gordie Howe's 1952-53 season, 6 goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 43 of his goals were not blowout goals.

In Mike Bossy's 1978-79 season, 8* goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 59 to 61 of his goals were not blowout goals.

In Pavel Bure's 1999-00 season, 2 goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 56 of his goals were not blowout goals.

*The October 14, 1978 game log is missing from NHL.com. Bossy scored 2 goals in a 10-7 loss, but I can not determine the nature of his two goals due to the missing data.

If one determines the percentage of each player's goals in the seasons analyzed that were "blowout goals," Richard leads with 14%. Howe is second with 12%. Bossy ranges from 12 to 14% based on the missing data. 3% of Bure's goals in 1999-00 were "blowout goals."

We could analyze every player's statistics on a season-by-season basis.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The numbers represent raw dominance over one's peers. One can not easily distinguish or rank the value of each goal in a player's seasonal total, and most assessments of a player's goal totals completely ignore the context. I agree with your point of view that the context tends to be ignored in most assessments of a player's totals. However, this is the nature of most assessments. A player's ranking on a goal-scoring leader board does not account for when during a game the goal was scored -- if a player leads a goal-scoring race, that goal total is accepted at face value. A 1st-place finish and the Rocket Richard Trophy do not account for context. All goals have equal value in terms of most, if not all, numerical evaluations of seasonal goal totals and career goal totals. The contextual data needs to be quantified as well, but that is not the purpose of this measurement.

This method simply offers a different point of view and another basis of analysis that can be drawn upon in a larger discussion.

The Adjusted % Leads Over 10th model measures dominance. If one wants to adjust those seasons further, they can develop another modifier to adapt these percentage leads to another system.

Richard's 1944-45 50-goal season and Howe's 1952-53 49-goal season both feature very similar % Leads Over 10th, and aside from Phil Esposito's peak % lead season, those two seasons stand atop all of the seasons listed. I will also look at Mike Bossy's 1978-79 season just for the sake of comparison.

If we consider a four-goal difference to be a blowout, then we can look at their game logs to determine which goals were not "throwaway blowout goals." The only way to analyze seasons in a very nuanced way is to do so individually, and to analyze on a case-by-case basis. If a four-goal lead is the baseline for what is considered to be a blowout, then we can count all of the goals in a particular season that were scored while each player's respective team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead.

In Maurice Richard's 1944-45 season, 7 goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 43 of his goals were not blowout goals.

In Gordie Howe's 1952-53 season, 6 goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 43 of his goals were not blowout goals.

In Mike Bossy's 1978-79 season, 8* goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 59 to 61 of his goals were not blowout goals.

In Pavel Bure's 1999-00 season, 2 goals were scored while his team possessed a four-or-more-goal lead. 56 of his goals were not blowout goals.

*The October 14, 1978 game log is missing from NHL.com. Bossy scored 2 goals in a 10-7 loss, but I can not determine the nature of his two goals due to the missing data.

If one determines the percentage of each player's goals in the seasons analyzed that were "blowout goals," Richard leads with 14%. Howe is second with 12%. Bossy ranges from 12 to 14% based on the missing data. 3% of Bure's goals in 1999-00 were "blowout goals."

We could analyze every player's statistics on a season-by-season basis.

So at best you have a foundation metric that does not take into account the frequency of blowouts - often determined by scheduling. Third game game in four nights against a team rested for 4-6 days.

Regardless, the metric is flexible to include blowout goals like you did above so it is flexible enough to include first goals of the game and all other important measures for goals. So a worthwhile work in progress at least.

Prime example is the goal scoring battle between Ovechkin and Kucherov this season.

After 32 games Ovechkin has 21 goals while Kucherov has 21 after 30 games. Tied. Close look shows Ovechkin has 10 goals in three games yielding 11 in the remaining 29 while Kucherov does not have any 3 or more goal games. Much better distribution of goals for Kucherov.

This is the difference between performance and dominance. Ovechkin may have dominated three games but Kucherov has a much more even performance level.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I don't think so. Is he better than Jagr in goal-scoring? Better than Selanne? Bure?

Yes, I agree.

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.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/top-ten-goalscorers-of-all-time.2420241/page-3#post-138876351

 

[Hockey Outsider]

You should not ignore it, but you should question the degree of validity.
You cannot take a measure that ranks Franzen's goal-scoring ahead of Stamkos', compare Ovechkin and Lemieux on this measure and ask everyone to believe the latter comparison, and not the former.

Stamkos finished 1st or 2nd in goals five times in a span of six years. Franzen peaked at 16th and never again placed in the top 30. Stamkos is a much better goal-scorer than Franzen. You can argue that Franzen's stronger playoff performance narrows the gap, but there's still a massive difference between the two.

Ovechkin and Lemieux have both won multiple goal-scoring titles. Both were the top goal-scorer (in terms of goals scored and goals scored per game) during the span of their careers. The last two players to scored more than sixty goals in a year were these two forwards.

Ovechkin and Lemieux are comparable as goal-scorers in the regular season. A serious argument can be made that Ovechkin is already ahead, but certainly they're in the same ballpark. When one of them is a far superior goal-scorer in the playoffs, that can push one of them ahead in the overall assessment.

It goes back to the point I made about Marcel Dionne. Nobody is saying that Jude Drouin is a better scorer than him - despite Drouin's (slightly) better playoff numbers, the regular season gap is too big to ignore. But Yzerman is routinely ranked ahead of Dionne because he was far better in the playoffs and comparable (though probably a bit worse) in the regular season.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

As promised, here`s the list of the top five goal-scorers during each player`s era:

Lemieux`s era (1985-1997)

• Four times - Brett Hull
• Three times - Jari Kurri, Steve Yzerman, Wayne Gretzky
• Two times - Alexander Mogilny, Cam Neely, Jaromir Jagr, Joe Nieuwendyk, John LeClair, Luc Robitaille, Michel Goulet, Mike Bossy, Pat LaFontaine, Pavel Bure, Peter Bondra, Ray Sheppard, Teemu Selanne, Tim Kerr
• One time - Adam Graves, Alex Zhamnov, Bernie Nicholls, Brendan Shanahan, Brian Bellows, Craig Simpson, Dave Andreychuk, Dino Ciccarelli, Gary Roberts, Glenn Anderson, Jeremy Roenick, Jimmy Carson, Joe Mullen, Joe Sakic, John Ogrodnick, Keith Tkachuk, Kevin Stevens, Mike Gartner, Owen Nolan, Sergei Fedorov, Theoren Fleury, Ziggy Palffy

Ovechkin`s era (2006-2017)

• Five times - Steven Stamkos
• Three times - Ilya Kovalchuk, Joe Pavelski, Vladimir Tarasenko
• Two times - Corey Perry, Dany Heatley, Evgeni Malkin, Jarome Iginla, Jeff Carter, John Tavares, Marian Gaborik, Marian Hossa, Max Pacioretty, Patrick Kane, Rick Nash ,Sidney Crosby, Thomas Vanek, Tyler Seguin
• One time - Auston Matthews, Brad Boyes, Brad Marchand, Daniel Sedin, Eric Staal, Henrik Zetterberg, James Neal, Jamie Benn, Jaromir Jagr, Jiri Tlusty, Jonathan Cheechoo, Jonathan Toews, Martin St. Louis, Nikita Kucherov, Patrick Marleau, Phil Kessel, Ryan Kesler, Teemu Selanne, Vincent Lecavalier, Zach Parise

Yes, we can cherry-pick weak players on both lists, but I find the goal-scoring talent noticeably higher on Lemieux`s list. So (going back to my original point) saying that Ovechkin won his goal-scoring titles by larger margins than Lemieux isn`t a valid measure, since the level of competition was lower.

Lest I get accused of simply being nostalgic, I`ve already said that the average level of talent in the NHL today is higher than it`s ever been. Goaltending is better than it`s ever been. I`ve written at length in other threads about the historically-significant things that Ovechkin, Crosby, Karlsson, and others, are doing. But just because the average talent in the NHL is higher today, it doesn`t mean that the talent is higher at every position and in every facet of the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

As promised, here`s the list of the top five goal-scorers during each player`s era:

Lemieux`s era (1985-1997)

• Four times - Brett Hull
• Three times - Jari Kurri, Steve Yzerman, Wayne Gretzky
• Two times - Alexander Mogilny, Cam Neely, Jaromir Jagr, Joe Nieuwendyk, John LeClair, Luc Robitaille, Michel Goulet, Mike Bossy, Pat LaFontaine, Pavel Bure, Peter Bondra, Ray Sheppard, Teemu Selanne, Tim Kerr
• One time - Adam Graves, Alex Zhamnov, Bernie Nicholls, Brendan Shanahan, Brian Bellows, Craig Simpson, Dave Andreychuk, Dino Ciccarelli, Gary Roberts, Glenn Anderson, Jeremy Roenick, Jimmy Carson, Joe Mullen, Joe Sakic, John Ogrodnick, Keith Tkachuk, Kevin Stevens, Mike Gartner, Owen Nolan, Sergei Fedorov, Theoren Fleury, Ziggy Palffy

Ovechkin`s era (2006-2017)

• Five times - Steven Stamkos
• Three times - Ilya Kovalchuk, Joe Pavelski, Vladimir Tarasenko
• Two times - Corey Perry, Dany Heatley, Evgeni Malkin, Jarome Iginla, Jeff Carter, John Tavares, Marian Gaborik, Marian Hossa, Max Pacioretty, Patrick Kane, Rick Nash ,Sidney Crosby, Thomas Vanek, Tyler Seguin
• One time - Auston Matthews, Brad Boyes, Brad Marchand, Daniel Sedin, Eric Staal, Henrik Zetterberg, James Neal, Jamie Benn, Jaromir Jagr, Jiri Tlusty, Jonathan Cheechoo, Jonathan Toews, Martin St. Louis, Nikita Kucherov, Patrick Marleau, Phil Kessel, Ryan Kesler, Teemu Selanne, Vincent Lecavalier, Zach Parise

Yes, we can cherry-pick weak players on both lists, but I find the goal-scoring talent noticeably higher on Lemieux`s list. So (going back to my original point) saying that Ovechkin won his goal-scoring titles by larger margins than Lemieux isn`t a valid measure, since the level of competition was lower.

Lest I get accused of simply being nostalgic, I`ve already said that the average level of talent in the NHL today is higher than it`s ever been. Goaltending is better than it`s ever been. I`ve written at length in other threads about the historically-significant things that Ovechkin, Crosby, Karlsson, and others, are doing. But just because the average talent in the NHL is higher today, it doesn`t mean that the talent is higher at every position and in every facet of the game.

Interesting point. Let's break it down by position. Ignoring the pre 1929-30 era for the time being.

Goaltending. Today goalies have better and lighter equipment, position specific coaching, access to video, latest in conditioning and nutrition plus other advantages. But how many can play all three games in four nights or a complete seventy game schedule? So the top scorers face back-ups and depth goalies more often as the years progress.

Defencemen. Today with larger rosters, a team rotates three pairings vs two pairings into the 1980s. So TOI is lower, composed from short shifts as opposed to long shifts.Two pairing era, the first pairing played roughly 32-35 minutes a game. Today, roughly 25 minutes padded upwards by OT. Similar reduction for the second pairing. Third pairing plays roughly 15 minutes per game or roughly 15 easier scoring minutes have been created.

Forwards. Going from a three line rotation to a four line rotation reduces elite(first line playing time). O6 era teams with an extra or four lines dominated the SC - Montreal and Toronto but Leaf players never won the Ross since the late 1930s. Canadiens won fewer Art Ross trophies than their talent level deserved. On the other hand extra shifted players - Bathgate, Mikita, Hull benefited from the extra time to win scoring championships. Still evident today with hi first line TOI teams.

So how does talent balance with TOI in the proposed dominance/performance discussion.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Yes, we can cherry-pick weak players on both lists, but I find the goal-scoring talent noticeably higher on Lemieux`s list. So (going back to my original point) saying that Ovechkin won his goal-scoring titles by larger margins than Lemieux isn`t a valid measure, since the level of competition was lower.

Lest I get accused of simply being nostalgic, I`ve already said that the average level of talent in the NHL today is higher than it`s ever been. Goaltending is better than it`s ever been. I`ve written at length in other threads about the historically-significant things that Ovechkin, Crosby, Karlsson, and others, are doing. But just because the average talent in the NHL is higher today, it doesn`t mean that the talent is higher at every position and in every facet of the game.

In a measurement of dominance, it is important to establish the baseline at a point where the top talent has separated itself from what one could be considered an "average" player in the league. I think that "league top-heaviness" is a factor that tends to be ignored in most measurements, and it tends to skew the results significantly when those players at the top are compared with one another within an era, and then adjusted across eras.

The degree of top-heaviness in the league varies by era. I don't think there is as much, however, to dispute about the comparison between high-end talent and "average" talent. I spoke earlier on this page about perhaps designing a % Lead model that would measure the top players against the point at which goal-scoring levels out on the leader boards. The point at which scoring becomes level is the point at which the level of ability from year to year reaches parity across the league. This placement is almost always in the vicinity of the 15th to 20th placed finishes on the goal-scoring leader boards. This is the place where you'll find great scorers who had a bad year, good-but-not-great goal scorers, and average scorers who experienced career seasons.

If we look at the 10th-placed finishers between the Lemieux and Ovechkin era, one might still give the edge to the Lemieux-era group. However, we can compare the 15th to 20th placed scorers afterward. I think the degree of talent is more even between the two groups on the list of 15th-to-20th. The group is also much broader, so there aren't any outliers in terms of the baseline not fitting the criteria.

1984-85:
Bernie Nicholls • LAK 46
Steve Larmer • CBH 46
Marcel Dionne* • LAK 46

1985-86:
Dale Hawerchuk* • WIN 46

1986-87:
Doug Gilmour* • STL 42

1987-88:
Michel Goulet* • QUE 48
Mike Gartner* • WSH 48
Mike Bullard • CGY 48

1988-89:
Luc Robitaille* • LAK 46

1989-90:
Joe Nieuwendyk* • CGY 45
Mark Messier* • EDM 45
Mario Lemieux* • PIT 45
Mike Gartner* • 2TM 45

1990-91:
John MacLean • NJD 45
Joe Nieuwendyk* • CGY 45
Luc Robitaille* • LAK 45
Tomas Sandstrom • LAK 45

1991-92:
Owen Nolan • QUE 42
Joe Mullen* • PIT 42

1992-93:
Dave Andreychuk* • 2TM 54
Brett Hull* • STL 54

1993-94:
Wendel Clark • TOR 46
Jeremy Roenick • CHI 46

1994-95:
John LeClair • 2TM 26
Mikael Renberg • PHI 26

1995-96:
Eric Lindros* • PHI 47
Mark Messier* • NYR 47

1996-97:
Brett Hull* • STL 42

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

2005-06:
Brendan Shanahan* • DET 40
Teemu Selanne* • MDA 40

2006-07:
Jason Blake • NYI 40

2007-08:
Daniel Alfredsson • OTT 40
Vincent Lecavalier • TBL 40

2008-09:
Mike Cammalleri • CGY 39
Dany Heatley • OTT 39

2009-10:
Alexandre Burrows • VAN 35
Bobby Ryan • ANA 35

2010-11:
Patrick Sharp • CHI 34
Bobby Ryan • ANA 34
Michael Grabner • NYI 34
Daniel Briere • PHI 34

2011-12:
Matt Moulson • NYI 36

2012-13:
Logan Couture • SJS 21
Rick Nash • NYR 21
James Neal • PIT 21

2013-14:
Jamie Benn • DAL 34
Patrick Sharp • CHI 34

2014-15:
Zach Parise • MIN 33
Corey Perry • ANA 33

2015-16:
Filip Forsberg • NSH 33
Tyler Seguin • DAL 33
Jason Spezza • DAL 33
John Tavares • NYI 33

2016-17:
David Pastrnak • BOS 34
Anders Lee • NYI 34
Patrick Kane • CHI 34

15th to 20th place (1985-1997 vs 2006-2017):

1984-85:
13. Mike Krushelnyski • EDM 43
Mario Lemieux* • PIT 43
Brian Propp • PHI 43
16. John Tonelli • NYI 42
Brent Sutter • NYI 42
Mats Naslund • MTL 42
Glenn Anderson* • EDM 42
20. Paul MacLean • WIN 41
Dave Taylor • LAK 41

1985-86:
13. Dino Ciccarelli* • MNS 44
Mark Hunter • STL 44
Joe Mullen* • 2TM 44
16. Mats Naslund • MTL 43
Scott Bjugstad • MNS 43
18. Mike Bullard • PIT 41
Dave Christian • WSH 41
Mike Foligno • BUF 41
Peter Stastny* • QUE 41

1986-87:
13. Brent Ashton • 2TM 40
Kevin Dineen • HAR 40
Walt Poddubny • NYR 40
Tomas Sandstrom • NYR 40
Denis Savard* • CHI 40
18. Mike Bossy* • NYI 38
Gerard Gallant • DET 38
Pat LaFontaine* • NYI 38

1987-88:
13. Peter Stastny* • QUE 46
Pat Verbeek • NJD 46
15. Denis Savard* • CHI 44
Dale Hawerchuk* • WIN 44
17. Jari Kurri* • EDM 43
Rick Vaive • CHI 43
19. Cam Neely* • BOS 42
Ed Olczyk • TOR 42

1988-89:
14. Dino Ciccarelli* • 2TM 44
Jari Kurri* • EDM 44
16. Steve Larmer • CHI 43
17. John MacLean • NJD 42
Geoff Courtnall • WSH 42
19. Ray Ferraro • HAR 41
Dale Hawerchuk* • WIN 41
Brett Hull* • STL 41
Mike Ridley • WSH 41

1989-90:
15. John MacLean • NJD 41
Dino Ciccarelli* • WSH 41
17. Dave Andreychuk* • BUF 40
Dave Gagner • MNS 40
Wayne Gretzky* • LAK 40
Steve Thomas • CHI 40
Pierre Turgeon • BUF 40

1990-91:
13. Wayne Gretzky* • LAK 41
Pat LaFontaine* • NYI 41
Jeremy Roenick • CHI 41
16. Dave Gagner • MNS 40
Petr Klima • EDM 40
Mark Recchi* • PIT 40
Kevin Stevens • PIT 40
Rick Tocchet • PHI 40

1991-92:
14. Pierre Turgeon • 2TM 40
Derek King • NYI 40
Mike Gartner* • NYR 40
Ray Ferraro • NYI 40
18. Tony Granato • LAK 39
Alexander Mogilny • BUF 39
Vladimir Ruzicka • BOS 39

1992-93:
15. Joe Sakic* • QUE 48
Rick Tocchet • PIT 48
17. Mats Sundin* • QUE 47
18. Geoff Sanderson • HAR 46
19. Mike Gartner* • NYR 45
Adam Oates* • BOS 45

1993-94:
15. Keith Tkachuk • WIN 41
Kevin Stevens • PIT 41
Geoff Sanderson • HAR 41
Gary Roberts • CGY 41
19. Vincent Damphousse • MTL 40
Theoren Fleury • CGY 40
Bob Kudelski • 2TM 40
Mark Recchi* • PHI 40
Robert Reichel • CGY 40

1994-95:
14. Joe Murphy • CHI 23
Stephane Richer • NJD 23
Luc Robitaille* • PIT 23
Mats Sundin* • TOR 23
18. Teemu Selanne* • WIN 22
Bernie Nicholls • CHI 22
Ray Ferraro • NYI 22
Dave Andreychuk* • TOR 22
Keith Tkachuk • WIN 22

1995-96:
14. Brett Hull* • STL 43
Ziggy Palffy • NYI 43
16. Pat Verbeek • NYR 41
17. Pat LaFontaine* • BUF 40
Teemu Selanne* • 2TM 40
19. Sergei Fedorov* • DET 39
Claude Lemieux • COL 39

1996-97:
14. Mark Messier* • NYR 36
Geoff Sanderson • HAR 36
16. Dino Ciccarelli* • TBL 35
Martin Gelinas • VAN 35
Mike Modano* • DAL 35
Alexei Yashin • OTT 35
20. Mark Recchi* • MTL 34

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

2005-06:
15. Olli Jokinen • FLA 38
Marian Gaborik • MIN 38
17. Ryan Smyth • EDM 36
18. Jarome Iginla • CGY 35
Vincent Lecavalier • TBL 35
Miroslav Satan • NYI 35

2006-07:
14. Jonathan Cheechoo • SJS 37
Chris Drury • BUF 37
16. Sidney Crosby • PIT 36
Bill Guerin • 2TM 36
Joe Sakic* • COL 36
Daniel Sedin • VAN 36
Ryan Smyth • 2TM 36

2007-08:
15. Alex Kovalev • MTL 35
16. Olli Jokinen • FLA 34
Jason Spezza • OTT 34
18. Vinny Prospal • 2TM 33
Dustin Brown • LAK 33
20. Anze Kopitar • LAK 32
Brenden Morrow • DAL 32
Zach Parise • NJD 32
Derek Roy • BUF 32
Mats Sundin* • TOR 32

2008-09:
14. Jarome Iginla • CGY 35
Evgeni Malkin • PIT 35
16. Jonathan Toews • CHI 34
Alexander Semin • WSH 34
Simon Gagne • PHI 34
Johan Franzen • DET 34
20. Jason Arnott • NSH 33
Brad Boyes • STL 33
Sidney Crosby • PIT 33

2009-10:
13. Rick Nash • CBJ 33
Jeff Carter • PHI 33
Nicklas Backstrom • WSH 33
16. Jarome Iginla • CGY 32
Dustin Penner • EDM 32
18. Mike Richards • PHI 31
19. Matt Moulson • NYI 30
Phil Kessel • TOR 30
Patrick Kane • CHI 30
Jussi Jokinen • CAR 30
Patric Hornqvist • NSH 30
Mikael Samuelsson • VAN 30

2010-11:
14. Jonathan Toews • CHI 32
Alex Ovechkin • WSH 32
Rick Nash • CBJ 32
Phil Kessel • TOR 32
Sidney Crosby • PIT 32
Logan Couture • SJS 32
Thomas Vanek • BUF 32

2011-12:
15. Jordan Eberle • EDM 34
Jason Spezza • OTT 34
17. Max Pacioretty • MTL 33
Patrick Sharp • CHI 33
19. Jarome Iginla • CGY 32
20. Logan Couture • SJS 31
Zach Parise • NJD 31
Joe Pavelski • SJS 31
Bobby Ryan • ANA 31
John Tavares • NYI 31

2012-13:
13. Thomas Vanek • BUF 20
Phil Kessel • TOR 20
Pascal Dupuis • PIT 20
16. Troy Brouwer • WSH 19
Blake Wheeler • WPG 19
18. Chris Stewart • STL 18
Derek Stepan • NYR 18
Eric Staal • CAR 18
Zach Parise • MIN 18
P.A. Parenteau • COL 18
Brad Marchand • BOS 18
Andrew Ladd • WPG 18
Nazem Kadri • TOR 18
Dustin Brown • LAK 18
James van Riemsdyk • TOR 18

2013-14:
15. Ryan Getzlaf • ANA 31
16. Patrice Bergeron • BOS 30
Marian Hossa • CHI 30
Jarome Iginla • BOS 30
Jason Pominville • MIN 30
Martin St. Louis • 2TM 30
James van Riemsdyk • TOR 30

2014-15:
12. Radim Vrbata • VAN 31
Sean Monahan • CGY 31
Jiri Hudler • CGY 31
Nick Foligno • CBJ 31
16. Jarome Iginla • COL 29
Tyler Johnson • TBL 29
Nikita Kucherov • TBL 29
Tomas Tatar • DET 29
20. Wayne Simmonds • PHI 28
Jaden Schwartz • STL 28
Evgeni Malkin • PIT 28
Scott Hartnell • CBJ 28
Sidney Crosby • PIT 28
Jeff Carter • LAK 28
Jonathan Toews • CHI 28

2015-16:
14. Wayne Simmonds • PHI 32
Patrice Bergeron • BOS 32
16. James Neal • NSH 31
Brandon Saad • CBJ 31
Tyler Toffoli • LAK 31
19. Kyle Palmieri • NJD 30
Max Pacioretty • MTL 30
Nikita Kucherov • TBL 30
Boone Jenner • CBJ 30
Adam Henrique • NJD 30
Johnny Gaudreau • CGY 30
Alex Galchenyuk • MTL 30
Loui Eriksson • BOS 30
Matt Duchene • COL 30
Artemi Panarin • CHI 30

2016-17:
13. Evgeni Malkin • PIT 33
T.J. Oshie • WSH 33
Alex Ovechkin • WSH 33
Rickard Rakell • ANA 33
17. Jeff Carter • LAK 32
Patrick Eaves • 2TM 32
Nazem Kadri • TOR 32
Mark Scheifele • WPG 32

In terms of measuring raw dominance, a % Lead Over 15-to-20th model might be preferable over a % Lead Over 10th model.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Brett Hull is fourth in total goals. At 17 he was a 225 pound beer drinking high school student that no A team wanted. Look it up. How about the way he and Oates clicked? The year Brett scored 86 goals he was not allowed to play special teams and Gretzky scored 92 goals with 12 special team goals.

 

[Zuluss]

Stamkos finished 1st or 2nd in goals five times in a span of six years. Franzen peaked at 16th and never again placed in the top 30. Stamkos is a much better goal-scorer than Franzen. You can argue that Franzen's stronger playoff performance narrows the gap, but there's still a massive difference between the two.

I'd probably just argue that playoff goals are a very jammed measure of goal-scorer's ability, and Franzen's and Stamkos' PO goals are apples to oranges in many ways (different years, different opposition, different quality of teammates).
You can probably cut out more than one 20-game stretch from Franzen's 2007/08 and 2008/09 regular seasons in which he would be more productive than Stamkos in a certain 20-game stretch from 14/15. What would that mean? Nothing, just some 20-game stretches, goal-scorers are streaky. It just happened so that Franzen's good stretches of 2007/08 and 2008/09 happened in PO and thus became more salient, just like hot streaks to start the season are more salient than hot streaks somewhere in the middle. Alas, the PO sample for everyone is not long enough to average such things out.

Just think about it a bit formally: Goal-scoring=Skill+Noise (noise includes luck, health, unavoidable highs and lows, teammates playing well/badly, etc.) We know that Skill(Stamkos)>>Skill(Franzen). Even if Franzen is better in PO than in RS, and Stamkos is the other way, the gap is so huge, that even in PO Skill(Stamkos)>Skill(Franzen) for sure.
Yet what we see in GPG numbers from PO is Goal-scoring(Franzen)>Goal-scoring(Stamkos) - so we have to conclude Noise(Franzen)>>Noise(Stamkos) and also remember from this example that the amount of noise in PO GPG is exorbitant.

But then, if you compare Ovechkin and Richard, or Bobby Hull and Lemieux, or whoever - if you are comparing PO goals, how can you be sure that the noise part is similar? Probably the fact that Ovechkin leads everyone in PO GPG post-lockout, but just barely, is telling us that he just had a lot of bad luck in the post-season (and I do not just mean puck luck, I also mean the team not peaking when he peaked, and then going the same two rounds when he was having an off-season, or Halak going into god-mode in April 2010 and not a year later or two months earlier, etc).

 

[Irato99]

Brett Hull is fourth in total goals. At 17 he was a 225 pound beer drinking high school student that no A team wanted. Look it up. How about the way he and Oates clicked? The year Brett scored 86 goals he was not allowed to play special teams and Gretzky scored 92 goals with 12 special team goals.

I don't really know how you define 'special teams', but your numbers are definitely wrong, Brett Hull scored 29 power play goals that year, he was obviously allowed to play 'special teams'.

 

[FerrisRox]

I would leave Bossy off of the list.

With all due respect, it's really difficult to take anything you have to say seriously if you don't think Mike Bossy belongs on a list of all time best goal scorers.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just think about it a bit formally: Goal-scoring=Skill+Noise (noise includes luck, health, unavoidable highs and lows, teammates playing well/badly, etc.) We know that Skill(Stamkos)>>Skill(Franzen). Even if Franzen is better in PO than in RS, and Stamkos is the other way, the gap is so huge, that even in PO Skill(Stamkos)>Skill(Franzen) for sure.
Yet what we see in GPG numbers from PO is Goal-scoring(Franzen)>Goal-scoring(Stamkos) - so we have to conclude Noise(Franzen)>>Noise(Stamkos) and also remember from this example that the amount of noise in PO GPG is exorbitant

I understand your position, but ultimately results are what matter. I have no doubt that Stamkos was still a much more skilled goal-scorer than Franzen in the playoffs, but actual production, rather than a hypothetical skill level, is what wins games.

Ironically, I've use this exact argument against Lemieux many times - it doesn't matter how talented he was, he wasn't helping his team when he was injured. But he was a stellar playoff performer, and that`s an argument in his favour against Ovechkin.

 

[Zuluss]

I understand your position, but ultimately results are what matter. I have no doubt that Stamkos was still a much more skilled goal-scorer than Franzen in the playoffs, but actual production, rather than a hypothetical skill level, is what wins games.

Ironically, I've use this exact argument against Lemieux many times - it doesn't matter how talented he was, he wasn't helping his team when he was injured. But he was a stellar playoff performer, and that`s an argument in his favour against Ovechkin.

Results matter, but it seems people are still trying hard to get to the skill level and not to pay too much attention to luck when evaluating players.
For example, most people do not put much stock in isolated fluke seasons. Cheechoo won't be anywhere on the list of top20 or top30 post-lockout snipers. Performance was there in 05/06, and it was useful for the Sharks all right, but pretty much everyone writes it off as a fluke season.
Somewhat similarly, Lecavalier does not get too much credit for his Rocket-winning season, because, again, he was that good only for 80 games, and the rest of the time he was not anywhere as good. Even Brett Hull is not really judged by his peak season.
Now, when players are able to repeat their peak performance, especially for 2-3 consecutive seasons, it is a very different story, because then we know it is skill and not luck. Lafleur is still on many lists of top5 wingers ever, even though his career was rather short, and he was not that useful to the team outside of his best 6 years. But, what a peak! Three years in a row, that's what seals the deal.

The problem I have with playoff performance is that for most players the playoff resume is about 100 games. Almost exactly the length of a regular season, and if we write off Cheechoo's Rocket as a fluke, should not we do the same with Franzen's/Briere's/whoever's playoff performance? Same amount of games, scattered over a decade to boot.
So the question becomes, is Franzen a good playoff performer or is he a lucky playoff performer? Seems an important question, because we think Cheechoo was just lucky to win a Rocket and we do not care.
Actually, you can ask the same question about anyone. Is Malkin better in the playoffs than Ovechkin or just luckier? Was Bobby Hull worse than Bossy in the playoffs, or was it about luck again?

P.S. Injuries are a bit different. Durability is an individual characteristic of a player, and it is a valuable one. Peaking in the same year the team peaks is not really a player's characteristic.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

With all due respect, it's really difficult to take anything you have to say seriously if you don't think Mike Bossy belongs on a list of all time best goal scorers.

Oh, I certainly think Mike Bossy is one of the all-time goal-scoring greats.

However, this is a discussion about the Top 10 goal-scorers, and there are only a few "locks" for this list. There are more than ten candidates who have a case to be included on the list.

The numerical models that we have examined so far do not help Bossy's case. The fact that he played in a higher-scoring era is reflected in the % leads -- the dominance numbers -- as, despite his high totals, he did not lead by a very large margin in any year but one.

He only led the league in goals twice, and three times was the runner-up. Only one of those was due to Gretzky -- his 92-goal season. The other two culprits were Lafleur and Kurri, each of whom led Bossy by 7 goals in their 1st-placed seasons. Bossy wasn't close to their leads in any of his runner-up seasons; he was actually closer to third place than first place.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The problem I have with playoff performance is that for most players the playoff resume is about 100 games. Almost exactly the length of a regular season, and if we write off Cheechoo's Rocket as a fluke, should not we do the same with Franzen's/Briere's/whoever's playoff performance? Same amount of games, scattered over a decade to boot.

Serious question - do you think the NHL should have playoffs at all? If the primary concern is having a large sample size to yield the most accurate results, why not end the season in early April and award the Stanley Cup to the team with the most points in the standings?

So the question becomes, is Franzen a good playoff performer or is he a lucky playoff performer? Seems an important question, because we think Cheechoo was just lucky to win a Rocket and we do not care.

In 2008, Johan Franzen played at a level far above his normal production. I get that. But I also know that he was instrumental in the Red Wings winning the Stanley Cup. I doubt they would have won without his 13 goals.

My position is I don't really care if it was a fluke, or if his innate talent suddenly and mysteriously increased for a span of two months. I'm pretty sure that if you asked his teammates, they wouldn't care either. He came through when he needed to, and that directly helped his team win the trophy. Should the Red Wings surrender their 2008 Stanley Cup rings on the basis that Franzen's playoff performance was statistically improbable (and almost certainly wouldn't re-occur if it were somehow possible to re-play the 2008 playoffs)?

As for Cheechoo - in this particular case, there's an obvious external factor (playing with a generational playmaker at the peak of his talent) influencing his production. You can see it clearly in his numbers before and after the Thornton trade. Most people dismiss Cheecoo's production that year not due to concerns over sample sizes, but because there's an obvious external factor influencing his results.

 

[Zuluss]

Serious question - do you think the NHL should have playoffs at all? If the primary concern is having a large sample size to yield the most accurate results, why not end the season in early April and award the Stanley Cup to the team with the most points in the standings?

I doubt that the league exists so that you and I were better able to discern the quality of individual players.
If it did, it would also be nice to rotate players around teams every season or two, to get rid of the pesky "linemates" argument.
I also doubt that the league is truly motivated to find out, in the most objective fashion possible, which team was the best in a season. President trophy races are often dull, their fate can be decided sometimes mid-February when the two great teams play some bad teams on different days in different corners of the country, and then the leader just cruises to victory. Viewers are more existed when two great teams meet, each moment can be pivotal, and each team always has a chance to win it all by a heroic effort, so it is never over before it is over. It makes for a great spectacle and makes a lot of money - who cares then if it is the most objective way to determine the best team? Definitely not the league and not the club owners.

I'm pretty sure that if you asked his teammates, they wouldn't care either. He came through when he needed to, and that directly helped his team win the trophy. Should the Red Wings surrender their 2008 Stanley Cup rings on the basis that Franzen's playoff performance was statistically improbable (and almost certainly wouldn't re-occur if it were somehow possible to re-play the 2008 playoffs)?

Teammates are probably the least objective people on Earth (the next ones would be team fans). Bossy's teammates cared about his goals much more than they cared about all Gretzky's records - should we listen to them and conclude Bossy>Gretzky?
I think we should try to evaluate players objectively, which implies that the teammates and the team fans should be the last people we should be concerned about.

As for Cheechoo - in this particular case, there's an obvious external factor (playing with a generational playmaker at the peak of his talent) influencing his production. You can see it clearly in his numbers before and after the Thornton trade. Most people dismiss Cheecoo's production that year not due to concerns over sample sizes, but because there's an obvious external factor influencing his results.

As you say, the teammates probably did not care whether Cheechoo was great on his own, or he was just a perfect finisher for Thornton. He played the role he was assigned to, and did it great, at least in 05/06. Nobody did it better, even in relative terms, before or after.
The real problem was not that Cheechoo was meh while Thornton was still in Boston. The problem was that he could not be Thornton's perfect finisher for more than one season. A season after, he was just OK as Thornton's finisher, and two seasons after, plain horrible.
If their tandem had lasted, like Oates and Brett Hull's or Orr and Esposito's, or Gretzky and Kurri's, Cheechoo would have been way, way higher on all-time goal-scorers list. The ability to be a perfect finisher for a great passer is still very valuable - but the large sample showed Cheechoo did not have that. (While Kurri did, and I still remember debates whether Selanne has passed him or not - because, you know, Kurri led playoffs in goals 4 times, and nobody in Edmonton cares whether it was 100% because of Greztky or not, it won the Cups and that's it).