Do you agree that Mike Bossy could have been the 2nd or 3rd best scorer of all time?

[Gord]

I think he's an underrated player, and was one of my faves in my youth. I think he would have, in his 30's, scored goals on a pace comparable to Mike Gartner. (IMO)

 

[Ogopogo*]

That's exactly the problem with your list.

You have no clue how this list was developed and you bash the analysis. That pretty much puts an end to your credibility.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Stats aren't everything. People pay too much attention to stats. I'm pretty sure players like Bob Gainey or Craig Ramsay would have gotten a lot more points if they concentrated solely on offense without making all the defensive efforts they did.

Then, there's the problem of the quality of linemates, the opponents faced (a team playing in a weak division can change a lot of things), games missed because of an injury, etc, etc... there are just too many factors to consider to rate two players against each other on numbers alone.

A game is played on the ice, not on paper.

When we are talking about greatest goal scorers, properly analyzed stats are everytning. How Bob Gainey or Craig Ramsay figure into a conversation about great goal scorers is beyond me. That is not the discussion at hand.

Quality of linemats and opponents faced are crutches. A great player scores under all condtions on any team with any linemates. Wayne Gretzky broke the single season points record on a crappy Oilers team, playing a balanced schedule, while having no teammate score more than 75 points. He also scored a bundle of points on a good team. Lemieux was great far before the Penguins were. Linemates and unbalanced schedules are irrelevant. The greats will always be great and the not-so-greats will always be not-so-great.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I`ve always been a firm believer that how good Eric Lindros was before the concussions has been unfairly erased from hockey history, but even I`m surprised at how high he ranks on those two lists.

I think that Lindros's high ranking on my lists is surprising, but defensible. During the first eight years of his career he scored around 1.4 pts per game (unadjusted) in a fairly low-scoring era. It's reasonable to think that he would have scored around 1.5-1.6 pts per game during that eight year stretch, had he been in a higher-scoring era. The next two years after that were pretty solid, 0.8 ppg in the dead puck era.

I also agree that Lindros's dominance has been largely forgotten. I wonder if he'll make the Hall of Fame. He probably doesn't deserve to, but with so many borderline (or worse) players making it in recent years, I think he will sooner or later.

 

[Gord]

When we are talking about greatest goal scorers, properly analyzed stats are everytning. How Bob Gainey or Craig Ramsay figure into a conversation about great goal scorers is beyond me. That is not the discussion at hand.

Quality of linemats and opponents faced are crutches. A great player scores under all condtions on any team with any linemates. Wayne Gretzky broke the single season points record on a crappy Oilers team, playing a balanced schedule, while having no teammate score more than 75 points. He also scored a bundle of points on a good team. Lemieux was great far before the Penguins were. Linemates and unbalanced schedules are irrelevant. The greats will always be great and the not-so-greats will always be not-so-great.

I shouldn't say get off topic in a bossy thread, but it still amazes me how great gretzky was at such a young age. for example, breaking the point record on an average team, and at what, 20 years old?

 

[Ogopogo*]

I shouldn't say get off topic in a bossy thread, but it still amazes me how great gretzky was at such a young age. for example, breaking the point record on an average team, and at what, 20 years old?

Yes, Gretzky was incredible.

The year Gretzky broke the single season point record (164 points in 1980-81) he turned 20 on January 26th. The team was 14th overall out of 21 teams, which would make them a 20th place team overall in today's NHL. Definitely below average and Gretzky was carrying the team by himself as a teenager.

I don't think you can ever overstate how great Gretzky was.

 

[LastChancePrice]

You have no clue how this list was developed and you bash the analysis. That pretty much puts an end to your credibility.

Ogopogo, how do you calculate that list? Im curious, and i need to know, to understand it

 

[Masao]

You have no clue how this list was developed and you bash the analysis. That pretty much puts an end to your credibility.

Uh-uh.

You know, there is such a thing as a result that is prima facie absurd and unreasonable. No need to know all the subtelties of your research to realize that there's a serious flaw somewhere considering the players you've ranked as "better" goalscorers than Lemieux and Bure.

And I remember another thread a while ago where you stated that Adam Oates was a "better" playmaker than Lemieux. I don't care WHAT analysis you used to get that result, but the conclusion is itself so ridiculous that anyone without a serious anti-Lemieux bias and the least bit of thinking matter can tell that the calculation is wrong even without knowing exactly how it was done.

 

[EagleBelfour]

As a pure goal scorer, Mike Bossy is one of the best all-time IMO

Mario Lemieux
Mike Bossy
Bobby Hull
Wayne Gretzky




THE REST!

(BTW, imagine if Bobby Hull would have stayed in the NHL ... he would have maybe more than 900 goals as an NHL player!)

 

[Ogopogo*]

Uh-uh.

You know, there is such a thing as a result that is prima facie absurd and unreasonable. No need to know all the subtelties of your research to realize that there's a serious flaw somewhere considering the players you've ranked as "better" goalscorers than Lemieux and Bure.

And I remember another thread a while ago where you stated that Adam Oates was a "better" playmaker than Lemieux. I don't care WHAT analysis you used to get that result, but the conclusion is itself so ridiculous that anyone without a serious anti-Lemieux bias and the least bit of thinking matter can tell that the calculation is wrong even without knowing exactly how it was done.

Sounds to me that you suffer from a serious pro-Lemieux bias. No matter what the findings are, Lemieux must be the best so the findings must be flawed.

Sorry, can't buy into your bias. I did this without pre-determined results in mind.

 

[Masao]

Sounds to me that you suffer from a serious pro-Lemieux bias. No matter what the findings are, Lemieux must be the best so the findings must be flawed.

Sorry, can't buy into your bias. I did this without pre-determined results in mind.

Look, no matter how you look at it there is no way you can try justifying saying that there are 9 better goalscorers than Lemieux or that Oates was a better passer. The only explanation for those results is a flawed analysis. This is not bias, it is simply acknowledging the blatantly obvious.

Like I said in another topic, there would be nothing wrong with your results if you were to call them differently. Saying that you're listing the "best goalscorers" or the "best playmakers" quite simply does not reflect what is being studied. When you talk about someone who is the best at something, you are talking about skill. The fact that a player like Bobby Orr ended his career so early does not make him "less skilled" than another player of lesser talent simply because the other one was among the leaders for a greater number of seasons. This is not a matter of blindly projecting "what if" stats to say that x would have been better than y if z happened, it is a matter of understanding which fact is pertinent and which fact is not.

I'm not saying your research is biased, I'm simply pointing out that there are important factors that you blatantly disregard and other factors that you overrate when we take into consideration the terminology you use - the word "best" does not mean what you make it mean. There was a topic many months ago (before I had to re-register) in which I discussed explicitly what the problem was with your analysis from what you explained of it, and I don't feel like repeating myself all over again. In short, there would be nothing wrong with your results if you called them differently. Saying that such and such is the "3rd best" or "5th best" scorer/passer ever does not correspond to the analysis you made.

Maybe if you would have said "most proficient" scorers, or even better "most important scorers," then there would be nothing wrong. The problem is when you say that you are listing the "best" scorers - and it is in that regards that your results are "blatantly incorrect." As far as skill goes, there is no way you can say that Maurice Richard or Phil Esposito were "better" goalscorers than Mario Lemieux. Historically more significant? Perhaps. Better? No way in hell. That's about as close to a fact as you can get.

 

[VanIslander]

Look, no matter how you look at it there is no way you can try justifying saying that... Oates was a better passer.

Are you kidding?

Oates was one of the greatest passers of all time. I've heard several say that only Gretzky has been more impressive in that regard.

But I agree in terms of scoring, how can nine guys be ranked ahead of Mario unless the focus is more on career length than skill.

 

[Masao]

Are you kidding?

Oates was one of the greatest passers of all time. I've heard several say that only Gretzky has been more impressive in that regard.

But I agree in terms of scoring, how can nine guys be ranked ahead of Mario unless the focus is more on career length than skill.

Simple: because the focus IS more on career length than skill!

And about Oates, I'm not denying his skill in any way, he's definitievely one of the best of all time, but don't forget that he has about 40 total assists more than Mario while playing in about 400 more games. And both of them played with great players (Yzerman, Hull, Neely, Bourque, Bondra compared to Coffey, Stevens, Jagr and Francis) while playing in more or less the same era.

The only thing about Oates was that he was among the regular season leaders more often. My beef is this: if Oates was a better playmaker than Lemieux, it most definitively is not because he was among the leaders more often. Don't forget that in his entire carreer Mario had only 6 seasons where he managed to play even just 70 games, compared to 11 by Oates. This doesn't mean that Lemieux was less skilled, the way Ogopogo's analyses interprets it. Ogopogo's answer to this is simple: "injuries suck, but that's life." Yes, of course, but that's why I said my only problem with his analysis is the usage of the word "best," because "best" in terms of "skill" has NOTHING to do with how many games a player missed because of injuries.

"Greatness" and "talent" is NOT the same thing.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Look, no matter how you look at it there is no way you can try justifying saying that there are 9 better goalscorers than Lemieux or that Oates was a better passer. The only explanation for those results is a flawed analysis. This is not bias, it is simply acknowledging the blatantly obvious.

Like I said in another topic, there would be nothing wrong with your results if you were to call them differently. Saying that you're listing the "best goalscorers" or the "best playmakers" quite simply does not reflect what is being studied. When you talk about someone who is the best at something, you are talking about skill. The fact that a player like Bobby Orr ended his career so early does not make him "less skilled" than another player of lesser talent simply because the other one was among the leaders for a greater number of seasons. This is not a matter of blindly projecting "what if" stats to say that x would have been better than y if z happened, it is a matter of understanding which fact is pertinent and which fact is not.

I'm not saying your research is biased, I'm simply pointing out that there are important factors that you blatantly disregard and other factors that you overrate when we take into consideration the terminology you use - the word "best" does not mean what you make it mean. There was a topic many months ago (before I had to re-register) in which I discussed explicitly what the problem was with your analysis from what you explained of it, and I don't feel like repeating myself all over again. In short, there would be nothing wrong with your results if you called them differently. Saying that such and such is the "3rd best" or "5th best" scorer/passer ever does not correspond to the analysis you made.

Maybe if you would have said "most proficient" scorers, or even better "most important scorers," then there would be nothing wrong. The problem is when you say that you are listing the "best" scorers - and it is in that regards that your results are "blatantly incorrect." As far as skill goes, there is no way you can say that Maurice Richard or Phil Esposito were "better" goalscorers than Mario Lemieux. Historically more significant? Perhaps. Better? No way in hell. That's about as close to a fact as you can get.

I called my findings the "greatest goalscorers" and "greatest playmakers" lists. This means they had the greatest and most impactful careers in this particular category. Honestly, I tire of "What ifs". What if Orr played 10 more years? Who cares? He didn't. What if Mario didn't have cancer and back problems? Who cares? He did. Honestly, what if Normand Leveille did not have an anyeurism? Who knows Who cares? What happened, happened.

I am measuring the greatest career accomplishments for the categories in question. If a player missed a bunch of time, I will not fill in the blanks and assume he would have had a greater career. EVERY player missed time for one reason or another.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Bossy's portfolio speaks for itself. A rookie scoring records that stood for 15 years. An unprecedented stretch of consistency at the 50-goal level. A Conn Smythe Trophy. And, most importantly, IMO, a key role in four Stanley Cup championships,including an MVP and three other MVP-calibre performances. (Bring out all the stats you want, that's the most important fact of all).

I think he could have finished among the top two or three goal scorers of all-time. A healthy Bossy, playing into late 30s, probably would have reached Howe's goals record before Gretzky. (He was 229 away when he retired at 30. Even at a reduced pace, say, 35 goals a season, he eclipses the mark in 1992). While he was a very good playmaker, I don't think he was good enough to reach No. 2 or 3 on the all-time points list.

To me, he's the best goal scorer since Rocket Richard. When he loaded up his shot in the slot, one of three things happened: he scored, he missed the net, or he hit the goalie. That was the goalie's only real hope: have the puck hit him, because the goalie didn't have much of a chance against Bossy in the slot.

One thing to keep in mind with the PPG numbers at the start of this thread: a lot of the players mentioned played well into their 30s and even 40s. Bossy never had the years of diminishing offensive production that they did.

One of the top 20 players of all-time, one of the big 4 RWs of all-time (very close with Lafleur, behind Howe and Richard) and one of the scariest offensive forces ever.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Simple: because the focus IS more on career length than skill!

.

The focus has NOTHING to do with career length.

My system adds together the GREAT seasons each player has. Not number of seasons - NUMBER OF GREAT SEASONS and the degree of greatness. Just hanging around, like Messier has for 5-7 years does not add anything to my ratings.

If you want to isolate one single season for each player and determine the greatest career peak, that is another issue altogether. I am measuring greatest career accomplishments thus the title "Greatest Goal Scorers of all time"

 

[alanschu]

What is your system?

 

[Badger Bob]

People pay too much attention to stats. I'm pretty sure players like Bob Gainey or Craig Ramsay would have gotten a lot more points if they concentrated solely on offense without making all the defensive efforts they did.

Craig Ramsay doesn't belong in the same sentence with Bob Gainey. Ramsay was part of the 2nd scoring line for the Sabres with Don Luce & Danny Gare. If he had a scoring touch, there would've been ample opportunity to demonstrate it during 5 on 5. Incidentally, Gainey did alone what it took Luce & Ramsay to do together on the penalty kill.

Concerning Mike Bossy, he was one of the greatest pure goal scorers ever. The HNiC crew made a rare weekday appearance at HSBC when Montreal visited Buffalo a few years back. My dad walked up to speak with Dick Irvin. One of the questions he asked was who was the greatest goal scorer he'd seen. Without hesitation, the answer was Bossy. This came from somebody who'd seen most of the greats through several generations.