GOAT goalscorer?

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Ovechkin has a huge argument as the goat goal scorer. All he needed was to have the signature playoff. 15 goal smythe sealed that. He has the most Richards in history. And it’s not like he has not had great competition

Kovalchuk - Richard winner. Multiple 50 goal seasons
Stamkos 60 goal scorer. 2x Richard winner
Crosby 2x Richard winner
Malkin 50 goal scorer
Iginla 2x Richard winner
Etc
All great goal scorers

He’s just that much better at scoring goals.

 

[Fantomas]

I support it in large part as an American...the whole greater population = more talent could be a thing, in theory, but in practice...meh...not convinced...talent, elite talent clusters randomly...environmental factors involved as well...

Mick Jagger born July 1943
John Lennon born October 1940
Paul McCartney born June 1942
Keith Richards born December 1943
Eric Burdon born May 1941

et cetera...

UK's population is up some 40% since that time and they haven't produced a God damn thing after 1978 except for Radiohead and, for a moment, Amy Winehouse...why is this?

Popular music has declined because the music business in both the US and the UK caters to the lowest common denominator, which did not used to be the case.

The more music, and other artforms like film, become "business" -- whereby power is concentrated in the hands of extremely large corporations, whereby artists lose control of their labor and their artistic integrity -- the more the resulting "product" becomes commodity in a cycle of exchange in which powerful businesspeople (not artists) make bets on how to make the most money.

I don't know if hockey is really the same. It is also a difficult business, but at the end of the day the puck is still on the stick of the player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ovechkin has a huge argument as the goat goal scorer. All he needed was to have the signature playoff. 15 goal smythe sealed that. He has the most Richards in history. And it’s not like he has not had great competition

Kovalchuk - Richard winner. Multiple 50 goal seasons
Stamkos 60 goal scorer. 2x Richard winner
Crosby 2x Richard winner
Malkin 50 goal scorer
Iginla 2x Richard winner
Etc
All great goal scorers

He’s just that much better at scoring goals.

Bobby Hull has 7 Richards too, and his average margins of victory are higher

 

[Hippasus]

Bobby Hull has 7 Richards too, and his average margins of victory are higher

Depends on how one accounts for this.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Bobby Hull has 7 Richards too, and his average margins of victory are higher

Yes but was bobby hull competing against an international pool of players?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes, he was competing against the best players in the world.

 

[Hippasus]

I think Hull's goal scoring competition was a bit lesser than Ovechkin's if one keeps the timing of primes of the competition in mind.

 

[Hippasus]

I think there's more volatility at the top of goal scoring lists than there is in average first liner data. This should mean that domination of peers studies should be more telling of true domination when they are conducted along the latter lines.

 

[Pantokrator]

I would think that Bossy would have to be in there, also.

That was my first thought. Bossy needs to be in the equation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Depends on how one accounts for this.

By any rational means, Hull's margins are bigger. If you decide to compare Hull to the top 18 players and Ovechkin to the top 90, sure, the player compared to lesser players will look better.

One could still argue for Ovechkin if you believed that it's harder to come by such margins in the modern game. It wouldn't be a crazy argument.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes but was bobby hull competing against an international pool of players?

Canada is still 1/2 the league.

But yes, there is an argument for Ovechkin based on competiton, in particular one-year wonders who coukd affect the goals race if given first line minutes.

But comparing "margins" between two vastly different standards (top 18, top 93) is nonsense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think there's more volatility at the top of goal scoring lists than there is in average first liner data. This should mean that domination of peers studies should be more telling of true domination when they are conducted along the latter lines.

Quite possibly true.

My point was that by strictly looking at end of season finishes and margins, Bobby Hull is still on top.

I did say earlier that any of Gretzky, Mario, Hull, or Ovechkin is a valid choice.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Yes, he was competing against the best players in the world.

Which was 99.9% Canadian at the time. Sorry that’s not the worlds best players. Those are Canada’s best players. A sport like ice hockey which is a rich mans sport.... even today the talent pool is not what it could be. The best player in history likely didn’t even ever put on a pair of skates... why? Cause they could not afford it. So imagine how it was in hulls time....

 

[Hippasus]

By any rational means, Hull's margins are bigger. If you decide to compare Hull to the top 18 players and Ovechkin to the top 90, sure, the player compared to lesser players will look better.

One could still argue for Ovechkin if you believed that it's harder to come by such margins in the modern game. It wouldn't be a crazy argument.

Maybe the growth of the hockey playing talent pool legitimizes expansion from six to 31 teams to a significant degree. This might be so if one bears in mind population, expansion of hockey markets, training, coaching, and nutrition.

 

[Hippasus]

Quite possibly true.

My point was that by strictly looking at end of season finishes and margins, Bobby Hull is still on top.

I did say earlier that any of Gretzky, Mario, Hull, or Ovechkin is a valid choice.

You are correct about raw margins of victory in Hull's favor. I got 73 to 53.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Which was 99.9% Canadian at the time. Sorry that’s not the worlds best players. Those are Canada’s best players. A sport like ice hockey which is a rich mans sport.... even today the talent pool is not what it could be. The best player in history likely didn’t even ever put on a pair of skates... why? Cause they could not afford it. So imagine how it was in hulls time....

Total nonsense. Into the eighties, Canadian hockey was a poor man's sport.

Amateur, semi-pro and Senior teams were sponsored by corporations who would hire players as workers with day jobs.

Regularly, educated/high level players from Harry E.Watson, 1924 Olympics star to Ken Dryden and Fred Arthur would ignore the NHL to go into business, retire early for better paying jobs or to follow studies for a medical career.

Vast majority of the great or long career NHLers from Montreal were from the lower class, poor areas of the island. Only exception that comes to mind is Bob Berry from TMR

The opposite is true for Europe. 1936 British Olympic Gold medal team was a collection of Canadian mercenaries from Senior league who qualified with dual citizenships.

Outside of the Soviet Union, European countries regularly imported Canadian coaches after the 1924 Olympics who acted as NHL scouts, but inevitably, the European players would turn down the contracts - 1957 Sven Tumba because with business and hockey interests they were making more money in Europe.

At the same time, into the early sixties, the best European teams barely competed with 4th to 6th level Canadian Amateur and Senior teams. Yet you expect their players to influence the top levels of the NHL.

Cannot argue both sides, like you are trying to do.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Panther]

I've never understood this argument that the competition was weaker in the old days. Makes no sense to me. If anything, I think the opposite is true.

Let's look at it this way -- Is half the NHL Canadian now, or roughly so? So, that's 15 or 16 rosters of Canadians only, which is far more players than were playing in 1965. So, just that makes the old-days look more competitive.

From WWII to 1967, there were six teams of Canadians only. But actually the rosters were smaller in those days, so six teams then is probably like 5 teams today. So, that means in a five-team all Canadian NHL, about 250 of today's Canadian NHL players won't be good enough to play.

In other words, make five balanced teams using today's Canadian players -- each would have two 'All Star' first lines, for sure -- and that's your same strength of competition in 1965.

So, yeah, Ovechkin and Malkin and Karlsson and Lundquist are out of this League, which might help Crosby's and McDavid's numbers. BUT, in this League Crosby now faces only five teams all season, each of which knows him intimately, and each of which has two All Star first lines. It's like the playoffs all season. Then, remember those 250 Canadian NHL players of today that Crosby and McDavid face? Those 250 players are no longer good enough to play in the five-team NHL. The strength of competition has gotten way tougher by reducing today's NHL to a five-team all-Canadian League.

Now, clearly there were periods after 1967 when the NHL became briefly 'watered down' or had a preponderance of lower-level teams -- notably roughly 1968 to 1975, with briefer spikes around 1978 to 1982, and 1991-1993, etc. But I personally think if today's NHL were about 24 teams, it would be just right.

 

[The Panther]

As further example of what I'm talking about (above): Consider if today's NHL were 5 teams of all-Canadian players.

Based roughly on last year's per-game scoring stats, here are all the top-line and second-line forwards in this NHL (which would equate with the NHL of 1953 or 1965):

1 C's
McDavid
MacKinnon
Giroux
Stamkos
Crosby

1 RW's
Stone
R. Smith
Eberle
Perry
B.Gallagher

1 LW's
Marchand
Hall
Benn
Perron
E.Kane

And here is a guess at the top-10 defencemen in this NHL (i.e., the top pairings on every team):
Barrie
Burns
Doughty
Ellis
Subban
Pietrangelo
Rielly
Letang
Dumba
Hamilton

I probably missed some obvious players, but anyway that's a sample. This is a not a weaker League than today by any stretch. It's a more difficult League, because each team now has more elite players playing most of the minutes, just as it was in 1960. (Actually right-wing is kind of weak by Canadians right now, isn't it? Still, what would really happen is that some of these forwards would switch to wing, for example Claude Giroux can play the wing, etc.)

The other factor is: In the 1950s and 1960s, how many non-Soviet players were really good enough to make the NHL? I would guess very few.

 

[scott clam]

if we're going strictly on peak ability I'm inclined to go with Lemieux because I think he had the most complete goal scoring toolbox of any player, ever, and might have even been Wayne's equal on overall offense, peak for peak. but with that being said every major goalscoring milestone Mario hit, Wayne did it first, and did it faster. He also scored nearly 200 more career goals than Lemieux and thats not even getting into playoffs.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Bobby Hull has 7 Richards too, and his average margins of victory are higher

Ovechkin won 7 outright, Hull didn't. Maybe not a big deal overall, but when discussing the GOAT every detail counts.

 

[streitz]

A sport like ice hockey which is a rich mans sport

Maybe today but during the 80's and prior not at all. My parents weren't wealthy and I played for good travel teams. Theo Fleury and Shendon Kennedy didn't grow up rich either(just the first 2 nhl players from Manitoba I can think of who both said they weren't wealthy in their books).


A huge portion of nhlers from the 60's 70s and earlier were kids from farms.

 

[daver]

I think we should be able to agree on two things:

We have absolutely no way of determining how a player would have done if they played in another era (I would like to add "and on a another team" but that seems like it's asking too much). Introducing any argument based on this is complete speculation.

From strictly a statistical perspective, comparing a season with six teams to a season with more teams requires context. ( what that context is a matter for debate which allows for biases to slant objectivity). Here is what I think is a reasonable way to approach things:

There should be no reason to believe that a clearly dominant player from any era would not be as dominant in another era, relative to their peers. The six players mentioned in the OP were all clearly dominant regardless of whether there was a player or two who showed similar dominance in their respective eras. The issue is establishing the amount of peers each should be compared to given the different size of the league over the years.

 

[psycat]

I've never understood this argument that the competition was weaker in the old days. Makes no sense to me. If anything, I think the opposite is true.

Let's look at it this way -- Is half the NHL Canadian now, or roughly so? So, that's 15 or 16 rosters of Canadians only, which is far more players than were playing in 1965. So, just that makes the old-days look more competitive.

From WWII to 1967, there were six teams of Canadians only. But actually the rosters were smaller in those days, so six teams then is probably like 5 teams today. So, that means in a five-team all Canadian NHL, about 250 of today's Canadian NHL players won't be good enough to play.

In other words, make five balanced teams using today's Canadian players -- each would have two 'All Star' first lines, for sure -- and that's your same strength of competition in 1965.

So, yeah, Ovechkin and Malkin and Karlsson and Lundquist are out of this League, which might help Crosby's and McDavid's numbers. BUT, in this League Crosby now faces only five teams all season, each of which knows him intimately, and each of which has two All Star first lines. It's like the playoffs all season. Then, remember those 250 Canadian NHL players of today that Crosby and McDavid face? Those 250 players are no longer good enough to play in the five-team NHL. The strength of competition has gotten way tougher by reducing today's NHL to a five-team all-Canadian League.

Now, clearly there were periods after 1967 when the NHL became briefly 'watered down' or had a preponderance of lower-level teams -- notably roughly 1968 to 1975, with briefer spikes around 1978 to 1982, and 1991-1993, etc. But I personally think if today's NHL were about 24 teams, it would be just right.

Well you also have to take into account that sometimes most of the really great players, especially pre-cap obviously, played on the same team.

 

[Laineux]

As further example of what I'm talking about (above): Consider if today's NHL were 5 teams of all-Canadian players.

Based roughly on last year's per-game scoring stats, here are all the top-line and second-line forwards in this NHL (which would equate with the NHL of 1953 or 1965):

Do it based on 16/17 scoring stats, and you'll notice that a player like MacKinnon doesn't even have a scoring line spot in this league.

Thus likely missing out on his breakout season, making the competition in fact easier. Apply some random variation to how talent is spread among the six teams, and a bunch of elite scorers will lose their opportunities.

 

[The Panther]

Do it based on 16/17 scoring stats, and you'll notice that a player like MacKinnon doesn't even have a scoring line spot in this league.

Thus likely missing out on his breakout season, making the competition in fact easier. Apply some random variation to how talent is spread among the six teams, and a bunch of elite scorers will lose their opportunities.

The lists I made were just to give a rough idea of what the top-line players in Gordie Howe's heyday would look like under the same circumstances in 2018. I didn't list the other three lines on each of the five teams, but I'm sure there's be room for MacKinnon, regardless of how he played last season.

But this brings to mind another point about why the 1950s/60s League was, if anything, more competitive. In today's NHL, you have to be great to make it to the top (as always), but you don't have to be great to stay there. We were talking about Mark Messier in another thread. The Messier-in-Vancouver thing would never have happened in the 50s, because once it was obvious to ownership that Mess wasn't worth what they'd signed him for, they'd just cancel his status and demote him to the minors. No long-term contracts to float in.

This makes the League more competitive, because today after signing John Tavares for $77 million, the Maple Leafs can't not play him if he sucks. But in the 50s, he'd never have gotten a long-term contract and the moment he started to suck his minutes would go down and then he'd be banished.