Gretzky isn't the greatest goal scorer?
- Thread starter squaleca
- Start date
kevsh
Registered User
- Nov 28, 2018
- 3,356
- 4,655
I have Gretzky as the greatest but he was fortunate to enter the league at just the right time. The first 4-5 seasons (from 1980 on) the WHA expansion and realignment put the Oilers in the absolutely horrific Smythe division.
In the early 80s it was common only one team in the Smythe had a winning record. (In '80-81 for example, Winnipeg had 9 wins, Colorado had 22.). It wasn't until the '84-85 season the Oilers faced decent teams in their own division.
In short, Gretzky was the greatest, no argument there, but he had the benefit of feasting on really, really bad teams for years.
In the early 80s it was common only one team in the Smythe had a winning record. (In '80-81 for example, Winnipeg had 9 wins, Colorado had 22.). It wasn't until the '84-85 season the Oilers faced decent teams in their own division.
In short, Gretzky was the greatest, no argument there, but he had the benefit of feasting on really, really bad teams for years.
The Oilers were 4th in their division the first two years. St Louis had 107 points in 80-81 in the division the Oilers "feasted" on. The Habs that season were in a division with two teams with fewer wins than the Rockies. The Kings and the Habs both scored more goals than the Oilers playing that other division. Which, by the way, if you want to say the realignment was to the Oilers benefit, and maybe it was to a degree, you would first have to explain the logic of having a division with Montreal, PIT, DET and LA. Wtf? You might also want to look at how many games ended in ties back then before pointing solely at wins.
Based on Hockey Reference, the Oilers Strength of Schedule was better than then the Flyers and the Islanders in 82-83. The 104-point Blackhawks that season battled to that total against a weaker schedule as well. 83-84? Maybe. But the Patrick Division had a 16 and a 17-win team. If the fact the other four teams having 40 wins means they had a real hard time, then you have to credit the Oilers with beating the heck out of their division rather than those teams being weak. After all, the one glaring weakness of strength of schedule is that the best team naturally gets "punished" by the simple fact they didn't play themselves.
81-82 is about the only season where your theory might actually hold water, but again the Norris division had 20 and 21 win teams. There should have been lots of feasting by a lot of people. But the Oilers seem to be the only ones that managed to do it.
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
They played a balanced schedule in his first two years-four games against every other team in the league.
kevsh
Registered User
- Nov 28, 2018
- 3,356
- 4,655
No doubt, a factor was Edmonton beating up these teams but what really stands out was the overwhelming mediocrity in the Campbell division, not just the Smythe.
'80-81. Oilers were mediocre/bad but had Colorado and Winnipeg as two of the worst teams in the league. The two teams above Edmonton were basically .500 teams.
'81-82. Every team besides Edm was below .500.
'82-83. There were 3 teams in the entire conference above .500, though 3 were pretty close.
'83-84. Same thing as '83-84.
But other players did take advantage in those years, like Bossy scoring 64 in 81-82. Gretzky did better than most because, well, he was that good.
This is also why I don't understand how Bure gets so much crap for this but Gretzky played the same way. That's how you would want them to play.
The Panther
Registered User
You didn't mention 1984-85 to 1991-92.
In 1984-85, the Smythe division had 3 of the top-five teams in the NHL. In 1985-86, it was somewhat weak, though the best team (Calgary) was the team Gretzky scored the most points against. In 1986-87, the Smythe had 3 of the top-six teams in the NHL. In 1987-88, the Smythe had Edmonton (3rd overall) and Calgary (1st overall). In 1988-89 (Gretzky now with L.A.), the Smythe had 2 of the top-4 teams, plus Cup-defending Edmonton. In 1989-90, the Kings were a sub-.500 club, and their division had both Calgary (2nd overall) and Edmonton (Cup champ). In 1990-91, the Campbell Conference had 4 of the top-five teams in the NHL -- this is probably the best conference Gretzky ever played in, and he put up 163 points in 78 games, won the scoring title by 32 points, went +30, and scored 122 assists (and was 4th in ES goals).
More to the point, any argument that Gretzky put up the big numbers against weaker clubs or against the Campbell only is thoroughly disproven by any look at his points-per-game splits against divisions / teams.
1981-82: 2.67 vs. Wales / 2.58 vs. Campbell
1982-83: 2.33 vs. Wales / 2.53 vs. Campbell
1983-84: 2.54 vs. Wales / 2.91 vs. Campbell
1984-85: 2.36 vs. Wales / 2.77 vs. Campbell
1985-86: 2.30 vs. Wales / 2.96 vs. Campbell
1986-87: 2.03 vs. Wales / 2.52 vs. Campbell
1987-88: 2.13 vs. Wales / 2.44 vs. Campbell
1988-89: 2.09 vs. Wales / 2.20 vs. Campbell
1989-90: 2.06 vs. Wales / 1.85 vs. Campbell
1990-91: 2.09 vs. Wales / 2.09 vs. Campbell
I did a breakdown once of two Gretzky seasons (I can't recall which now), and looked at how he did against top and lower clubs and he was not doing way better against weaker teams.
More to the point, he did all right in the Cup Finals.
I mean, there is a balance, but there is almost a perverse, "I'm part of the club" attitude that goes with the whole " yeah but they didn't play defense the way you should" mantra. Never understood why you want a guy who can get numbers on the board to be down below his own goal line. I guess it's the same thing about the "like guys who fight their own battles." Yeah, because Jarome Iginla missing double digit games with a broken hand from a fight sure showed them.
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
people using the fact that gretzky could score goals and create goals better than anyone in the history of the game and using one to detract from the other makes no sense. it's like saying if a boxer didn't have such an elite level cardio that they wouldn't have so many late round knockouts as a means to discredit the knockouts. what helped make him so great was his ability to pass and shoot and hurt you equally. that's dynamic and it's unlike pure shooters like ovechkin, bossy, hull, etc. so by saying he's not as good of a goal scorer as those others despite equaling or bettering them in goal scoring doesn't compute at all. the best goal scorer is the guy who scores the most. the best shooter is the guy that places his shots the best. people conflate those two things frequently. it's fine if you think x player had a harder shot etc., but arguing that the player with the most goals isn't the best goalscorer is just fundamentally wrongheaded. it's not like gretzky was some compiler who played so much longer than everyone else and thereby generated more goals than he should have despite other players being better in goals per game averages and all that. he's just that dominant and people can't accept it.
Because, if you take Gretzky for what he was - all he was, it's just unfair to everyone else. So people try to find ways around it.
morehockeystats
Unusual hockey stats
It's not unfair to everyone. It's not unfair to Hasek, to Orr, to the mastodons who preceded him, especially Gordie.
It's not unfair to everyone. It's not unfair to Hasek, to Orr, to the mastodons who preceded him, especially Gordie.
Or the player he was most comparable to, Lemieux (the actual best goal scorer of all time).
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 36,127
- 16,597
I suppose the way to justify it is Lemieux is goals per game. Gretzky at 0.60 vs Lemieux at 0.75. Of course you'd need a governor on it, like total games played, similar to how we measure save percentage in a season for a goalie. But interestingly, Ovechkin and Bossy are also ahead of Gretzky at over 70%. This sort of makes sense to me because Gretzky's identity was not as a sniper. He was an agile playmaker/ puck distributor. You kind of want the best goal scorer of all time to be a player like Ovechkin or Brett Hull: someone who ends the scoring play more than they start them, and are perhaps a bit of an island onto themselves
Also interestingly, Lemieux isn't #1 by this, Bossy is
Also interestingly, Lemieux isn't #1 by this, Bossy is
RVACapsFan
Registered User
- May 31, 2018
- 439
- 728
Ovechkin has led the league in goals, what, 9 times? How many did Gretzky? Ovi is the best goal scorer ever, and it’s not particularly close.
The Panther
Registered User
Lemieux played 915 games, scored 690 goals. In Gretzky's first 915 games, he scored 715 goals. Gretzky's shooting percentage was also higher across 915 games, by 20.3% to 19.0%. (Not to mention Gretzky completely dwarfed Lemieux as an even-strength scorer in general, which is why after 915 games Gretzky was +604 and Lemieux +114.)
Now, of course, there's lots of context we can apply to this -- Gretzky's goal-scoring (in isolation) declined greatly after his 30th birthday, and his peak-years were from 1979-80 through 1990-91 (aged 18 to 30). Lemieux was also a stud from the start, but we'd likely say he didn't quite reach his peak level until the autumn of 1987 (aged 22)... but by the time his peak had ended (say, spring 2001, when he was 35), he had missed so many games and seasons, it's hard to get a read on how that would have played out if he'd played all the games. We'll just never know.
Generally, with this kind of question, I would tend to look at a player's prime years rather than the whole career, which, by per game, stats, obviously favors players (like Bossy, and to a lesser extent, Lemieux) who either had all-prime careers or careers with lots of time off and interruptions for injury or whatnot.
I don't have any answer to who the greatest goal-scorer is. If you want to focus on goal scoring volume alone, regular season alone, and employ a period of (say) 10 years or more, it's pretty hard not to argue for Ovechkin, who obviously has the most seasons leading the NHL in goals. But do I really think Ovechkin could carry Gretzky or Lemieux's jock-strap? No, I don't. The former pair had such a exceedingly high hockey IQ and supernatural talent that it is beyond doubt that they could have scored more goals than they did (this particularly applies to Wayne, who was always a pass-first player).
I think my first choice for greatest-goal scorer ever is probably Mario, all things considered. But depending on my mood and the context being prioritized, I could make good arguments for any of him, Wayne, Ovechkin, Howe, Hull, and Richard.
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 36,127
- 16,597
You can argue for Ovechkin but it's hard to say its not close when Gretzky will finish with higher totals. Ultimately people who understand the nuances will always be against the wind.
Just curious, do fans of other sports do this? Basically say "well this guy is #1 but he isn't really #1"? I know some people who like baseball and they like to give credit to past records
Well baseball has, at least on the hitting side, an ability to, if not fairly accurately adjust for eras, at least have a pretty defensible methodology. Ie, in 1930 Bill Terry hit .401 to win batting title, in 1968 Carl Yastrzemski wins with .301. It's a lot harder to defend methodologies that adjust 92 vs 41.
But back to Ovechkin. When the Crosby/Ovechkin discussions come up, PGP gets mentioned, and Ovechkin supporters say "you can't give credit for games not played." My response is usually along the lines of "why does he get credit for games he did nothing then?" In this discussion about goal scoring, how much does the shot volume for Ovechkin play into it? Although I'm not completely sold, it would seem to be a something of an elephant in the room. Ovechkin has 6 of the top 20 seasons for total shots, and would likely have another if 12-13 had been a full season. Gretzky doesn't show up on the list until 42.
In some ways, I would almost think Ovechkin's shot volume hurts his case, particularly given how Washington at various times in his career has totally geared their play to getting him shots. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing, but it does seem like a factor when evaluating something like this. I don't necessarily say he gets a nod due to Richards, but to have the goal total he has in this era is what puts him in a conversation in my mind. But there are factors involved that are worth a look I would think.
RVACapsFan
Registered User
- May 31, 2018
- 439
- 728
I think the goal scoring title is the best way to account for different eras. Yes, it was much easier to score when Gretzky played, and he led the league in goals (I think) 5 times in 19 or so seasons. Ovi’ s done it 9 times in 15 seasons.
It's never occured to me how someone couldn't simply go back and look at how many goals each scored after the same number of games. Gretzky is actually ahead here, but only if you don't adjust for era. Plus Lemieux remained an all time great goal scorer against butterfly goalies, post 1995, and at an older age than Gretzky was an all time great goal scorer. At their peaks they were very similar, so the edge would go to Lemieux. Bossy doesn't even compare to either if you look at how many they had at the same stages of their careers. The only 4 players who have an argument for best goal scorer are Gretzky, Lemieux, Ovechkin and Bobby Hull IMHO.
Regarding the +/- thing, it's pretty fair to say that had a lot to do with the teams they played on.
I did Gretzky vs. Ovechkin comparison a year ago
Who is the best goal scorer ever?
The summary is that Ovechkin is so much ahead of Gretzky in terms of longevity as the top goal-scorer in the league that the two-year peak advantage Gretzky has over Ovechkin pales in comparison.
Another interesting consideration is that Gretzky's best % leads over the field in the goal-scoring race were matched/bested by Esposito, Lemieux, and Brett Hull, but since then no one came even close (and peak Selanne, Bure, Stamkos, not to mention Ovechkin, were awesome goal-scorers). So if such leads never happen in the next 10-20 years, we may have to re-think whether Gretzky's goal-scoring peak is better than Ovechkin's, or maybe Ovechkin did all a human can do - and then kept at or close to this peak for 5-8 years, in contrast to Gretzky, who only stayed at his peak for 2 seasons.
Who is the best goal scorer ever?
The summary is that Ovechkin is so much ahead of Gretzky in terms of longevity as the top goal-scorer in the league that the two-year peak advantage Gretzky has over Ovechkin pales in comparison.
Another interesting consideration is that Gretzky's best % leads over the field in the goal-scoring race were matched/bested by Esposito, Lemieux, and Brett Hull, but since then no one came even close (and peak Selanne, Bure, Stamkos, not to mention Ovechkin, were awesome goal-scorers). So if such leads never happen in the next 10-20 years, we may have to re-think whether Gretzky's goal-scoring peak is better than Ovechkin's, or maybe Ovechkin did all a human can do - and then kept at or close to this peak for 5-8 years, in contrast to Gretzky, who only stayed at his peak for 2 seasons.
The Panther
Registered User
Not really:
Gretzky 1979 to 1981 (Oilers 57-74-29) = +55
Lemieux 1984 to 1986 (Penguins 58-89-13) = -41
Gretzky 1988 to 1991 (Kings 122-94-24) = +53
Lemieux 1988 to 1991 (Penguins 113-106-21) = +31
The Panther
Registered User
Based on consistent lead in seasonal (regular season) goal-scoring, there's no doubt that Ovechkin has the best argument as best NHL goal scorer. He simply has the most seasonal goals titles. And based on longevity, it is either Ovechkin or Howe, I'd say.
The problem with your analysis, however, is that it assumes that a player like Gretzky is "trying" to score the most goals, consistently, which he wasn't. Gretzky's two highest goal-seasons (1983-84 and 1981-82, respectively) aren't so much his "peaks" as they outlier seasons where he was shooting to score more than usual.
In other words, there's also the consideration of actual ability and potential as opposed to numbers on the board in one category (goals). In 1985, Gretzky scored 50 goals in 49 games, and a year later -- on an even higher-scoring team -- he scored 52 goals in 80 games... with 163 assists thrown on top. Do we really believe he was trying to maximize his goal-scoring that season? Clearly, he wasn't. Players who are centers and set up wingers (check out Kurri's 1980s' goals totals and recall that 80% of his goals were assisted by Gretzky) generally aren't trying to score as many goals as they can.
I'm not saying Ovechkin isn't the "best" or "greatest" goal scorer because there's a very strong argument that he is. I'm just saying, it might be more accurate to say "most productive goal scorer for the most impressively long period, consistently".
It is unclear how far one can take the "what if Gretzky was trying to score more goals" projection.
Arguments like that are presented all the time: people often say that Fedorov or Datsyuk did not fully exploit their offensive potential, because they were two-way forwards. But then they were rewarded for their two-way play and have always been ranked higher than what their goals and points would warrant. So imagining how great Fedorov could have been on offense if he had been 100% offense is fun, but should not change our perception of Fedorov.
Likewise, Gretzky is the best player ever and especially the best playmaker ever. To me, those facts do not mean he has to be awarded any extra points in the goal-scoring department.
Going to the minutiae, it does not seem to me that Gretzky would have challenged Bossy in 80/81 or Lemieux in 88/89 in the goal-scoring race "had he just decided to shoot more". It is more likely that he was too young/too old to rip off the number of shots needed to challenge them. Gretzky's goal-scoring prime is still relatively short compared to Howe/Ovechkin/Richard/Hull Sr. even if you try the "what if he had shot more" argument.
In 85/86 (the 52-goal, 163-assist season you mentioned), Gretzky still led the league in shots. He shot just 4 shots less than the year before that (73 goals), and that is probably because he played one game less in 85/86. So he did not stop shooting to focus on playmaking; rather, his shooting % was unusually low. I do not know why it was low: maybe he played through an injury, maybe luck was not on his side, or maybe he was already declining as a goal-scorer and was actually taking more shots than he should have.
So the argument "what if he had shot more" boils down to slightly beefing up Gretzky's peak goal-scoring. And it is not like his peak goal-scoring needs beefing up or that beefing it up would change anything.
The Panther
Registered User
You're kind of missing my point here.
I would never suggest that we should speculate on how many more points/goals-whatever that someone could have scored. I agree that that is needless speculation.
My point is simply that certain players (Gretzky & Lemieux being the obvious examples, but this somewhat applies to the few elite forwards who were both goal-scorers and playmakers -- Jagr, Howe, etc.) should not be judged as "goal-scorers" only on how many goals they scored, as if that number represents their peak. The reason, as explained above, is that their actual ability to score goals exceeded the number of goals they actually scored due to their uniquely high offensive abilities.
In short, what I'm really saying is that it's highly favorable to players like Ovechkin (or more so, say, Pavel Dmitra) to focus on the isolated skill they specialize in, and it's sort of disingenuous to more talented and higher-IQ players to focus on only one of their two or three or four highly specialized skills.
