Gretzky isn't the greatest goal scorer?

[Dan Kelly]

Or you can watch a highlight reel of Joonas Donskoi and think he's the greatest player of all time.

i'd say stop drinking the Kool-Aide but what's the point?

 

[Albatros]

Those slapshot goals that Gretzky scored for the Oilers happened in a very specific context, and once the context changed he was no longer able to replicate the scoring. It doesn't delegitimize what he achieved, but in the discussion for greatest ever goal scorer other than statistically? Nah.

 

[topshelf15]

Pure goalscorer,I could see an arguement,but he was the man and still is

 

[Fatass]

Until someone (OV?) eclipses GWG’s goal totals, he is the GOAT.
“Best there is; best there was; and the best there ever will be.”

 

[Thenameless]

Gretzky is probably not even a top-3 goal scorer all time. You can argue he's not top-5. Howe almost never comes up in these discussions and I would rate him at least even with Gretzky.

You think that one could legitimately argue that there are five goal scorers greater than Gretzky? It seems like a stretch to me.

He's got the 50 in 39.
He's got the 92 goal season.
He's got 17, 15, 13 as his best playoffs.
He's got the most career hat tricks.
And then there's the 894 elephant in the room, which could have been much higher for two legitimate reasons. First, his back wasn't the same after 1991. Second, career-wise he generally wasn't a "shoot-first" type of player, but leaned more toward play-making (in '86 he basically said he wanted to set some kind of unbreakable assist record).

I'm not especially a fan of Gretzky, but it is pretty hard to argue against the guy. I think Mario Lemieux was a more talented goal scorer, but still not greater. It would be hard for me to argue that there are five greater. Very hard.

I'm curious to see who you got, and more importantly, why?

 

[Fantomas]

You think that one could legitimately argue that there are five goal scorers greater than Gretzky? It seems like a stretch to me.

He's got the 50 in 39.
He's got the 92 goal season.
He's got 17, 15, 13 as his best playoffs.
He's got the most career hat tricks.
And then there's the 894 elephant in the room, which could have been much higher for two legitimate reasons. First, his back wasn't the same after 1991. Second, career-wise he generally wasn't a "shoot-first" type of player, but leaned more toward play-making (in '86 he basically said he wanted to set some kind of unbreakable assist record).

I'm not especially a fan of Gretzky, but it is pretty hard to argue against the guy. I think Mario Lemieux was a more talented goal scorer, but still not greater. It would be hard for me to argue that there are five greater. Very hard.

I'm curious to see who you got, and more importantly, why?

You can easily argue for five. Gordie, Bobby Hull, Ovechkin, Mario, Richard. That's five right there with comparable or better goal scoring achievements.

Gretzky just seems unreachable to some folks because of the era in which he played. But once you look at the numbers in their context, it's clear he's just one of the guys.

I have discussions about topics like this all the time and whenever I bring up the fact that Wayne led the league in scoring just 5 times, that often surprises people. But it's true. Just five times. Same as Gordie and Rocket. Less than Bobby. Less than OV. Only Mario trails him here.

 

[Albatros]

Brett Hull's 86 goals is easily the best scoring season too.

 

[TheEye]

You can easily argue for five. Gordie, Bobby Hull, Ovechkin, Mario, Richard. That's five right there with comparable or better goal scoring achievements.

Gretzky just seems unreachable to some folks because of the era in which he played. But once you look at the numbers in their context, it's clear he's just one of the guys.

I have discussions about topics like this all the time and whenever I bring up the fact that Wayne led the league in scoring just 5 times, that often surprises people. But it's true. Just five times. Same as Gordie and Rocket. Less than Bobby. Less than OV. Only Mario trails him here.

Past or present, if I can select any forward to take a penalty shot, it's going to be Lemieux.

That said, you are clearly not applying proper context to the numbers. And Gretzky is definitely not just "one of the guys."

You do understand that Gretzky winning the scoring title "just" 5 times, as a centre, it actually enhances his status as a goal scorer? Especially when considering the amplified play-driving/playmaking responsibilities of a centre, and the requisite assist/goal ratios most often associated with said duty. His goal scoring titles are actually substantively more impressive when examined beyond a superficial (or era-adjusted) level.

Peruse the list of single-season goal scoring leaders. Historically, they are overwhelmingly wingers and there's a reason why that is the case. As a matter of fact, over the past 70 years, only 9 unique centres have led (or tied) the league in single-season goal scoring.

In combination with his positional responsibility (offensively) and his otherworldly assist/goal ratios during that run, his titles are particularly imposing relative to 'goal hunters' with 1/1 (or lower) ratios. I'm dazzled when any player consistently scores at an extraordinary rate over a given number of seasons. When also leading with complementary high assist/goal ratios, well that's absolutely extraordinary. As an example, I suggest that Brett Hull scoring 86 goals with a 0.52 assist/goal ratio is inherently less impressive than Gretzky scoring 92 with a 1.30 assist/goal ratio.

Playmaking centres often break down scoring opportunities more selflessly, slightly reducing their actual goal scoring potential. Can we say the same for some of those goal hungry wingers?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Past or present, if I can select any forward to take a penalty shot, it's going to be Lemieux.

That's a relevant scenario for about one fifth of one percent of all goals.

 

[Fantomas]

Past or present, if I can select any forward to take a penalty shot, it's going to be Lemieux.

That said, you are clearly not applying proper context to the numbers. And Gretzky is definitely not just "one of the guys."

You do understand that Gretzky winning the scoring title "just" 5 times, as a centre, it actually enhances his status as a goal scorer? Especially when considering the amplified play-driving/playmaking responsibilities of a centre, and the requisite assist/goal ratios most often associated with said duty. His goal scoring titles are actually substantively more impressive when examined beyond a superficial (or era-adjusted) level.

Peruse the list of single-season goal scoring leaders. Historically, they are overwhelmingly wingers and there's a reason why that is the case. As a matter of fact, over the past 70 years, only 9 unique centres have led (or tied) the league in single-season goal scoring.

In combination with his positional responsibility (offensively) and his otherworldly assist/goal ratios during that run, his titles are particularly imposing relative to 'goal hunters' with 1/1 (or lower) ratios. I'm dazzled when any player consistently scores at an extraordinary rate over a given number of seasons. When also leading with complementary high assist/goal ratios, well that's absolutely extraordinary. As an example, I suggest that Brett Hull scoring 86 goals with a 0.52 assist/goal ratio is inherently less impressive than Gretzky scoring 92 with a 1.30 assist/goal ratio.

Playmaking centres often break down scoring opportunities more selflessly, slightly reducing their actual goal scoring potential. Can we say the same for some of those goal hungry wingers?

You can argue that Gretzky is the greatest goal scorer because he did other things offensively at an elite level (primarily pass), as opposed to great goal scorers like Bobby Hull who were scorers first and foremost.

But that's not the way I personally judge great goal scorers. To me, it's about how many goals you score. Not how many goals you could have scored if you passed less.

Giving Gretzky credit for the scoring he didn't do, but could have done, is like saying that Ty Cobb is a great home run hitter who just chose to not hit home runs. This doesn't make much sense to me.

In full context, if you adjust Gretzky's numbers properly - which you can do yourself, or by simply looking at hockey-reference - you'll see that he doesn't stand out all that much. His margins are indeed very good in his prime, but other great scorers have their own virtues. Some of the names I've listed offer more longevity and better scoring results in their 30s for instance. Howe was still an elite scorer way into his 30s, whereas Gretzky was no longer one after his mid-20s. That's also context.

I don't see how one can say that Gretzky is definitely a top-5 goal scorer. One can argue that he is, but one can just as easily argue that he's not.

 

[TheEye]

That's a relevant scenario for about one fifth of one percent of all goals.

I guess one may take my comment literally, and that's fair, but it's not what I meant. In my opinion, Lemieux had the best skillset to take on any player one-on-one, including the goaltender. I'll restate my perspective more clearly - if I can place the puck on any player's stick and they personally have to score, that player is Lemieux.

I know you're fond of Ovechkin, and let's be honest, what he's doing is unprecedented when it comes to simply putting the puck in the net. But other than standing at the top of the circle and firing pucks, are you honestly going to chose him over Lemieux in any potential goal scoring situation?

 

[TheEye]

Giving Gretzky credit for the scoring he didn't do, but could have done, is like saying that Ty Cobb is a great home run hitter who just chose to not hit home runs. This doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, that's fine, except for the fact that Gretzky isn't Ty Cobb. He's Babe Ruth. It's a little difficult to argue the player who has the most home runs in a single season, and all-time is not a lock as a a top three home run hitter ever. Especially if they were famous for holding back and stroking for singles with runners on base. The latter being akin to Gretzky looking for a higher percentage plays, rather than attempting to do it himself.

Howe was still an elite scorer way into his 30s, whereas Gretzky was no longer one after his mid-20s. That's also context.

He certainly was one after his mid-20s. He scored 54 goals at the age of 28. That's still very elite. On top of that, it's incredibly likely Gretzky was capable of scoring 50 goals annually until the 1991-92 season. He just started shooting less and playing the perimeter more, likely understanding his small frame wasn't going to hold up in the higher scoring areas as he approached the downslope of his 30s. If you like referring to hockey-reference, check out his shot totals and shooting percentages as supporting evidence. I'll even suggest that if Gretzky didn't have his back significantly damaged during the '91 Canada Cup, he was probable to remain as a threat to score 50 until about 1995.

Bewilderingly, many observers appear to view athletes as pre-programmed robots with fixed software and hardware devices. Injuries, genetics, mileage, and the associated wear and tear affect individuals differently as they age. It's almost never that a player simply can't figure out how to beat a goalie (or hit a home run) anymore. Some lose quickness, others power, or flexibility, or mobility, etc. etc. Aging and compounded wear and tear generally causes the decline. I think those who haven't played and aged at the elite level are often unable to understand that perspective.

Gretzky (or Lemieux for that matter) at 22 years old is almost certainly the leading goal scorer in any era. And at risk of setting off a vigorous debate, I'll wager that Crosby certainly could have scored more throughout his career, if he placed more focus on doing so. Some elite players will never fully harness their goal scoring potential because they are prone to distribute, calculating higher odds of a puck entering the net. Some skaters inherently prefer to look off the other player and have the glory themselves. Both styles of play are as old as the game itself. The player who likes to shoot instead of pass, isn't necessarily the better goal scorer (or vice-versa), even if the former consistently scores more goals.

 

[Albatros]

Gretzky (or Lemieux for that matter) at 22 years old is almost certainly the leading goal scorer in any era.

It's difficult to see what edge Gretzky as a goal scorer would have over Pastrnak even right now in that age category.

 

[morehockeystats]

I wasn't able to follow the NHL before 2011, but from what I heard and observed, I thought Mike Bossy was the best pure goal scorer since the expansion.

 

[Fantomas]

Well, that's fine, except for the fact that Gretzky isn't Ty Cobb. He's Babe Ruth. It's a little difficult to argue the player who has the most home runs in a single season, and all-time is not a lock as a a top three home run hitter ever. Especially if they were famous for holding back and stroking for singles with runners on base. The latter being akin to Gretzky looking for a higher percentage plays, rather than attempting to do it himself.

The guy who hit the most home runs in a single season, before Barry Bonds broke that record, was Roger Maris. Hardly the best home run hitter ever.

Meanwhile the guy with the all-time home run record, before Bonds also broke that record, was Hank Aaron. Aaron is worth bringing up here because he would have hit many more career home runs, had his career not overlapped with the dreaded "dead ball era," which was dominated by low-scoring environments. Something completely out of his control.

The point I'm making here is that it's silly to take raw stats as seriously as you do. They're misleading because they are taking things out of context. Look closer and you might just realize that your idols are quite mortal.

He certainly was one after his mid-20s. He scored 54 goals at the age of 28. That's still very elite. On top of that, it's incredibly likely Gretzky was capable of scoring 50 goals annually until the 1991-92 season. He just started shooting less and playing the perimeter more, likely understanding his small frame wasn't going to hold up in the higher scoring areas as he approached the downslope of his 30s. If you like referring to hockey-reference, check out his shot totals and shooting percentages as supporting evidence. I'll even suggest that if Gretzky didn't have his back significantly damaged during the '91 Canada Cup, he was probable to remain as a threat to score 50 until about 1995.

Again, the "Gretzky was still an elite scorer, but decided not to be" is not as good an argument as you think.

 

[Fantomas]

I wasn't able to follow the NHL before 2011, but from what I heard and observed, I thought Mike Bossy was the best pure goal scorer since the expansion.

It's one of those things people sometimes say. The numbers don't bear that out.

 

[morehockeystats]

It's one of those things people sometimes say. The numbers don't bear that out.

Highest GPG and Most consecutive 50+ goal seasons (9 out the 10 he played)...

 

[Fantomas]

Highest GPG and Most consecutive 50+ goal seasons (9 out the 10 he played)...

In the highest scoring era of the NHL ever, leading the league in goals only twice.

You know how many 50 goal seasons there were in the 1980s? 76.

In the last decade (2010-2020)? 8.

 

[Kurrilino]

I absolutely love it.............

The guys with most goals ever isn't the greatest goal scorer.

 

[morehockeystats]

In the highest scoring era of the NHL ever, leading the league in goals only twice.

You know how many 50 goal seasons there were in the 1980s? 76.

In the last decade (2010-2020)? 8.

He played at the same time Gretzky did.

 

[Fantomas]

He played at the same time Gretzky did.

You think that if we take out Gretzky that disparity will look much better?

And FYI Bossy finished second to Gretzky in scoring precisely once.

 

[TheEye]

The guy who hit the most home runs in a single season, before Barry Bonds broke that record, was Roger Maris. Hardly the best home run hitter ever.

Thanks for the baseball lesson, although I'm already keenly aware of who achieved what, and when. In actuality, before Bonds eclipsed the record, it had been McGwire who shattered it first. Maris' single season total was actually surpassed five times before Bonds hit 73 in 2001. Due to the steroid influence, many contemporary professional baseball players still consider 61 as the unofficial record. If you are similarly aware of the circumstances surrounding Maris' historic 1961 season, he actually hit his 61st home run during game 162. This generated significant controversy at the time, as Ruth had accomplished the feat through 154 games. And after Maris' 154th game, he sat at 59 home runs, just shy of Ruth's total. For some in baseball circles, the unofficial record up until now remains 60. You may also note the steroid era (late 80s to late 00s) is somewhat akin to the 80s hockey era (i.e. inflated totals). And as you have pointed out, numbers are not to be taken at a superficial level as those specifics are not easily defined. This directs me to the following point.

The point I'm making here is that it's silly to take raw stats as seriously as you do.

Who says I take raw stats seriously? Just you? Maybe ask that question first, before formulating any broad conclusions? In actuality I don't take raw stats as gospel, not even close. I indeed find it equally amusing you believe math equations from hockey-reference or elsewhere can confirm a player's point totals across different eras. That's equally absurd.

In full context, if you adjust Gretzky's numbers properly - which you can do yourself, or by simply looking at hockey-reference - you'll see that he doesn't stand out all that much.

If I merely look at hockey-reference and 'adjust' Gretzky's numbers properly, he still tops out at 69 goals and 170 points relative to the current period. That's kinda standing out 'that much' in the current era. Do I think he could attain 170 points in today's NHL? In my opinion the odds of that are approaching zero. Likewise for 69 goals.

Conceivably, you can put down the calculator and stop thinking you've figured everything out? There are no definable conclusions when it comes to athletic statistics across eras. You are simply guessing, as is everyone else.

 

[Individual 1]

Highest GPG and Most consecutive 50+ goal seasons (9 out the 10 he played)...

Apply a little bit of context to these numbers, compared to Lemieux, Gretzky, Hull, Ovechkin and so on how many games did Bossy play past the age of 30? Do you think he would have kept scoring at similar rates until 38?

Bossy scored 51 goals twice, and 53 another time. The chances of him scoring 50+ 9 season in a row in any other era is all but impossible when he barely managed it in the highest scoring environment. In 2 of the seasons he finishes 5th and 7th in goals, with the other 7 being top 3.

Maurice Richard from 46-47 to 56-57 is top 3 in goals 8 times with a 4th and 5th place finish. He has a 1st and 4th the two prior seasons as well.

Bobby Hull has an 11 year span more impressive than what Bossy did where he is top 3 in 9 with a 4th and 6th place finish and a 1st and 6th the seasons prior.

Gordie Howe has a 9 year streak from 49-50 to 57-58 where he is top 2 all but one year with a 5th place finish.

 

[Fantomas]

If I merely look at hockey-reference and 'adjust' Gretzky's numbers properly, he still tops out at 69 goals and 170 points relative to the current period. That's kinda standing out 'that much' in the current era. Do I think he could attain 170 points in today's NHL? In my opinion the odds of that are approaching zero. Likewise for 69 goals.

This conversation is about goals, not assists. No one is arguing against Gretzky's playmaking brilliance.

Conceivably, you can put down the calculator and stop thinking you've figured everything out? There are no definable conclusions when it comes to athletic statistics across eras. You are simply guessing, as is everyone else.

I wasn't talking about "definable conclusions." Re-read what I wrote.

There is nothing "definable" about saying that there's a good argument against Gretzky being a top-5 scorer and that there's a good argument for him being one.

But there is something "definable" about saying that Gretzky scored 54 goals at age 27-28, and treating that number as if it has some self-evident meaning. It doesn't. Not when his 54 goals places him 4th in league scoring.

The case for Gretzky just isn't as strong as you think. You just have to look beneath the surface.

 

[Odie Cleghorn]

The guy who hit the most home runs in a single season, before Barry Bonds broke that record, was Roger Maris. Hardly the best home run hitter ever.

Meanwhile the guy with the all-time home run record, before Bonds also broke that record, was Hank Aaron. Aaron is worth bringing up here because he would have hit many more career home runs, had his career not overlapped with the dreaded "dead ball era," which was dominated by low-scoring environments. Something completely out of his control.

The point I'm making here is that it's silly to take raw stats as seriously as you do. They're misleading because they are taking things out of context. Look closer and you might just realize that your idols are quite mortal.



Again, the "Gretzky was still an elite scorer, but decided not to be" is not as good an argument as you think.

Gretzky had the ability to be the greatest scorer of all time. He chose winning over being the top goal scorer every year. 200 pts with goals spread around still puts up more points for the team than 150 pts with 90 scored by him.