Gretzky isn't the greatest goal scorer?

[Fantomas]

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.

Don't know about that. Gretzky did much more winning when he scored a ton of goals. He then did almost no winning when he stopped scoring at an elite level.

 

[TheEye]

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

There is something "definable" about suggesting Gretzky wasn't an elite goal scorer after his mid-20s, which you did. That's incorrect.

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

And to suggest that 54 goals, placing him 4th in league scoring that season isn't elite? I'm sorry, but it is self-evident. Finishing 4th in goal scoring out of approximately 500 eligible skaters, that's definitely elite. Just because you don't agree with the facts, it doesn't mean you can change them. Maybe consider revising your opinion instead?

Furthermore, there's something "definable" about stating Roger Maris was the single-season home run leader before Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001. You said that as well, and that's also untrue.

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.

You are playing recklessly with the facts, and you continually attempt to insinuate I don't precisely understand the topic of discussion. And that's why things are going off the rails, so to speak. My problem with your assertions is they are based on half-truths. Viewing your posts on this topic, it appears you've predetermined your narrative, attempting to carefully select details and/or obfuscate to prove your point. And the more you post, the more unknowledgeable you appear, as it pertains to the facts at hand.

Your case against Gretzky isn't as strong as you think. You merely have to examine the complete data set. Focusing on goals (adjusted or not) in a rigid sense is a mistake. Peer relative shooting percentages in combination with assist/goal ratios over extended duration is significant and pertinent supplementary information. This must be considered when discussing elite goal scorers.

You are not the smartest guy in the room, and I most decidedly am not. It doesn't hurt to reconsider your opinions and the possibility that specific assertions of yours may be incorrect. As you appear exceedingly strident on this topic, I feel that's an improbable outcome. Until you provide a convincing case that doesn't involve regurgitating information from hockey-reference, or basic math calculations based on goals-per-game, I remained thoroughly unconvinced. Clearly because it's lazy research. Perhaps it's time to sharpen your pencil and provide some in-depth insight like some of the brilliant contributors in the history section of these forums. After all, your incredible claims need be supported by substantive and thorough evidence. If so, I look forward to parsing your information as it's presented.

 

[Fantomas]

There is something "definable" about suggesting Gretzky wasn't an elite goal scorer after his mid-20s, which you did. That's incorrect.

I think you're being a little pedantic here. Gretzky was 4th that season. He was 17th the year after. If you wish to call this elite, I won't stop you. What I was trying to say was that Gretz was no longer the game's best scorer and was very soon not even among the best. And ergo that hurts his case when compared to other great scorers who continued producing at an elite rate in their 30s.

You can see the point I'm making or you can split hairs.

And to suggest that 54 goals, placing him 4th in league scoring that season isn't elite? I'm sorry, but it is self-evident. Finishing 4th in goal scoring out of approximately 500 eligible skaters, that's definitely elite. Just because you don't agree with the facts, it doesn't mean you can change them. Maybe consider revising your opinion instead?

Furthermore, there's something "definable" about stating Roger Maris was the single-season home run leader before Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001. You said that as well, and that's also untrue.

You're being a little pedantic here as well. It's annoying. I brought up baseball - specifically Ty Cobb and later Hank Aaron - to make an analogy. It doesn't matter who precisely broke Maris's record and when.

I know about McGwire. I was watching baseball when he hit 70 home runs, but this wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

Your case against Gretzky isn't as strong as you think. You merely have to examine the complete data set. Focusing on goals (adjusted or not) in a rigid sense is a mistake. Peer relative shooting percentages in combination with assist/goal ratios over extended duration is significant and pertinent supplementary information. This must be considered when discussing elite goal scorers.

Explain to me how shooting percentages should be considered. I'm actually curious.

You are not the smartest guy in the room, and I most decidedly am not. It doesn't hurt to reconsider your opinions and the possibility that specific assertions of yours may be incorrect. As you appear exceedingly strident on this topic, I feel that's an improbable outcome. Until you provide a convincing case that doesn't involve regurgitating information from hockey-reference, or basic math calculations based on goals-per-game, I remained thoroughly unconvinced. Clearly because it's lazy research. Perhaps it's time to sharpen your pencil and provide some in-depth insight like some of the brilliant contributors in the history section of these forums. After all, your incredible claims need be supported by substantive and thorough evidence. If so, I look forward to parsing your information as it's presented.

Extraordinary evidence is for extraordinary claims. My claim is modest - which is that players like Ovechkin, Howe, B. Hull, Richard and Lemieux are arguably better scorers than Gretzky.

I'm not even saying that I feel they're objectively better at scoring at Gretzky. Rather that they at least have a case. That's it.

There's no need for exhaustive research here, because these are extraordinary scorers who have led their respective leagues in this department in dominant fashion.

Their imprint in the goal scoring department is as impressive as Gretzky, but this needs to be pointed out sometimes because Gretzky's numbers are so excessively skewed by his era. Lay fans sometimes overlook this.

Do we really need a dissertation on this? I hope not.

If you disagree, maybe it would be best if you plucked one of these names and made a case for why they're not in Wayne's stratosphere. That would be fun.

 

[Fatass]

I think you're being a little pedantic here. Gretzky was 4th that season. He was 17th the year after. If you wish to call this elite, I won't stop you. What I was trying to say was that Gretz was no longer the game's best scorer and was very soon not even among the best. And ergo that hurts his case when compared to other great scorers who continued producing at an elite rate in their 30s.

You can see the point I'm making or you can split hairs.



You're being a little pedantic here as well. It's annoying. I brought up baseball - specifically Ty Cobb and later Hank Aaron - to make an analogy. It doesn't matter who precisely broke Maris's record and when.

I know about McGwire. I was watching baseball when he hit 70 home runs, but this wasn't relevant to the point I was making.



Explain to me how shooting percentages should be considered. I'm actually curious.



Extraordinary evidence is for extraordinary claims. My claim is modest - which is that players like Ovechkin, Howe, B. Hull, Richard and Lemieux are arguably better scorers than Gretzky.

I'm not even saying that I feel they're objectively better at scoring at Gretzky. Rather that they at least have a case. That's it.

There's no need for exhaustive research here, because these are extraordinary scorers who have led their respective leagues in this department in dominant fashion.

Their imprint in the goal scoring department is as impressive as Gretzky, but this needs to be pointed out sometimes because Gretzky's numbers are so excessively skewed by his era. Lay fans sometimes overlook this.

Do we really need a dissertation on this? I hope not.

If you disagree, maybe it would be best if you plucked one of these names and made a case for why they're not in Wayne's stratosphere. That would be fun.

Who has the most goals in a career?
Who has the most Goals in a season?
Who got to 50 in 39 games?
Until his records are eclipsed, GWG is the greatest goal scorer.
Can’t argue against fact.

 

[filinski77]

Who has the most goals in a career?
Who has the most Goals in a season?
Who got to 50 in 39 games?
Until his records are eclipsed, GWG is the greatest goal scorer.
Can’t argue against fact.

Those are definitely facts, but I am curious as to why those facts are the evidence you would use to claim Gretzky as the greatest goalscorer?

By those exact metrics if Ovechkin were to retire right now, the following players would be greater goalscorers than Ovechkin:
- Gretzky (5x Rocket winner - higher career goal total, and single season total)
- Brett Hull (3x Rocket winner - higher career goal total, and single season total)
- Esposito (6x Rocket Winner - higher career goal total, and single season total)

Others that would be close, depending on how you value a mix of your amazingly valuable benchmarks:
- Dionne (0x Rocket winner - 6 goals less for single season total, but more career goals)
- Jagr (0x Rocket winner - 3 goals less for single season total, but more career goals)

Considering how Ovechkin has at least 50% more rockets than any of those 5 guys above, and also has a single goal total (despite playing in a significantly more competitive league, with much lower scoring levels) that may get close to, or surpass Gretzky by the time Ovechkin is done, honestly find it laughable that clinging to those metrics are how you determine the greatest at something.

Hell, by those standards, Brett Hull is a greater goalscorer than Lemieux, since Hull has more career goals, and a higher single season goal total.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

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

Heads up he lost to Gretzky during the same era.

Gretzky could of retired after 91 and crushed Bossy's GPG.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Be nice, folks.

 

[Fantomas]

Who has the most goals in a career?
Who has the most Goals in a season?
Who got to 50 in 39 games?
Until his records are eclipsed, GWG is the greatest goal scorer.
Can’t argue against fact.

Did you read the thread thoroughly, Luckylarry?

 

[TheEye]

Explain to me how shooting percentages should be considered. I'm actually curious.

Considerations for positional responsibility, deployment, assist/goal ratios and peer relative shooting percentages are unchallenging to resolve for anyone considering themselves not a 'lay' fan of the game. For the most part, elite goal scorers are less inclined to pass, as they prefer being the player who puts the puck in the net. It's general human nature. Unreservedly, some are inherently better goal scorers because they possess a better shot, better accuracy and are naturally inclined to discover soft spots in coverage. Often, and especially in special teams situations, the offence becomes customized to run through them to place the shot on net. It's comparatively a chicken or egg situation in that regard.

But when it comes to the elite of the elite, there are players who score less but are capable of scoring more. A prime example is exemplified in a player like Crosby. Look at his assist/goal ratios over his career and note how those ratios tighten up in his highest goal scoring seasons. That's likely where he's reaching the zenith of goal scoring ability without detriment to his full offensive potential. The elite players who provide low assist/goal ratios (especially less than one), are more purely focused on goal scoring, likely to the detriment of their full and well-rounded offensive potential.

Definitely, the goal scorers are inherently better at their craft and playmakers at theirs, but there is potential for both to swing their ratios. And that's what I'm arriving at with Gretzky. He scored 92 goals at his peak. But he was likely capable of scoring in excess of 100 in a couple of seasons, if he was inclined to play more selfishly. He just wasn't wired that way. When you look at his goals, assists and shot totals in combination, the number of offensive opportunities he was generating is absolutely mind boggling. Lemieux was similar, and also Howe to a lesser degree.

It isn't a prerequisite that the person who frequently has the most goals is the best goal scorer. It's partially because they are wired to shoot instead of a pass. Allow me to express this another way. If there's one minute left in the game, and you're down a goal, who is receiving the call to hop over the boards at their peak? Gretzky or Ovechkin? Lemieux or Richard? Howe or Hull? Which one of the those players does one trust most, to ensure the puck simply goes in the net when the game is on the line? I know that appears to be a digression, but in actuality it's quite pertinent to the topic matter. Personally, I take Howe, Gretzky, or Lemieux. The others can move down the bench, and I'll get them on the ice if we go to overtime.

 

[filinski77]

As a counterpoint, I consider it 'annoying' when one utilizes fictitious narratives and wholly incorrect information to support their claim. I feel it's a bare minimum of expectation to maintain correct factual claims when arguing a specific point. Furthermore, an inability to acknowledge said mistakes notably weakens an individual's declarations, implying that rational discourse is exceedingly unlikely.



Considerations for positional responsibility, deployment, assist/goal ratios and peer relative shooting percentages are unchallenging to resolve for anyone considering themselves not a 'lay' fan of the game. For the most part, elite goal scorers are less inclined to pass, as they prefer being the player who puts the puck in the net. It's general human nature. Unreservedly, some are inherently better goal scorers because they possess a better shot, better accuracy and are naturally inclined to discover soft spots in coverage. Often, and especially in special teams situations, the offence becomes customized to run through them to place the shot on net. It's comparatively a chicken or egg situation in that regard.

But when it comes to the elite of the elite, there are players who score less but are capable of scoring more. A prime example is exemplified in a player like Crosby. Look at his assist/goal ratios over his career and note how those ratios tighten up in his highest goal scoring seasons. That's likely where he's reaching the zenith of goal scoring ability without detriment to his full offensive potential. The elite players who provide low assist/goal ratios (especially less than one), are more purely focused on goal scoring, likely to the detriment of their full and well-rounded offensive potential.

Definitely, the goal scorers are inherently better at their craft and playmakers at theirs, but there is potential for both to swing their ratios. And that's what I'm arriving at with Gretzky. He scored 92 goals at his peak. But he was likely capable of scoring in excess of 100 in a couple of seasons, if he was inclined to play more selfishly. He just wasn't wired that way. When you look at his goals, assists and shot totals in combination, the number of offensive opportunities he was generating is absolutely mind boggling. Lemieux was similar, and also Howe to a lesser degree.

It isn't a prerequisite that the person who frequently has the most goals is the best goal scorer. It's partially because they are wired to shoot instead of a pass. Allow me to express this another way. If there's one minute left in the game, and you're down a goal, who is receiving the call to hop over the boards at their peak? Gretzky or Ovechkin? Lemieux or Richard? Howe or Hull? Which one of the those players does one trust most, to ensure the puck simply goes in the net when the game is on the line? I know that appears to be a digression, but in actuality it's quite pertinent to the topic matter. Personally, I take Howe, Gretzky, or Lemieux. The others can move down the bench, and I'll get them on the ice if we go to overtime.

Sorry to just jump into this conversation, but I just don't really buy the whole argument about certain players just trying to score more goals certain seasons, or how they could if they wanted to be selfish.

You used Crosby as an example, he has an average shooting % of 14.6% over his whole career. You can look through his individual shot and shooting % numbers for each season of his career, and see that while he often does take a bit more shots on a 'good' goalscoring season, his shooting% also jumps up a lot, which is most likely due to just a lucky season where a lot of stuff went right.

The same can be said for Gretzky, where his best goalscoring seasons happened in the seasons where he had the craziest shooting%'s of his career. Isn't it just equally as possible that once Gretzky left his absolute peak (25/26 years old), he stopped being capable of being able to generate so many shots? His 92 goal season he destroyed the league in shots, but also had his second craziest and most unsustainable shooting % of his career.

Zoom forward to 85/86 where he had his highest point total of his career. He had 33 more shots than #2 in the league that year (crazy good shot generation) - but he 'only' scored 52 goals, because his shooting % was 10% lower than what he did at his absolute best couple years. It's pretty clear that although Gretzky was still an absolute offensive machine, I don't see how he could have just increased his goal totals through selfishness. He already dominated in shot generation, just wasn't scoring as easily as he did for a couple years before that.

 

[TheEye]

You used Crosby as an example, he has an average shooting % of 14.6% over his whole career. You can look through his individual shot and shooting % numbers for each season of his career, and see that while he often does take a bit more shots on a 'good' goalscoring season, his shooting% also jumps up a lot, which is most likely due to just a lucky season where a lot of stuff went right.

The same can be said for Gretzky, where his best goalscoring seasons happened in the seasons where he had the craziest shooting%'s of his career. Isn't it just equally as possible that once Gretzky left his absolute peak (25/26 years old), he stopped being capable of being able to generate so many shots? His 92 goal season he destroyed the league in shots, but also had his second craziest and most unsustainable shooting % of his career.

I understand where you are coming from, and I'm not suggesting that Crosby could be the best goal scorer ever, or Gretzky could score 130 goals. Nor am I indicating sustainable higher percentages when it comes to the absolute totals. I'm actually attempting to highlight volume. Project Crosby's or Gretzky's totals if they were shooting more, instead of passing. Ovechkin has historically relied on volume to score his goals, although he's enjoyed a renewed improvement in his efficiency over the past few seasons. He's progressing along an incredible career arc and the daylight between him and Bobby Hull is becoming increasingly narrow. He has a few more chapters to write, and it will be entertaining to further study his career when completed.

Accordingly, my opinion is Gretzky was assuredly capable of generating at least 400 shots/80 games throughout his peak. And I think that's an excellent place to undertake analysis of his peak goal scoring potential. I also believe it's significant to note the 1985-86 season was in fact the goal scoring anomaly throughout Gretzky's prime. Excluding the 1985-86 season, his career shooting percentage through 1987-88 was 21.9%. The 14.9% season represents quite an outlier and, based on his career averages, he should have approximated 77 goals that year. Considering those averages a 77 goal, 138 assist total is more reflective of expectations to that point, continuing though the 1987-88 season. The absolute dividing line for Gretzky's goal scoring capabilities is the 1991-92 season. He appeared to be in a natural decline up to that point, and suddenly his percentages drop precipitously, never to recover.

There's definitely an argument to be made that Gretzky is not the best goal scorer ever throughout his prime. Outside the top five? All things considered, that's a very, very bold statement.

 

[Fantomas]

With respect:

But when it comes to the elite of the elite, there are players who score less but are capable of scoring more.

Okay, so I'm glad we're back to the core of your point (which I grasped and addressed a while ago, not sure why you're back to it). You feel that Gretzky is the best goal scorer not because of real results but because could have scored more but simply chose not to.

What can I even say about this? It's your opinion. One that doesn't make any sense to me, but you're certainly welcome to it.

Does it make sense to anyone else? Should I bring up Ty Cobb again and that story of how he hit a ton of home runs in a week's stretch because he wanted to and then chose to go back to "real hitting?" Should we give Ty Cobb credit for more home runs than he hit because he had the propensity to hit them?

Also, I remember asking you to elaborate about shooting percentage. Will you do this? I really want to know what shooting percentage has to do with goal scoring greatness. Thanks.

P.S. I might be wrong about Ty Cobb hitting those home runs in a week's stretch. It may have been two weeks or 5 days. Or maybe 8 or 9 days. I strenuously apologize in advance if I got minute facts wrong. Please forgive me.

It isn't a prerequisite that the person who frequently has the most goals is the best goal scorer. It's partially because they are wired to shoot instead of a pass. Allow me to express this another way. If there's one minute left in the game, and you're down a goal, who is receiving the call to hop over the boards at their peak? Gretzky or Ovechkin? Lemieux or Richard? Howe or Hull?

Gretzky. Because he's the best player.

(but not necessarily the best goal scorer)

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm not f***ing around - both of you are on your last chance in this thread. BE NICE.

If you have to be an ass, do it on Twitter like everyone else does.

 

[Fantomas]

I'm not f***ing around - both of you are on your last chance in this thread. BE NICE.

If you have to be an ass, do it on Twitter like everyone else does.

Thank you for your guidance. I know you guys work hard and I appreciate that.

As for Twitter, I think my dig about debate club / country club would have been too cheesy for them.

 

[TheEye]

P.S. I might be wrong about Ty Cobb hitting those home runs in a week's stretch. It may have been two weeks or 5 days. Or maybe 8 or 9 days. I strenuously apologize in advance if I got minute facts wrong. Please forgive me.

You certainly got more than 'minute' facts wrong and the above tone continues to be unhelpful. You are certainly entitled to your views and opinions. But, going forward, please attempt to keep your facts straight before presenting them.

Also, I remember asking you to elaborate about shooting percentage. Will you do this? I really want to know what shooting percentage has to do with goal scoring greatness. Thanks.

I recall inquiring first for supporting evidence that Gretzky is not a top five goal scorer of all time. Will you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely intrigued to recognize how five other players may have a better goal scoring prime than him. Thanks in advance. I will make certain to address your question in kind, upon receiving supporting information for your claim.

You feel that Gretzky is the best goal scorer not because of real results but because could have scored more but simply chose not to.

Hopefully, this is the final time I will have to readdress the following point. I never said I felt Gretzky is the best goal scorer of all time. I've already stated there is certainly one player I'd chose before him. And, please, I'd appreciate if you restrain from continuing to chose for me. Thanks.

 

[Oddbob]

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?

Exactly! As you said he did all his goal scoring while being primarily and much more focused on setting up teammates to score and still scored 894. Imagine if he focused only on putting the puck in the net, he would have cruised past 1000 goals.

 

[Oddbob]

Sorry to just jump into this conversation, but I just don't really buy the whole argument about certain players just trying to score more goals certain seasons, or how they could if they wanted to be selfish.

You used Crosby as an example, he has an average shooting % of 14.6% over his whole career. You can look through his individual shot and shooting % numbers for each season of his career, and see that while he often does take a bit more shots on a 'good' goalscoring season, his shooting% also jumps up a lot, which is most likely due to just a lucky season where a lot of stuff went right.

The same can be said for Gretzky, where his best goalscoring seasons happened in the seasons where he had the craziest shooting%'s of his career. Isn't it just equally as possible that once Gretzky left his absolute peak (25/26 years old), he stopped being capable of being able to generate so many shots? His 92 goal season he destroyed the league in shots, but also had his second craziest and most unsustainable shooting % of his career.

Zoom forward to 85/86 where he had his highest point total of his career. He had 33 more shots than #2 in the league that year (crazy good shot generation) - but he 'only' scored 52 goals, because his shooting % was 10% lower than what he did at his absolute best couple years. It's pretty clear that although Gretzky was still an absolute offensive machine, I don't see how he could have just increased his goal totals through selfishness. He already dominated in shot generation, just wasn't scoring as easily as he did for a couple years before that.

During his prime if he wasn't as focused on setting up his teammates he would have shot a lot more and passed less than he did. Much the same way guys like Hull and Ovechkin shoot a ton and pass much less as that is what they like. Gretzky liked setting up others more though, so he focused more on that.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There are six NHL players who have a legitimate argument as the greatest goal-scorer ever. In chronological order, they're Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Alexander Ovechkin. Here are three charts based on VsX adjusted goals:

Richard is inconsistent from year to year, but had a quick start and remained an excellent goal-scorer 15 years into his career (he's also almost certainly the best playoff goal-scorer in the group - not reflected in any of these charts). Howe is the most underrated goal-scorer of the group. Although he had a slow start, not only does he have a high peak, but he remained a great goal-scorer far longer than anyone else. Hull had a stratospheric peak, but left for the WHA when he was still in his prime. Gretkzy had a high peak, but his longevity isn't great, and his numbers look worse after adjusting for era. Lemieux's numbers are decimated by missing games and entire seasons. Ovechkin has been remarkably consistent - more than any of the others through fifteen years.

Look at how closely Richard, Hull, Gretzky and Ovechkin are, in terms of career numbers. Ovechkin, of course, still has time to add to his career numbers. Lemieux is well behind everyone else due to injuries. Howe, maybe surprisingly to some, has by far the best career numbers - those late seasons really add up.

This is the same data as table 1, just sorted from best season to worse. It helps illustrate several points we saw before - Hull had the highest peak, Howe had by far the best longevity, and Lemieux was the least accomplished goal-scorer here (though again that's due to injuries).

 

[Midnight Judges]

VsX is generally going to benefit the players from back when the talent pool was a fraction of what it is today.

Separating from 2nd or 3rd place with a talent base of 1 country totaling 9 million people is generally going to be easier than separating from a talent base of whatever the number is today, 100+ million or whatever. I don't know if it's 10 to 1, 15 to 1, or 3 to 1. But whatever the case, it's nowhere near even. It also benefits a player from a smaller NHL where fewer players are given the opportunity to have a career year. Cheechoo flat out doesn't happen in the O6 era.

Howe has a case based on totals. I do not know why people disrespect Gordie Howe so much. (At least with Ovechkin the motives are obvious). Maybe it's the failure to adjust for era (games played per season AND league average GPG) that holds Howe back. In terms of adjusted goals, he's #1, above Gretzky. That seems about right to me. Gretzky's peak was high, but other players in his generation equalled it - Brett Hull and Mario Lemieux. But Gretzky's goal scoring dropped off severely after age 30 whereas Howe remained a solid goal scorer.

Richard's case requires that folks ignore that he dominated an NHL that was weak to begin with and then depleted by WWII. Hull also benefits from weak pre-baby boom competition which is the only reason his peak looks so good. I don't think Hull's peak season is any better than Gretzky/Lemieux/Ovechkin/Brett Hull. I trust hockey reference's adjusted stats far more than VsX.

 

[The Panther]

VsX is generally going to benefit the players from back when the talent pool was a fraction of what it is today.

Not really. Scoring was lower in the mid-1950s than it is today, with a large talent pool. Players like Kucherov and McDavid have, in the past couple of years, separated themselves more from the pack than anyone (except Howe '51-'54) did consistently in the 1950s. Also, Gretzky and Lemieux separated themselves far more than anyone did in the 50s/60s.

Howe has a case based on totals. I do not know why people disrespect Gordie Howe so much. (At least with Ovechkin the motives are obvious). Maybe it's the failure to adjust for era (games played per season AND league average GPG) that holds Howe back. In terms of adjusted goals, he's #1, above Gretzky. That seems about right to me.

I agree. There should be no doubt that Howe is #1 all time in volume of goals, with any basic adjusting for era and (in his peak years, less) games played.

Gretzky's peak was high, but other players in his generation equalled it - Brett Hull and Mario Lemieux. But Gretzky's goal scoring dropped off severely after age 30 whereas Howe remained a solid goal scorer.

That's somewhat true -- although neither Hull nor Lemieux matched Gretzky's top two seasons, and both were way behind in ES goals. Especially with Hull, though, it's kind of a sketchy way to approach peaks, because (as you know) Hull was 90% focused on goal scoring, whereas Gretzky was maybe 40% focused on goal scoring. I'm not sure it's correct to say that Gretzky could have scored more goals (although that's likely), but it is certainly correct to say that the fact that he was both the best goal scorer and the best playmaker for about six years in his prime was what made him so deceptive, and successful. It seems disingenuous to just put that aside and just do a straight-up Brett Hull vs. Gretzky peak comparison.

Richard's case requires that folks ignore that he dominated an NHL that was weak to begin with and then depleted by WWII. Hull also benefits from weak pre-baby boom competition which is the only reason his peak looks so good. I don't think Hull's peak season is any better than Gretzky/Lemieux/Ovechkin/Brett Hull.

Yeah, no.

The myth that Maurice Richard dominated a War-depleted NHL needs to die. From 1946-47 to 1957-58, Richard led the NHL in goals four times, was second three more times, and led the playoffs in goals four times, including at age 36 in 1958. In 1957-58, in (injury limited) regular season plus playoffs, at age 36, Richard scored 26 goals in 38 games (a pace that would easily have been #1 in the NHL... at age 36 (after Howe's peak), and in a day when most players retired at 32).

I am also unclear why you think Hull benefited from anything. The baby-boomers you refer to were in the NHL by 1965 or 1966, and after 1966 Hull was still 1st to 4th in NHL goals (incl. three times 1st) every year he played before he left the NHL. At 'Summit-74', he scored 7 goals in 8 games, and at the '76 Canada Cup (when he was 37) he scored 5 goals in 7 games. (Not to mention his 77 goals in the WHA at age 36.)

I trust hockey reference's adjusted stats far more than VsX.

All tweaking of historical stats are going to have some flaws, but I'd definitely put more emphasis on VsX than adjusted stats. The adjusted stats thing is good to give us historically-averaged rough ideas of numbers in a given (single) season, but it's sort of useless in looking at five or seven or ten-year periods, which VsX is ideal for. I definitely put more weight in peer comparison (esp. over consecutive seasons) than in historically adjusted raw numbers in one season.

To use Gretzky's stats as an example of the wonkiness of Hockey Ref's Adjusted thing: Because scoring went down a bit in 1983 from 1982, Adjusted stats show Gretzky with an adjusted 159 points in 1983, and 156 in 1982. The actual raw numbers were 196 following 212. Now, why would 16 fewer scoring points be three more just one season later? Is the scoring environment so different in one year that that makes any sense?

The adjusted stats thing is useful in looking at historical players in vastly different conditions to give us rough ideas of how they produced, but it's not useful in peer comparisons, esp. over time.

 

[Albatros]

In the mid-1950s there were 18 top-line forwards in the entire league. A couple of them very good players, but come on now.

 

[The Panther]

In the mid-1950s there were 18 top-line forwards in the entire league. A couple of them very good players, but come on now.

Yes, there were jobs for about 55 forwards in the pros between 1942 and 1967. Today, there are jobs for 372. So, the 1950s' era, today, would be like if there were about 14 teams in the NHL, instead of 31. Half of today's players would be in the minors. Every NHL team would have near-superstar like top lines, and teams would play one another a lot more often, meaning more checking and tougher, playoff-like games. It would be harder to score than now.

And if I understand the implied sarcasm of your post, your point seems to be that a larger NHL would make it harder for 1940s-to-mid-1960s' era players to be stars. Fortunately, this theory can be completely dismissed by a mountain of tangible historical evidence. For example:

- Jean Beliveau, aged 23, six-team NHL:
1.04 PPG
- Jean Beliveau, aged 39, fourteen-team NHL:
1.09 PPG

- Gordie Howe, aged 18, six-team NHL:
0.38 PPG
- Gordie Howe, aged 22-23, six-team NHL:
1.23 PPG
- Gordie Howe, aged 40, twelve-team NHL:
1.36 PPG
- Gordie Howe, aged 51, twenty-one team NHL:
0.51 PPG

- Bobby Hull, aged 19, six-team NHL:
0.67 PPG
- Bobby Hull, aged 23, six-team NHL:
1.20 PPG
- Bobby Hull, aged 33, fourteen-team NHL:
1.19 PPG
Bobby Hull, aged 41, twenty-one team NHL:
- 0.63 PPG

- Dave Keon, aged 22, six-team NHL:
0.82 PPG
- Dave Keon, aged 39, twenty-one team NHL:
0.82 PPG

- Ray Bourque, aged 19, twenty-one team NHL:
0.81 PPG
- Ray Bourque, aged 40, thirty team NHL:
0.74 PPG

- Joe Sakic, aged 20, twenty-one team NHL:
1.28 PPG
- Joe Sakic, aged 37, thirty-team NHL:
1.22 PPG

- Jaromir Jagr, aged 19, twenty-one team NHL:
0.99 PPG (not in top 30)
- Jaromir Jagr, aged 43, thirty team NHL:
0.84 PPG (top 20)


Point being, at least 80-100% of the world's best players have always been in the NHL, same in the 1930s as today. History proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that elite players usually transfer their skills across eras.

 

[Albatros]

Is there any reason to believe that someone like Wally Hergesheimer would be anything more than a fringe or even minor league player today, despite being one of the leading scorers in the 1950s? Even with only 6 teams the collapse in player quality was pretty steep back then.

 

[Nino33]

Yes, there were jobs for about 55 forwards in the pros between 1942 and 1967. Today, there are jobs for 372.

Is there any reason to believe that someone like Wally Hergesheimer would be anything more than a fringe or even minor league player today, despite being one of the leading scorers in the 1950s? Even with only 6 teams the collapse in player quality was pretty steep back then.

According to QuantHockey Hergesheimer finished 48th among forwards for scoring in the 1950s (44th when looking at points per game) 1950s NHL Scoring Leaders Does that make him one of the leading scorers of the era?

 

[Gold Standard]

I always get a good laugh at the threads that get traction in this forum.