Gretzky isn't the greatest goal scorer?

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

Hergesheimer wasn't a top scorer in the 1950's. He was a player who almost certainly would have had a longer, more successful career playing in a larger league. He was a small, offense-only forward who wasn't really suited to be a third/fourth line grinder, and aside from a few seasons, didn't score enough to warrant a spot on the top two lines. Today a player like that would get a chance to play 15 minutes per game on a weaker team; there were only six teams back then, rather than 31, so he wasn't able to stay in the NHL.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

That is anecdotal. A sample size of 10 years (or even far more than that) is inadequate in refuting a statistical probability. It is a statistical probability that creating separation from a larger pool is likely to be more difficult.

Lemieux and Gretzky also competed against a relatively weak talent pool. The NHL has nearly double the international NHL participation rate now than it did in the 80s. Canada's population has dramatically increased since 1960. Canada's birth rates (per capita) have gone down since the baby boom, but the population increase is so large that it has basically mitigated that. Canada is probably putting out as much talent as ever, or close to it, but instead of being 80%+ of the NHL, it amounts to 42% and falling.

(I've read the arguments in the history forum about immigrants and fat/lazy video game playing kids today. I assume these types arguments are beneath you, but if they aren't, we can go there.)

Even anecdotally, over the past 4 years McDavid has a 6% point advantage over #2 (Kucherov), and McDavid has 24% fewer goals than the best goal scorer (31 to 34 year-old Ovechkin).

From '51-54, Howe had a 30% advantage over #2 in goals (29 to 32 year-old Maurice Richard), and a 33% advantage over #2 in points.

Over the past couple of years, McDavid and Kucherov are a cumulative minus 1% VsX in points because Draisaitl is the leader, and minus 32% VsX in goals (Ovechkin). Where is this separation you speak of?

^^^This is what VsX shows.

If anything, the anecdotal evidence supports my point, and refutes yours. But you knew that, which is why you felt the need to remove the top player from consideration for the 50s, and count two players as the top player for the 2010s. You made it not-VsX apples vs not-VsX oranges because if you did not, you wouldn't have a point.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Hockey-reference.com's adjusted stats are fairly useless when comparing numbers across NHL history. (They do a decent job when going as far back as the 1968 expansion, but if we're looking at the entirety of NHL history, they just don't work). Looking at the top 50 adjusted goals seasons - we see there are just three seasons (one each from Howe, Hull and Beliveau) from 1936 to 1966 - nearly one-third of NHL history.

But in 1998 alone, there are four such seasons. You can probably argue that you'd expect to see more recent seasons due to there being a larger talent pool, but I have a really hard time seeing how 1998 produces more top fifty goal-scoring seasons than three decades that includes most of Howe, Hull and Richard's primes (40x more per annum).

Even if the argument is 1998 is deeper and more talented than 1936 to 1966 - look at 1930. That year produced five top fifty seasons - as many as the entirety of the 2010's combined. That result just doesn't make sense.

I'll be the first to admit that VsX isn't perfect (in fact, I posted a list of self-criticisms in the main VsX post), but it does a better job of representing all eras equally.

Of the six I named, the two players with the weakest regular season goal-scoring resumes are Richard and Lemieux. But as I mentioned, Richard's trump card is playoffs (he's almost certainly the greatest playoff goal-scorer of all-time) and Lemieux's numbers (single season and career) are obviously hurt due to injuries.

 

[Dough72]

gretzky didn't age well after 30 guessing because players didn't enjoy the same knowledge about training and nutrition as they do today. Kind of disqualifies career gpg type arguments for me.

 

[The Panther]

That is anecdotal. A sample size of 10 years (or even far more than that) is inadequate in refuting a statistical probability. It is a statistical probability that creating separation from a larger pool is likely to be more difficult.

Lemieux and Gretzky also competed against a relatively weak talent pool. The NHL has nearly double the international NHL participation rate now than it did in the 80s. Canada's population has dramatically increased since 1960. Canada's birth rates (per capita) have gone down since the baby boom, but the population increase is so large that it has basically mitigated that. Canada is probably putting out as much talent as ever, or close to it, but instead of being 80%+ of the NHL, it amounts to 42% and falling.

(I've read the arguments in the history forum about immigrants and fat/lazy video game playing kids today. I assume these types arguments are beneath you, but if they aren't, we can go there.)

Even anecdotally, over the past 4 years McDavid has a 6% point advantage over #2 (Kucherov), and McDavid has 24% fewer goals than the best goal scorer (31 to 34 year-old Ovechkin).

From '51-54, Howe had a 30% advantage over #2 in goals (29 to 32 year-old Maurice Richard), and a 33% advantage over #2 in points.

Over the past couple of years, McDavid and Kucherov are a cumulative minus 1% VsX in points because Draisaitl is the leader, and minus 32% VsX in goals (Ovechkin). Where is this separation you speak of?

^^^This is what VsX shows.

If anything, the anecdotal evidence supports my point, and refutes yours. But you knew that, which is why you felt the need to remove the top player from consideration for the 50s, and count two players as the top player for the 2010s. You made it not-VsX apples vs not-VsX oranges because if you did not, you wouldn't have a point.

The essence of your entire position seems to be: There are more teams now so everything is better.

Since you're entrenched in that, we can't have a discussion.

 

[The Panther]

gretzky didn't age well after 30 guessing because players didn't enjoy the same knowledge about training and nutrition as they do today. Kind of disqualifies career gpg type arguments for me.

This may shock you, but way back in the olden days or yore, in 1991, human beings were actually aware of training and nutrition. Why, only a couple of years after that, fire was harnessed by cave-dwelling hockey players and the wheel was invented.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The essence of your entire position seems to be: There are more teams now so everything is better.

Since you're entrenched in that, we can't have a discussion.

There is a far higher quantity of players now than ever before - is really the crux of my posts.

With a far larger talent pool, chances are there will be more players of all ability levels, including elite and generational players. With more elite and generational players, the chances of elite and generational players having career years increases. With that increase, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to stand out from the second best player.

Which of these statements do you not agree with? To me they all seem obviously true.

How does VsX address this? Seems to me, for the most part, not at all. Although I think in some instances VsX may replace outlier second place finishes but I'm not clear on what triggers that.

 

[The Panther]

There is a far higher quantity of players now than ever before - is really the crux of my posts.

With a far larger talent pool, chances are there will be more players of all ability levels, including elite and generational players. With more elite and generational players, the chances of elite and generational players having career years increases. With that increase, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to stand out from the second best player.

Which of these statements do you not agree with? To me they all seem obviously true.

How does VsX address this? Seems to me, for the most part, not at all. Although I think in some instances VsX may replace outlier second place finishes but I'm not clear on what triggers that.

Was there not a "higher quantity" of players -- not to mention far more international players -- in 1987 than 1957? Yet Gretzky won the scoring title with 69% higher points than the #2 scorer.

Was there not an ever higher quantity, etc. in 1993 than 1963? Yet Mario was pacing to win the scoring title by 51% over Lafontaine if he'd played a full season.

Was there not an even higher quantity, etc. in 1999 than 1969? Yet Jagr won the scoring by 18.7% over Selanne (Esposito had won by 18% over #2 in the first 100+ point season ever, 1968-69).

Undoubtedly, then, a higher quantity of players does not necessarily mean it's harder to dominate.

I would say changes in the style and systems of the game have limited the degree to which elite players can dominate offensively, in recent years, or maybe the past two-and-change decades. For example, a 43-year-old Jaromir Jagr -- who started playing back when Gretzky was still scoring 122 assists per year and winning the scoring title by 32 points -- was, in 2016, scoring more ES points per ice-time than prime Sidney Crosby.

It's not that the pool of players is any better now just because there are more teams. The reason there are more teams now is because the NHL is bigger business now than in the past and is better at making money.

 

[Albatros]

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?

Hergesheimer finished 7th in goal scoring in 1951/52, 3rd in 1952/53, and 4th in 1953/54. The following season he broke his leg twice, yet still returned 11th in scoring in 1955/56. This as a guy who had a partially amputated hand to start with and also suffered of hypocalcemia. Nothing personal against Hergesheimer and the valiant way he battled these difficulties, but the talent pool in the 1950s was very narrow, even with only 6 teams.

 

[Nino33]

Hergesheimer finished 7th in goal scoring in 1951/52, 3rd in 1952/53, and 4th in 1953/54. The following season he broke his leg twice, yet still returned 11th in scoring in 1955/56. This as a guy who had a partially amputated hand to start with and also suffered of hypocalcemia. Nothing personal against Hergesheimer and the valiant way he battled these difficulties, but the talent pool in the 1950s was very narrow, even with only 6 teams.

I didn't know that/thanks for sharing (seriously)

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.

I don't think the talent pool was as narrow as you do. I think in many ways the game is easier than ever to play today, and given that Hergesheimer was a top sniper (as you pointed out), despite being undersized...I certainly don't just assume that he couldn't play (he might have as good a chance if not better than a guy like Gaudreau being able to play in the 1950s)

 

[Nino33]

With a far larger talent pool, chances are there will be more players of all ability levels, including elite and generational players. With more elite and generational players, the chances of elite and generational players having career years increases. With that increase, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to stand out from the second best player.

Which of these statements do you not agree with? To me they all seem obviously true.

I've been reading for years about how coaches limit players at all levels, how they coach creativity/skill out of players starting at a young age....I'd think this would limit the chances for the elite/generational players

And I also read the cost of playing is pricing many out of the game, which narrows the chance of getting elite/generational players

 

[Finster8]

Two guys who had a hell of a slapshot was Bob's bro and Brett's Uncle Dennis as well as Richard Martin. These guys had some velocity and accuracy. Martin in his first 5 years had 44 a rookie record at the time,37, 52, 52, 49.
Edit- hard to beat the accuracy of the Great One

 

[Fatass]

OV will retire as the greatest goal scorer in National League history.

 

[Primary Assist]

The team who scores more goals wins the game, and the guy who scores more goals wins the title of best goal scorer. Unless OV passes the Great One, then Wayne will be the game's all-time best goal scorer.

 

[stahl]

The team who scores more goals wins the game, and the guy who scores more goals wins the title of best goal scorer. Unless OV passes the Great One, then Wayne will be the game's all-time best goal scorer.

Most and best are two completely different things.

 

[golfortennis]

I fall on the Gretzky side of the argument, but I do acknowledge there are some points to consider.

• Ovechkin's accomplishments in this era are quite noteworthy. Scoring is much tougher than the 80s. Granted, the shot volume is much higher, as the Caps really funneled their play to him, but still, 700 goals could be a number not seen for a long time without some big changes.
• Bossy as a "pure goal scorer." Reminds me of the "pure hitter" in baseball, where the guy hits .300, but with pretty much singles. No power, so to be nice, they call him a "pure hitter." Except Bossy was better than that. "Pure goal scorer" is probably a way to give a context in which they can say he was better than Gretzky.
• Bobby Hull is an interesting case. 610 NHL goals. 7 seasons in the WHA led to 303 goals. He may or may not have scored that many had the Blackhawks been willing to pay him, but is it a stretch to say he gets into the 850 range for his career if he stays in the NHL? Add in the fact a good stretch of his early years they only played 70 games, and his argument strengthens.

I would say Hull's argument is strongest. But at the end of the day, there have only been 4 80+ goal seasons, and one man has two of them.

 

[rfournier103]

894 + 92 = Greatest Goal Scorer

At least until ONE of those records are broken.

 

[Fantomas]

Howe's total is much more impressive than Gretzky's 894. Eclipsed 800 in that era and in spite of the fact he played in the WHA for quite a while.

Cumulatively, the best goal scorer easily.

 

[authentic]

The team who scores more goals wins the game, and the guy who scores more goals wins the title of best goal scorer. Unless OV passes the Great One, then Wayne will be the game's all-time best goal scorer.

Someone who scores close to the same in this era would've scored a higher percentage of the goals in the games they played in, thus contributing more to winning with their goals alone. Mario Lemieux is the best goal scorer, and Ovechkin will go down as the greatest for sure. Gretzky is right behind them but arguably still not ahead of Bobby Hull.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lemieux and Gretzky also competed against a relatively weak talent pool. The NHL has nearly double the international NHL participation rate now than it did in the 80s. Canada's population has dramatically increased since 1960. Canada's birth rates (per capita) have gone down since the baby boom, but the population increase is so large that it has basically mitigated that. Canada is probably putting out as much talent as ever, or close to it, but instead of being 80%+ of the NHL, it amounts to 42% and falling.

(I've read the arguments in the history forum about immigrants and fat/lazy video game playing kids today. I assume these types arguments are beneath you, but if they aren't, we can go there.)

Despite the snark at the end in an attempt to deflect arguments, this point of yours is just factually wrong. Birth rates absolutely matter. A lot.

The average age in canada in the 1960s was like mid 20s and the average age of a Canadian now is like 40. Unless we're drawing from old timer leagues for the NHL now, that really matters.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Despite the snark at the end in an attempt to deflect arguments, this point of yours is just factually wrong. Birth rates absolutely matter. A lot.

If "birth rates don't matter" is what you took from my post, then I think you read it wrong. I specifically used birth rates as a foundation for my rationale.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Be nice, guys.

 

[Magicman]

Gretzky was the greatest goal scorer period. Lemieux #2, IMHO.

He could have scored more had he wanted to, but his strength as the greatest offensive player was that his passing, opened up opportunities all over the ice.

All things being equal, with the calls today, Gretz could have gotten 50 alone on the PP and Lemieux would have been right behind him.

 

[Fantomas]

Gretzky was the greatest goal scorer period. Lemieux #2, IMHO.

He could have scored more had he wanted to, but his strength as the greatest offensive player was that his passing, opened up opportunities all over the ice.

All things being equal, with the calls today, Gretz could have gotten 50 alone on the PP and Lemieux would have been right behind him.

Gretz never got more than 20 on the PP in the 1980s but would get 50 today.

Ssssssure.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Ovechkin is already the greatest goal scorer of all time, he's surpassed Gretzky and by the time he hits 800 it should put to rest any doubts. He's done it longer than anyone, more consistently than anyone, incredibly prolific and with one of the 3 highest peak seasons in league history and still isn't done. Again, an arbitrary mark from the highest scoring era of all time versus a career played mostly during one of the lowest and still coming close to that total is astounding. This shouldn't even be a question.