How crazy is it that Ovechkin may tie Gretkzy and Bossy for most 50-goal seasons this year?

[psycat]

Given that in the Bossy/Gretzky era 50 goals were barely enough to crack top10 in goals, and in the Ovechkin era 50 goals is an almost certain Rocket win, 9 50-goal seasons by Ovechkin would be extremely impressive (while 9 50-goal seasons from Bossy/Gretzky just tell us their prime as goal-scorers lasted 9 seasons).

I actually think that for historical comparisons Ovechkin already has 9 50-goal seasons - he has 8 50-goal seasons and 1 more season with 49 goals and 1 or 2 goals called off on a coach's challenge.

Problem with that reasoning is that Gretzky didn't "just" score 50 goals in most of the years.

 

[Leksand]

Different rules league is softer than back in Grez days.Example two line passing in no longer a rule and rules change on hitting.

Yes, back in Grez days goal scoring was at an all time low. It was tough to score goals.

 

[Leksand]

87/88 Gretzky missed 16 games due to injury (shoulder, I believe) and would have easily finished 1st in points (by double digits) and top 10 in goals that season had he played his historical average of 77-80 games. He went on an absolute tear during the '88 playoffs.

88-89 Gretzky scores 54 goals, good for 4th in league goal scoring, with 168 points on a far weaker LA team compared to the Oilers. He wins league MVP (somewhat controversially).

89-90 Gretzky scores 42 goals and 142 points after missing 7 games due to injury. Wins the Art Ross going away. A down year, by his standards, but still Gretzky-esque.

90-91 Gretzky scores 41 goals and a disgusting 163 points to yet again win the Art Ross, this time by more than 30 points. At this point, it's Wayne and Mario... then everyone else.

Summer of 1991 he injures his back in the Canada Cup. Gretzky is a completely different player from this point on.

1991-92 goals immediately drop from 41 to 31. Points drop from 163 to 121. This is, by leaps and bounds, the dirt worst season of his entire career up to this point, and the only season ever where he is a minus player (going from +30 to -12). He is essentially a minus player the rest of his career and never again scores 40 goals.

Yes, Gretzky is the best offensive hockey player of all time, arguably the best hockey player ever - period. Ovi is not and I don’t think anyone has claimed that here.

 

[Strangle]

So funny:

​

​

​

Again:
692>690

Ovechkin has more goals than Super Mario, he’s earned that.

Mario had a short career, unfortunately, but Ovechkin has passed him in career goals.

We can say Barrie Sanders was a better running back than Emmit Smith, but he didn’t play the games to prove it.

Same with Mario, unfortunately he didn’t play the games. Ovechkin did and Ovechkin has more goals. Couldn’t happen to a better guy imo. Ovechkin is a treasure

 

[Anahome]

Yes. Now it's easier to score goals. Players just useless. Nobody wants to score 50 goals except of Ovechkin. NHL gives them all opportunity, increased number of games, provides better equipment and rules, anyway players are getting too lazy. They don't want to score goals and prefer passing.

 

[Zuluss]

Problem with that reasoning is that Gretzky didn't "just" score 50 goals in most of the years.

No, that would the problem with counting 50-goal seasons without any context, just assigning 1 if goals>=50, 0 if goals<50.

 

[AD1066]

The thing you can compare are the actual point totals, actual goals scored, etc

making up formulas is absolutely absurd. The league needed to allow two line passes to even get modern players not to bore everyone out of the arenas. Where’s the negative adjustments for those changes? Point is, it’s impossible to account for everything that might make a difference to a players totals. All you can do is count what they did achieve.

meanwhile, Gretzky is criticized for making it look too easy and making records too difficult to break.

count the goals, assists and points. Who’s on top? Easy peasy

Sure, but take that logic to the extreme, and say that they increase the size of the nets. McDavid scores 250 points the following season. Is he now better than Gretzky ever was? No adjustment is perfect, but looking at raw totals without context is even worse.

To your second point, something like the two line pass is already accounted for in the league-wide averages. We've seen that scoring has dropped by a large percentage (>30%) since the 1980s, despite this and other factors that benefit skaters. And looking at the save percentages of starting goalies, it seems pretty clear that advancements in goaltending equipment and techniques have far outweighed whatever benefits skaters have received in the same timeframe.

 

[Strangle]

Sure, but take that logic to the extreme, and say that they increase the size of the nets. McDavid scores 250 points the following season. Is he now better than Gretzky ever was? No adjustment is perfect, but looking at raw totals without context is even worse.

To your second point, something like the two line pass is already accounted for in the league-wide averages. We've seen that scoring has dropped by a large percentage (>30%) since the 1980s, despite this and other factors that benefit skaters. And looking at the save percentages of starting goalies, it seems pretty clear that advancements in goaltending equipment and techniques have far outweighed whatever benefits skaters have received in the same timeframe.

If you made the nets bigger, you’d have a difficult time comparing eras at all. It would have to be two record books

 

[kugelbahn]

Yes. Now it's easier to score goals. Players just useless. Nobody wants to score 50 goals except of Ovechkin. NHL gives them all opportunity, increased number of games, provides better equipment and rules, anyway players are getting too lazy. They don't want to score goals and prefer passing.

Crosby wanted and he did score 50 once, does not want anymore. Hopefully one day McDavid would want it. Anyway only Stanley Cup is important, regular season is meaningless, regular season stats are trash, regular season advance stats are trashy fantasies. Pocket Rocket Henri Richard is GOAT with 11 Stanley Cups.

 

[AD1066]

If you made the nets bigger, you’d have a difficult time comparing eras at all. It would have to be two record books

Isn't a change like this effectively the same?

 

[Strangle]

Isn't a change like this effectively the same?

View attachment 311823

I can absolutely see that point, I don’t think anyone was scoring 200 points on those goalies though, except Gretzky

there’s just no one who is that far ahead of their peers playing under the same conditions. Lemieux was the closest

 

[Leksand]

These adjusted statistical models are absurd. There's not some magical formula that will let you compare different eras in some kind of scientific way, no matter how "right" it may feel when you weight the numbers and see names trade places. The game has changed in many ways, not just within the rules as written but in terms of how athletes are even developed, so it's asinine to imagine dropping a superstar of today into an era where many prominent athletes were smoking and drinking, unless you're willing to extrapolate on how raw talent that did put up those mind-boggling numbers might have been elevated with the advantage of modern analytics, performance training, diet, and other benefits afforded to 21st Century players.

I'm all for parsing data, tracking for variables, and looking for new perspectives, but just because math is fun doesn't mean the numbers it can produce are inherently meaningful. Like the saying goes: you can make statistics say anything.

Indeed, comparing eras accurately is impossible. The only thing is to reflect upon the present in light of the past. And it’s pretty amazing to see Ovi up there with Gretzky and Bossy - the whole point of the thread I believe.

 

[Leksand]

The thing you can compare are the actual point totals, actual goals scored, etc

making up formulas is absolutely absurd. The league needed to allow two line passes to even get modern players not to bore everyone out of the arenas. Where’s the negative adjustments for those changes? Point is, it’s impossible to account for everything that might make a difference to a players totals. All you can do is count what they did achieve.

meanwhile, Gretzky is criticized for making it look too easy and making records too difficult to break.

count the goals, assists and points. Who’s on top? Easy peasy

Exactly, Orr is sooo overrated - not even 1000 points. Easy peasy.

 

[Strangle]

Exactly, Orr is sooo overrated - not even 1000 points. Easy peasy.

I mean, Orr and Gretzky changed the game when they entered the league.

but borque played 1000 more games than Orr. He deserves to be the highest point defenseman

 

[AD1066]

I can absolutely see that point, I don’t think anyone was scoring 200 points on those goalies though, except Gretzky

there’s just no one who is that far ahead of their peers playing under the same conditions. Lemieux was the closest

For sure, and I've no doubt he and Lemieux would be premier players today. I just think, based on the best guesses we can make about eras, he'd be closer to a 140 point player today at his peak, but probably wouldn't end up as the highest goal scorer of all time. Ovechkin or a healthy Lemieux would have a better chance in my book.

 

[Strangle]

For sure, and I've no doubt he and Lemieux would be premier players today. I just think, based on the best guesses we can make about eras, he'd be closer to a 140 point player today at his peak, but probably wouldn't end up as the highest goal scorer of all time. Ovechkin or a healthy Lemieux would have a better chance in my book.

I personally think Lemieux is the greatest player who ever lived. But he didn’t play enough games.

so it’s just my opinion.

 

[Video Nasty]

Ovechkin has more goals than Super Mario, he’s earned that.

Mario had a short career, unfortunately, but Ovechkin has passed him in career goals.

We can say Barrie Sanders was a better running back than Emmit Smith, but he didn’t play the games to prove it.

Same with Mario, unfortunately he didn’t play the games. Ovechkin did and Ovechkin has more goals. Couldn’t happen to a better guy imo. Ovechkin is a treasure

Bad example with Barry Sanders. It doesn’t matter what stats he had or that he didn’t win a ring, he is commonly regarded more highly than Emmitt who was a fantastic back himself.

Likewise, the same goes with players like Orr and Lemieux who did more in less time than 99% of hockey players ever.

 

[Strangle]

Bad example with Barry Sanders. It doesn’t matter what stats he had or that he didn’t win a ring, he is commonly regarded more highly than Emmitt who was a fantastic back himself.

Likewise, the same goes with players like Orr and Lemieux who did more in less time than 99% of hockey players ever.

People will regard Lemieux higher than Ovechkin too. But Ovechkin still has more goals

 

[Video Nasty]

People will regard Lemieux higher than Ovechkin too. But Ovechkin still has more goals

I guess we’re agreeing?

As they should. At least until the people who saw Lemieux play and those who care enough about hockey go back to learn what they didn’t experience first hand all die off, he’ll never be regarded as a lesser player than Ovechkin.

 

[Oil Dood]

I personally think Lemieux is the greatest player who ever lived. But he didn’t play enough games.

so it’s just my opinion.

Orr is way up there too. I was a little too young to watch Orr but looking back he outright dominated all ends of the ice and was tough as nails.

 

[Strangle]

I guess we’re agreeing?

As they should. At least until the people who saw Lemieux play and those who care enough about hockey go back to learn what they didn’t experience first hand all die off, he’ll never be regarded as a lesser player than Ovechkin.

ya we are agreeing.

I have this same issue with the Jordan/Lebron thing.

like if you didn’t witness Jordan playing, you just don’t understand

 

[Strangle]

Orr is way up there too. I was a little too young to watch Orr but looking back he outright dominated all ends of the ice and was tough as nails.

unfortunately, I didn’t get to see Orr play. But I have to respect the opinions of those who did and trust that he was the best.

People now don’t trust the opinions of those who were there anymore, though. So they play with the stats to make the guy they have seen seem better

 

[Oil Dood]

unfortunately, I didn’t get to see Orr play. But I have to respect the opinions of those who did and trust that he was the best.

People now don’t trust the opinions of those who were there anymore, though. So they play with the stats to make the guy they have seen seem better

I did not get to see him either, I rewatched a whack of his career online. The guy was so dominant, skated like McDavid, shot like Sakic, tough , good defense.
He would go coast to coast say miss the net and be the first guy back. He was unreal.

 

[Strangle]

I did not get to see him either, I rewatched a whack of his career online. The guy was so dominant, skated like McDavid, shot like Sakic, tough , good defense.
He would go coast to coast say miss the net and be the first guy back. He was unreal.

I hope we live long enough to see another guy with an impact like he had

 

[filinski77]

The few posters above completely ignoring the value of adjusted stats is exactly what's wrong with this forum. Nobody is saying that hockeyreferences adjusted stats are perfect, but they provide VITAL context to a scenario where it is a fact that it was much easier to score in Gretzky/Lemieux's days than it is now.

3 Points I'm going to make, and I'd like 3 honest answers.

1) For example, taking goals at face value and ignoring the scoring environment as a whole, look at the 1984-1985 season where Mike Gartner was 9th place in goals with 50. Ovechkin has around 5 Rocket Richards where he scored around ~50 goals. Would these outstanding Ovechkin seasons really equate to only being hardly top-10 back in the day?

2) In 1980, $1,000,000 CAD would be worth about $3,000,000 today. Why? Because everything today costs on average, much much more than it did back then. Similar to how everyone scored more goals in 1980 than they do today. So tell me, is $1,100,000 today worth more than $1,000,000 30 years ago, just because it's a bigger number?

3) Let's say all of a sudden the league makes a rule change that forces NHL goalies to wear equipment that they wore 35 years ago, and this therefore increases scoring to 50% higher than 1980 levels. If McDavid scores 240 points, does he then get deemed to have 'peaked' higher than Gretzky did, all because of the absolute numbers?

If you answered 'yes' to any of these 3 questions, you are completely ignorant and foolish. As I said, it's hard to find a perfect way to measure between vastly different scoring environments, but to ignore them completely and just say that X > Y or X/gp > Y/gp is just a terrible, closed minded way of thinking.