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

[Riddum]

I wouldn’t say it’s meaningless, it reinforces that Ovechkin has gotten better and is trending at a consistent pace as he’s gotten older, while all other top players in history have declined rapidly after the age of 30.

it also shows that Howe was a beast in his era


*edit* i meant this stat, my bad it was on the twitter thread

Jagr scored more goals post 30 than he did pre 30 :shrug:

 

[RorschachWJK]

Then how come there aren't more players with so many 50 goals seasons???

I didn't belittle Bossy. I was saying that era differences need to be accounted for. Much higher scoring back then, which makes Ovies achievement more grand. Plus, Bossy didn't lead goal scoring many of the seasons he played.

 

[powerbomb]

Just pushing back on the notion that anyone who disagrees with value adjusted stats is "completely ignorant" or "foolish" (which is kind of cultish posturing tbh): the entire point that I was making is that you ultimately cannot compare the greats of different eras with some half-assed mathematical equation. Given that the subjects of interest are the statistical outliers in this model (i.e. the greatest legends of the game), the arbitrary determination of what value should be "normal" ultimately only serves to advance the narrative that this generation's great must be fundamentally equal to that generation's.

It's a flawed premise from the start. It's like starting at the desired conclusion and working backwards. Just because you think that it "feels right" when you imagine Ovechkin blasting slapshots by hapless goalies in the 80s doesn't make it productive analysis. I'm not saying that these models can't be interesting fodder for conversation, but insisting that people downplay legendary dominance that was actually witnessed in favor of the numbers produced by a weighted spreadsheet is insane.

Again: if you want to compare eras, you're going to have to account for a lot more than inflation. The rules have changed, the style has changed, the system has changed... the bottom line is that you can't drop a 25-year old Ovechkin into the 80s in a thought experiment, armed with all of the advantages in training, equipment, and technology that any 21st Century player has, and discover any kind of meaningful answer. Just the same way that you can't drop a 25-year old Gretzky into the League today, give him the advantages that 21st Century athletes have, and resolve anything.

But whatever else you can or cannot do... it's utterly ridiculous to anoint someone as the greatest of all time years before their career even finishes, especially when you're talking about supplanting some of the most monolithic figures of the game. Math is fun, stats are interesting, and people are generally crazy.

*shrug*

 

[gtrower]

Just pushing back on the notion that anyone who disagrees with value adjusted stats is "completely ignorant" or "foolish" (which is kind of cultish posturing tbh): the entire point that I was making is that you ultimately cannot compare the greats of different eras with some half-assed mathematical equation. Given that the subjects of interest are the statistical outliers in this model (i.e. the greatest legends of the game), the arbitrary determination of what value should be "normal" ultimately only serves to advance the narrative that this generation's great must be fundamentally equal to that generation's.

It's a flawed premise from the start. It's like starting at the desired conclusion and working backwards. Just because you think that it "feels right" when you imagine Ovechkin blasting slapshots by hapless goalies in the 80s doesn't make it productive analysis. I'm not saying that these models can't be interesting fodder for conversation, but insisting that people downplay legendary dominance that was actually witnessed in favor of the numbers produced by a weighted spreadsheet is insane.

Again: if you want to compare eras, you're going to have to account for a lot more than inflation. The rules have changed, the style has changed, the system has changed... the bottom line is that you can't drop a 25-year old Ovechkin into the 80s in a thought experiment, armed with all of the advantages in training, equipment, and technology that any 21st Century player has, and discover any kind of meaningful answer. Just the same way that you can't drop a 25-year old Gretzky into the League today, give him the advantages that 21st Century athletes have, and resolve anything.

But whatever else you can or cannot do... it's utterly ridiculous to anoint someone as the greatest of all time years before their career even finishes, especially when you're talking about supplanting some of the most monolithic figures of the game. Math is fun, stats are interesting, and people are generally crazy.

*shrug*

Im okay with people arguing against the use of advanced stats. But what you just posted is false and shows a general lack of understanding of adjusted stats. You’re not comparing the outliers of different eras to each other. You’re normalizing the average player of the different eras and comparing the outliers to that average player. So you’re comparing their levels of dominance over their own eras. Which is the logical way to do it.

And you’re listing all these variables that you don’t think are being accounted for. But they are. That’s the whole point of using league scoring average. All of those variables are accounted for in that simple statistic. Rules, equipment, styles, etc. all feed into how many goals were scored on average.

You can argue the exact formula being used, but whichever reasonable formula you use is gonna yield similar results. It’s not so much using the exact adjusted total goals to say player X is now superior to player Y. But it’s a helpful tool to see that player X is in the same tier as player Y despite lower raw totals earned in a less forgiving era.

 

[HF007]

Bossy’s 50 goal streak is more like a 35-40 goal streak or whatever the era adjusted number is lol.

 

[Zuluss]

it's utterly ridiculous to anoint someone as the greatest of all time years before their career even finishes, especially when you're talking about supplanting some of the most monolithic figures of the game.

I would not agree with that. 90-95% of Ovechkin's career is already in the books - if you weigh the seasons by importance and do not put an extremely large weight on longevity. It is not like he is going to win another 2-3 Rockets and return to his peak goal-scoring form beating #10 in goals by 50-60%.

History will help us put what he has already done into a proper perspective, but I think the only question history will help us resolve is whether Ovechkin's peak is in fact higher than we currently think. In his peak years, Ovechkin led #10 in goals by 50-60% - and kept doing that for 5-7 years. This makes his peak longer than pretty much anyone's in history, but what he does not have is a signature season when he would nearly double #10's goals. Gretzky, Lemieux, and even Brett Hull have such a season - but since Brett Hull last did that in 89/90, no one else could - neither Ovechkin, nor Bure, nor Stamkos.

So when Ovechkin is compared to Gretzky and Lemieux in terms of goal-scoring, he cannot match their best 1-2 seasons, but then takes over around 4th-best season and also beats either one of them on longevity. Is the much longer peak and prime a good enough compensation for a lower absolute peak? Opinions may differ.

But imagine another 20-30 years pass, we see several players with multiple dominant Rocket wins, but nobody surpasses Ovechkin's peak. Then we may have to rethink its height and say it is the highest humanly possible peak under the current conditions. There were times when the best goal-scorer would lead #10 in goals by 70%+ at least once in his career - Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Brett Hull, Bossy all did that, and by that metric Brett Hull and Esposito peaked even higher than Gretzky and Lemieux. But, the history may tell us in future, such things are no longer possible. And then we will look at Ovechkin, who maintained the highest humanly possible peak for 5-7 seasons, we will look at Gretzky, who did it for 2 seasons only, and we will see Ovechkin as the best goal-scorer ever hands-down.

 

[The Panther]

Ovechkin would have between 1500-2000 goals if he played in the Gretzky era.

I guess I've been on this forum long enough (5 years? ) that I'm still stunned that people are posting stuff like this.

Let me see if I can do this, too...

Hey guys!! I saw 50 seconds of film-clips from the 1920s/30s and the goalies were so bad! If Wayne Gretzky had played in the 1920s and 1930s, he would have scored 250 goals per year!! This conclusively proves that the era of my youth is way superior to any in the past!!

Am I doing this right?

Anyway, you've certainly embarrassed yourself enough for one thread. I won't call you out again.

 

[Cobra Commander]

I guess I've been on this forum long enough (5 years? ) that I'm still stunned that people are posting stuff like this.

Let me see if I can do this, too...

Hey guys!! I saw 50 seconds of film-clips from the 1920s/30s and the goalies were so bad! If Wayne Gretzky had played in the 1920s and 1930s, he would have scored 250 goals per year!! This conclusively proves that the era of my youth is way superior to any in the past!!

Am I doing this right?

Anyway, you've certainly embarrassed yourself enough for one thread. I won't call you out again.

Look man, I watched all of Gretzky’s highlights and I’m not impressed at all so sue me. None of that crap could work today, most of it is garbage. Lemieux’s highlights? Extremely impressive and he would absolutely dominate today’s game. You have a different opinion? Great.

Every other major sport in the world if you look at “the greatest” player it would still hold up today, and there’s no crazy unattainable gaps in statistics. ONLY Gretzky. It’s garbage and even he knows it. EVERY other sport the records are attainable or being broken EXCEPT hockey, Mickey Mouse f***ing NHL league.

 

[KCC]

Bossy retired at 30

Yup. So? And if Mario had been able to stay healthy he probably shatters The Great One's goal scoring record. But he didn't. Bossy retired young, that's what he ended up with. Tired of all the shoulda, woulda, coulda junk.

 

[Windy River]

Jagr scored more goals post 30 than he did pre 30 :shrug:

How so?

 

[SwaggySpungo]

Look man, I watched all of Gretzky’s highlights and I’m not impressed at all so sue me. None of that crap could work today, most of it is garbage. Lemieux’s highlights? Extremely impressive and he would absolutely dominate today’s game. You have a different opinion? Great.

Every other major sport in the world if you look at “the greatest” player it would still hold up today, and there’s no crazy unattainable gaps in statistics. ONLY Gretzky. It’s garbage and even he knows it. EVERY other sport the records are attainable or being broken EXCEPT hockey, Mickey Mouse ****ing NHL league.

Gretzky and Lemiuex played in the same era, slugger.

Are there no rules against blatant trolling on this forum?

 

[Leksand]

This conclusively proves that the era of my youth is way superior to any in the past!!

That is so true, as it is for discussions about music as well.

Would just add “any in the past or thereafter!!!” It’s not like O6 Habs or 1970s Orr fans bow to the Kane / Toews / Keith Blackhawks or Crosby.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

This era adjustment is strange.

It's like saying 'If the Beatles debut in 2019, they wouldn't have the popularity they did then".

Then saying sending Bruno Mars back to the 1960's he would dominate the charts.

It's really strange. Gretzky inferred what the game is today. His relevance to the sport has never been diminished, and these "what if" scenarios are misguided.

If there was no Gretzky, there was not going to be a high-offense 80's. He MADE that era high scoring, while the entire sport had to develop ways to stop him.


Adjusting the era to normalize the numbers (which still can't undermine his dominance) doesn't make sense, because the game is what it is today because of him.

 

[Beukeboom]

Look man, I watched all of Gretzky’s highlights and I’m not impressed at all so sue me. None of that crap could work today, most of it is garbage. Lemieux’s highlights? Extremely impressive and he would absolutely dominate today’s game. You have a different opinion? Great.

Every other major sport in the world if you look at “the greatest” player it would still hold up today, and there’s no crazy unattainable gaps in statistics. ONLY Gretzky. It’s garbage and even he knows it. EVERY other sport the records are attainable or being broken EXCEPT hockey, Mickey Mouse ****ing NHL league.

Appreciating Gretzky's game is like appreciating a chess player. It requires a bit more from the viewer. I suggest you stick to McDavid highlights, they are easier to grasp...

Isn't this the reason Gretzky is such a mystery to all the new and young fans? They can't explain his superiority. It puzzles them, so thus, he can't have been that good? A hint; watch full games. Then you'd see how he governed the pace of everything.

 

[Warden of the North]

Not that crazy. Hes one of the best players in league history.

 

[gtrower]

This era adjustment is strange.

It's like saying 'If the Beatles debut in 2019, they wouldn't have the popularity they did then".

Then saying sending Bruno Mars back to the 1960's he would dominate the charts.

It's really strange. Gretzky inferred what the game is today. His relevance to the sport has never been diminished, and these "what if" scenarios are misguided.

If there was no Gretzky, there was not going to be a high-offense 80's. He MADE that era high scoring, while the entire sport had to develop ways to stop him.


Adjusting the era to normalize the numbers (which still can't undermine his dominance) doesn't make sense, because the game is what it is today because of him.

No...it would be like saying:

Bruno Mars sold twice as many copies of his debut album in the US as the Beatles did with theirs. But was he actually twice as popular? Or were there population differences. Perhaps we should normalize the sales based on US population at the time of their respective release dates.

 

[DannyGallivan]

It's not crazy. Ovechkin is a great goal scorer, and Bossy's career was cut way to short which gives Ovechkin the opening to tie him.

 

[gtrower]

I would not agree with that. 90-95% of Ovechkin's career is already in the books - if you weigh the seasons by importance and do not put an extremely large weight on longevity. It is not like he is going to win another 2-3 Rockets and return to his peak goal-scoring form beating #10 in goals by 50-60%.

You sure about that?

 

[gdsmack267]

Its impressive as hell. The velocity hes gets on that one timer will never get old to watch

 

[Strangle]

I would not agree with that. 90-95% of Ovechkin's career is already in the books - if you weigh the seasons by importance and do not put an extremely large weight on longevity. It is not like he is going to win another 2-3 Rockets and return to his peak goal-scoring form beating #10 in goals by 50-60%.

History will help us put what he has already done into a proper perspective, but I think the only question history will help us resolve is whether Ovechkin's peak is in fact higher than we currently think. In his peak years, Ovechkin led #10 in goals by 50-60% - and kept doing that for 5-7 years. This makes his peak longer than pretty much anyone's in history, but what he does not have is a signature season when he would nearly double #10's goals. Gretzky, Lemieux, and even Brett Hull have such a season - but since Brett Hull last did that in 89/90, no one else could - neither Ovechkin, nor Bure, nor Stamkos.

So when Ovechkin is compared to Gretzky and Lemieux in terms of goal-scoring, he cannot match their best 1-2 seasons, but then takes over around 4th-best season and also beats either one of them on longevity. Is the much longer peak and prime a good enough compensation for a lower absolute peak? Opinions may differ.

But imagine another 20-30 years pass, we see several players with multiple dominant Rocket wins, but nobody surpasses Ovechkin's peak. Then we may have to rethink its height and say it is the highest humanly possible peak under the current conditions. There were times when the best goal-scorer would lead #10 in goals by 70%+ at least once in his career - Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Brett Hull, Bossy all did that, and by that metric Brett Hull and Esposito peaked even higher than Gretzky and Lemieux. But, the history may tell us in future, such things are no longer possible. And then we will look at Ovechkin, who maintained the highest humanly possible peak for 5-7 seasons, we will look at Gretzky, who did it for 2 seasons only, and we will see Ovechkin as the best goal-scorer ever hands-down.

This what I’m saying, your using #10 in goal scoring. What is the logic in that? It seems extremely arbitrary and therefor suspect that the intentions of using that number are not genuine.

why not use the percentage difference between the player and the closest player not on their team? I say not on their team, because someone like Gretzky produced a lot of goals for his teammates, so you’d have to remove, say Kurri as #2 because of the effect playing with Gretzky had on his totals (Gretzky’s 160+ assists had to be scored by someone).

it’s extremely suspect that these stats start off with a premise, then go on to choose arbitrary sounding variables to ‘prove’ that premise. And with Gretzky, the adjusted stats always fail to prove anything because he is such an extreme outlier that you cannot adjust him down to ‘superstar’ levels.

just wait for Ovechkin to break the record or not, then you won’t have to make up numbers.

and the end of your post is ignoring a very important thing. In 20-30 years there will be a bunch of smart asses adjusting Ovechkin’s stats to prove the new players who are scoring way less than him are actually better and beat his peak seasons by scoring 41 goals once. But they are better athletes, so their goals are more impressive.

 

[powerbomb]

Im okay with people arguing against the use of advanced stats. But what you just posted is false and shows a general lack of understanding of adjusted stats. You’re not comparing the outliers of different eras to each other. You’re normalizing the average player of the different eras and comparing the outliers to that average player. So you’re comparing their levels of dominance over their own eras. Which is the logical way to do it.

And you’re listing all these variables that you don’t think are being accounted for. But they are. That’s the whole point of using league scoring average. All of those variables are accounted for in that simple statistic. Rules, equipment, styles, etc. all feed into how many goals were scored on average.

You can argue the exact formula being used, but whichever reasonable formula you use is gonna yield similar results. It’s not so much using the exact adjusted total goals to say player X is now superior to player Y. But it’s a helpful tool to see that player X is in the same tier as player Y despite lower raw totals earned in a less forgiving era.

The point is that if you're trying to evaluate who the greatest is, and then you normalize what the league should be, it's in effect implying that the legends of today must be fundamentally equal to the legends of yesteryear. That's is the implicit flaw in this approach.

There isn't a mathematical formula that can account for the kinds of variables that would change by moving a person across eras (not just of sport, but of culture and lifestyle and everything else that goes along with competing at the highest level, in any era). All you can do is look at what they did in the time they played, and extrapolate arguments based on what was witnessed. I think the underlying problem is that people, especially younger people who never witnessed those performances with their own eyes, want to have the ease and confidence in being able to look at a number and say, "This one's better."

Unfortunately, when you're talking about time travel and doing all of these other ridiculous experiments within the imagination, there are a lot of dynamic variables that aren't solved for by weighting goals as 0.833 or 1.37, or whatever it is. If you believe that you can simply "know" what would have happened by toying with this number and that number, I don't know what to tell you, other than that statistics are compelling by nature and can be made to say anything.

This is why I try to parse through and put together arguments for individual merits, in what way I define their legacy of greatness. Ovechkin is undeniably a great player, and he may have the greatest slapshot I've ever seen. He also takes an ungodly number of shots which I factor in when I evaluate what "greatest goalscorer" means, but, while you can disagree on whether that should be something I consider, where he slots in terms of the hierarchy of hockey greatness I've witnessed in my life... he won't be forgotten by me, but he also hasn't done enough to leapfrog the legends I've seen.

The fundamental problem here is people who want to believe that there's some algorithm that will let you resolve once and for all debates that span time. There isn't. There's always going to be room for discussion but I hope it will get to a more nuanced and interesting point than thumping on a spreadsheet that someone keeps tinkering with.

The fact that Ovechkin has the opportunity to author his legend by staying healthy and continuing to unload on the net is a testament to what a generational marvel he's been to watch, but until his career is finished, I'm going to hold off on where he belongs on the mantle of all-time greats.

 

[kmart]

and the end of your post is ignoring a very important thing. In 20-30 years there will be a bunch of smart asses adjusting Ovechkin’s stats to prove the new players who are scoring way less than him are actually better and beat his peak seasons by scoring 41 goals once. But they are better athletes, so their goals are more impressive.

this is going to be dependent on how much the nhl or hockey in general will change. the athleticism is not going to change much as the human fitness level has cap at some point. in my opinion "the big change" in hockey has already happened... that forces people to use the adjustment more than one would like.

by suggesting people in the future are going to adjust stats to the same lvl as they do today, you are disregarding the very reason they are doing it. flopping goalies, no padding, no helmets, headshots free for all is not a normal occurrence, its done, its not going to repeat itself.

by the way, as an ovi fan i dont like the adjustments either, i want him to break the record to shut up the last don cherry fan. but even that its not going to be enough.

 

[IamNotADancer]

This thread has as much salt as McDonald's french fries.

My sodium levels are off the charts just by reading some of these comments.

 

[Leksand]

No...it would be like saying:

Bruno Mars sold twice as many copies of his debut album in the US as the Beatles did with theirs. But was he actually twice as popular? Or were there population differences. Perhaps we should normalize the sales based on US population at the time of their respective release dates.

Exactly what I was thinking. I’m sure all those saying that adjusting stats to make them comparable over time would argue in favor of adjustments if the issue changed and they don’t like the raw numbers.

A different example is Lidstrom’s Norris trophies. He has the second most by a margin. Then it is widely argued and many agree that the competition he faced was weaker than during other eras. Well, we don’t adjust, so Lidstrom as no 2 it’s is. And you can go on and on to find endless examples.

 

[ScaredStreit]

I didn't belittle Bossy. I was saying that era differences need to be accounted for. Much higher scoring back then, which makes Ovies achievement more grand. Plus, Bossy didn't lead goal scoring many of the seasons he played.

Bossy had stiffer competition. I don't think Bossy > Ovechkin but Bossy's become so underrated by posters here...you'd almost forget he was the best goal scorer on arguably the best dynasty in NHL history, or that he might be the best consistent goal scorer in history. Let's analyze how Bossy placed compared to his peers:

Take Gretzky out of the league and Bossy has 5 rockets instead of 2 (Gretzky would have beaten anybody).

For example in 82 Bossy finishes 2nd to Gretzky (who scored 92 that year). Bossy also won the cup and Conn Smythe. Many posters dismiss that season of Bossy's way too quickly.

Again I'm not saying Bossy > Ovechkin...but some here would have you think it asinine to put him in top 5 goal scorers.