JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,155
- 12,846
Certainly. I'm not a fan of Ovechkin since the 2011 season. 2008 was a different beast though.
Is Ovechkin's 07/08 season among the very best goalscoring campaigns in history?
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
Certainly. I'm not a fan of Ovechkin since the 2011 season. 2008 was a different beast though.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
While 07-08 is his best full season, I think Ovechkin played at a higher level in 2009-10. He was on pace for 124 points and looked to be the best player in a year with really high competition.
Oddly enough, he ended with more assists than goals. So focusing on just goals downplays just how dominant he was that season.
Oddly enough, he ended with more assists than goals. So focusing on just goals downplays just how dominant he was that season.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,606
- 5,223
It certainly has an argument:
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]No one outside Ovechkin did over 52 the season before or the 3 season before, so Kovalchuck 52 was has good has it got around that time.
The top 10 (without Ovechkin) average was 44.222 with a stdev of 4.4095, is 65 goal are 4.7 std above average.
Gretzky 92 goal season:
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
A Bossy 64 goals season was also has close has it get, but considering McDonald 66 the season after, Bossy 68 the season before, I imagine 70 was possible for a Bossy in a league that Mark can score 60.
Gretzky 92 goals was when the top 10 average was of 54 with a stdev of 4.97, making him 7.64 stdev above the league.
Hull in 65-66 was 19 stdev above the league and Maurice Richard in 44-45 was 8.11 stdev above the top 10.
By how much you dominate the Top 10 isn't the only metric obviously, specially with a league that move so much in size and so on, one would have to look at how much during time the non special winner (or simply all the number #2) does in that metric.
| 1. | A. Ovechkin | 65 |
| 2. | I. Kovalchuk | 52 |
| 3. | J. Iginla* | 50 |
| 4. | E. Malkin | 47 |
| 5. | B. Boyes | 43 |
| H. Zetterberg | 43 | |
| 7. | M. Gáborík | 42 |
| 8. | D. Heatley | 41 |
| 9. | D. Alfredsson | 40 |
| V. Lecavalier | 40 |
The top 10 (without Ovechkin) average was 44.222 with a stdev of 4.4095, is 65 goal are 4.7 std above average.
Gretzky 92 goal season:
| 1. | W. Gretzky* | 92 |
| 2. | M. Bossy* | 64 |
| 3. | D. Maruk | 60 |
| 4. | D. Ciccarelli* | 55 |
| 5. | R. Vaive | 54 |
| 6. | B. Stoughton | 52 |
| 7. | R. Middleton | 51 |
| 8. | M. Dionne* | 50 |
| M. Messier* | 50 | |
| B. Trottier* | 50 |
A Bossy 64 goals season was also has close has it get, but considering McDonald 66 the season after, Bossy 68 the season before, I imagine 70 was possible for a Bossy in a league that Mark can score 60.
Gretzky 92 goals was when the top 10 average was of 54 with a stdev of 4.97, making him 7.64 stdev above the league.
Hull in 65-66 was 19 stdev above the league and Maurice Richard in 44-45 was 8.11 stdev above the top 10.
By how much you dominate the Top 10 isn't the only metric obviously, specially with a league that move so much in size and so on, one would have to look at how much during time the non special winner (or simply all the number #2) does in that metric.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,640
- 10,273
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Serious question.
Do you think Bobby Hull's peak goal season is outside the top 40 all time?
Do you think the 1929-30 season is the greatest collection of offensive talent ever?
Nadal On Clay
Djokovic > Nadal > Federer
- Oct 11, 2017
- 3,094
- 2,787
Thats a really nice way to spin things into a useless argument.
If it wasn’t for peak Malkin, Stamkos would have been the only 50 goal scorer that season and would’ve outscored the 2nd best scorer by 19 goals.
Also,
2012:
50 goal scorers: 2
40 goal scorers: 4
2008:
50 goal scorers: 3
40 goal scorers: 11
Stamkos dominance over his peers was just more impressive given that the top end goalscoring was more watered down in 2012.
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 1,799
- 1,802
these two lists would feel right to me, if used for VsX, if that X were, in fact, the Roman Numeral X. Trottier and Lecav could have had outlaying seasons and it wouldnt matter because they are surrounded by like numbers. These are all top 6, or better, forwards and represent star scoring of their year
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,640
- 10,273
I think hockey in 1929-30 was in its infancy, still undergoing significant rules changes and other developments. It had barely transitioned from an amateur sport and the talent pool was minuscule. Highly anomalous data is to be expected. Much like pre-1900 batting averages for baseball, I don't put a lot of stock in those years - no matter how you measure it. Hockey reference is generous to include it. Personally, I would not.
You are also attacking single season stats for hockey reference, vs largely smoothed over (multiple season) VsX data (much less volatile). A more apples to apples comparison would be 7 year or 10 year blocks of adjusted stats. Much less noise.
Regardless, I can certainly attack VsX similarly. Do you think Nels Stewart was a superior goal scorer to Jaromir Jagr? VsX does. Bill Cook's best 7 goal scoring seasons were just as good as Mike Bossy's? VsX concludes that as well. Charlie Conacher's top 5 goal scoring seasons dwarf Ovechkin's? You think Sidney Crosby's 104 point 2014 season should be worth significantly more than his 109 point 2010 season? -There is no rational basis for that. That's just ranking players according to arbitrary outside factors.
Remove the 1920s and 1930s guys from hockey reference's adjusted stats and Hull has a bunch of seasons in the 52-58 adjusted goal range - 58 is then good for roughly 30th. But that's actually the wrong way to look at it. 10 seasons are tied for 59, 1 more adjusted goal than Bobby Hull's best - which is well within the margin of error. An additional 8 seasons are tied for the place above that - also within the margin of error. These are effectively on the same tier. So while you emphasize the placements, in truth Hockey reference's list has Hull's best season not far at all from the top 12. The placements aren't nearly as indicative as the adjusted total. (again, two more adjusted goals moves him up a whopping 18 placements).
What season do you consider to be Hull's peak season anyway? IMO it's '65-66. That's pre-expansion. Expansion seems to be a pretty clear break for what was possible - as was demonstrated by Phil Esposito and Bobby Orr. Of course you could also look at the post-expansion 58 goal season as his peak, but if you do that, then there really isn't much of a reason not to include Esposito's best seasons, in which case Hull gets dwarfed. Unfairly IMO. And I just find it far more likely that Hull was at his best prior to age 30.
Hull also missed 5 games in his peak season where he was scoring at a .83 GPG. So had he played a full season, his total likely increases to 58 goals which adjusts to roughly 63 - which gets him into the top 15 after removing the pre-1940 players, and within 2 adjusted goals of a top 10 all-time goal scoring season (again, if you remove Morenz, Clapper, Dye, and Weiland). Is that really so wrong?
Last edited:
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,606
- 5,223
Does it ? I feel VsX is an pure mathematic calculation of how well a player scored relative to is peers (elite goalscorer of is time) and fully let the judgement to the people consulting it adjusting for the strength of said peers if they move overtime, with VsX being completely agnostic about if Nels Stewart was a superior goal scorer to Jagr, simply telling us if Nels Stewart dominated is peer more or less than Jagr, fully letting the door open that being 10% betters than late 90s player being superior to being 15% better than pre-WW2 players.
So does hockey reference I think, both simply use a different mathematic to do it, hockey reference purely goes with at large league wide scoring (including defenseman, 4h liner, etc...), which seem on is face inferior to something that would acknowledge that usage, ads break, power play, overtime rules, etc... would change the distribution of scoring among the type of players and a simple way to take every factor like those into account is to compare with the league top scorer.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,640
- 10,273
Yes, that's a fair point. Certainly the correct way to use this data is to view it as simple data that can be considered, and you can add context as necessary. This is true for both systems.
As for your second paragraph, I think the fluctuations in the talent pool, and the heavily depended-on fluctuations year over year of #2 in scoring (or the X as necessary), may more than swamp the discrepancies in usage of elite players relative to league-wide environmental factors indicated in goals scored per game.
Off topic, but I think you're underrating Stamkos here. He outscored St.Louis by over 20 points that year and St.Louis only assisted on 20 of Stamkos' goals.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,606
- 5,223
If VsX really use a lot (or only) #2 in scoring I will go with you with discomfort, I thought it was using the top 7 or something like that, #2 will be quite noisy.
I've never liked VsX when using only one player for comparison, and I think it makes far more sense to still compare players to their peers, but to the "pack" of scorers after the top 5 of so, so you're really weeding out outliers. When we look at this, it's clear '08 is higher scoring for top scorers than the league average GPG, which makes Ovechkin's adjusted goals a bit overrated. This makes sense as it also holds for points, and it was a season when there was still a lot of PP scoring. At the same time, I think it's clear Kovalchuk and Iginla was good competition that year so VsX underrates it. I don't think he quite matches the peak of some of the other top goalscorers, but I don't know if it holds him back much. It's not as if he's Gartner or something. He has quite a few significant wins.
Last edited:
I also agree that VsX reliance on the margin over #2 makes VsX too volatile and benchmarking against #5 or #10 would be better.
The only problem is comparison between eras: #10 in goals (or points) is a very different thing in a 6-team league and a 32-team league, while one can argue that #1 and #2 would have been #1 and #2 no matter how many teams we have and the competition to become #1 and #2 is always the same.
In any case, here are the best 5 % leads over #10 in goals for several all-time great goalscorers
Ovechkin 63-61-52-52-50
Gretzky 85-85-59-48-48
Lemieux 85-47-46-29-28
Bossy 73-42-33-33-28
Brett Hull 91-67-60-24-12
Stamkos 67-46-38-32-30
Bure 61-55-48-30-11
Here are the best 5 % leads over #5 in goals
Ovechkin 51-43-40-39-38
Gretzky 70-67-33-27-19
Lemieux 67-37-35-15-4
Bossy 47-24-19-15-15
Brett Hull 76-52-33-10
Stamkos 58-26-21-16-10
Bure 38-34-15-13-0
So, we have 2 seasons by Gretzky (92 and 87 goals), one season by Lemieux (85 goals), one season by Brett Hull (86 goals) that are clearly better than Ovechkin's 65 goal season. So post-expansion (or post-Esposito) Ovechkin's 65-goal season is at best #5.
Then we have more seasons in the same league as Ovechkin's 65-goal season - the 60-goal season by Stamkos, Brett Hull's 2nd-best season (70 goals), Bossy's best season (69 goals), Bure's peak (58 goals from 1999/2000).
Looking at the numbers, the difference is not huge: e.g., in terms of the lead over #5, Stamkos is ahead of Ovechkin 58 to 51; if #5 is at 43 goals (as in 2007/08), this is a difference of 3 goals. Bure is similarly behind Ovechkin 38 to 51 - so that would be a 5-goal difference.
I would personally put Stamkos peak at even and all other seasons a step behind Ovechkin - it sort of feels that scoring in 1978/79 or 1991/92 was higher that in 2007/08, so if Bossy and Hull Jr (with his 2nd-best season) are barely ahead of Ovechkin 2007/08 in raw goals, adjusting for the scoring level they should be a step behind.
I will do comparison with Bobby Hull, Richard, Howe and Esposito next time.
One last thing to mention, and probably leads over #5 are the best illustration: even though Ovechkin did not peak as highly as Gretzky, Lemieux, and Brett Hull, his career value as a goalscorer is still higher - just look at how flat his goal-scoring arc is and for how long he stays close to his peak production. And that's not all - he has five more seasons with healthy leads over #5, something none of the players above has.
The only problem is comparison between eras: #10 in goals (or points) is a very different thing in a 6-team league and a 32-team league, while one can argue that #1 and #2 would have been #1 and #2 no matter how many teams we have and the competition to become #1 and #2 is always the same.
In any case, here are the best 5 % leads over #10 in goals for several all-time great goalscorers
Ovechkin 63-61-52-52-50
Gretzky 85-85-59-48-48
Lemieux 85-47-46-29-28
Bossy 73-42-33-33-28
Brett Hull 91-67-60-24-12
Stamkos 67-46-38-32-30
Bure 61-55-48-30-11
Here are the best 5 % leads over #5 in goals
Ovechkin 51-43-40-39-38
Gretzky 70-67-33-27-19
Lemieux 67-37-35-15-4
Bossy 47-24-19-15-15
Brett Hull 76-52-33-10
Stamkos 58-26-21-16-10
Bure 38-34-15-13-0
So, we have 2 seasons by Gretzky (92 and 87 goals), one season by Lemieux (85 goals), one season by Brett Hull (86 goals) that are clearly better than Ovechkin's 65 goal season. So post-expansion (or post-Esposito) Ovechkin's 65-goal season is at best #5.
Then we have more seasons in the same league as Ovechkin's 65-goal season - the 60-goal season by Stamkos, Brett Hull's 2nd-best season (70 goals), Bossy's best season (69 goals), Bure's peak (58 goals from 1999/2000).
Looking at the numbers, the difference is not huge: e.g., in terms of the lead over #5, Stamkos is ahead of Ovechkin 58 to 51; if #5 is at 43 goals (as in 2007/08), this is a difference of 3 goals. Bure is similarly behind Ovechkin 38 to 51 - so that would be a 5-goal difference.
I would personally put Stamkos peak at even and all other seasons a step behind Ovechkin - it sort of feels that scoring in 1978/79 or 1991/92 was higher that in 2007/08, so if Bossy and Hull Jr (with his 2nd-best season) are barely ahead of Ovechkin 2007/08 in raw goals, adjusting for the scoring level they should be a step behind.
I will do comparison with Bobby Hull, Richard, Howe and Esposito next time.
One last thing to mention, and probably leads over #5 are the best illustration: even though Ovechkin did not peak as highly as Gretzky, Lemieux, and Brett Hull, his career value as a goalscorer is still higher - just look at how flat his goal-scoring arc is and for how long he stays close to his peak production. And that's not all - he has five more seasons with healthy leads over #5, something none of the players above has.
SealsFan
Registered User
- May 3, 2009
- 1,716
- 506
Brett Hull's big season is noteworthy for outscoring his next highest teammate by 61 goals!
Matsun
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2010
- 587
- 459
Here's peak OV in 07-08:
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Here's peak Stamkos in 11-12:
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Here's peak Bobby Hull in 65-66:
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Hull is in a league of his own here but his competition is weak. 07-08 is an outstanding goalscoring year from OV, but I think Stamkos in 2011-12 is better in pure goalscoring terms. The reason Stamkos this year is so forgotten is because he was completely overshadowed by Malkin. This is goalscoring leaders in 11-12 without Malkin (and Neal).
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Suddenly this looks like one of the very very best years ever in goalscoring and up there with Hull in dominance. Stamkos would have had a impressive lead in goals by his even strength scoring alone. This is not to say that Stamkos peaked higher than OV as a player, but since we are just talking about goalscoring I think Stamkos was more dominant than OV at their best.
The reason this is not talked about more is because Stamkos was a worse player than OV so he doesn't get the credit he probably deserves and of course Malkin who made Stamkos' goalscoring lead seem a bit less amazing. Here are the goalscoring leaders over the last half of the season with Stamkos dominating everyone except Malkin.
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Seeing Malkin not only outplaying but outscoring Stamkos probably kept people from really appreciating what Stamkos was doing. Stamkos still had a special year but Malkin robbed him of a really really legendary goalscoring season.
| Player | Team | GP | G | GPG | EVG | PPG | S | S% |
| Alex Ovechkin | WSH | 82 | 65 | 0,79 | 43 | 22 | 446 | 14,6 |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | ATL | 79 | 52 | 0,66 | 34 | 16 | 283 | 18,4 |
| Jarome Iginla | CGY | 82 | 50 | 0,61 | 35 | 15 | 338 | 14,8 |
| Evgeni Malkin | PIT | 82 | 47 | 0,57 | 30 | 17 | 272 | 17,3 |
| Henrik Zetterberg | DET | 75 | 43 | 0,57 | 26 | 16 | 358 | 12 |
| Brad Boyes | STL | 82 | 43 | 0,52 | 32 | 11 | 207 | 20,8 |
| Marian Gaborik | MIN | 77 | 42 | 0,55 | 30 | 11 | 278 | 15,1 |
| Dany Heatley | OTT | 71 | 41 | 0,58 | 28 | 13 | 224 | 18,3 |
| Daniel Alfredsson | OTT | 70 | 40 | 0,57 | 24 | 9 | 217 | 18,4 |
| Vincent Lecavalier | TBL | 81 | 40 | 0,49 | 29 | 10 | 318 | 12,6 |
Here's peak Stamkos in 11-12:
| Player | Team | GP | G | GPG | EVG | PPG | S | S% |
| Steven Stamkos | TBL | 82 | 60 | 0,73 | 48 | 12 | 303 | 19,8 |
| Evgeni Malkin | PIT | 75 | 50 | 0,67 | 38 | 12 | 339 | 14,8 |
| Marian Gaborik | NYR | 82 | 41 | 0,5 | 31 | 10 | 276 | 14,9 |
| James Neal | PIT | 80 | 40 | 0,5 | 22 | 18 | 329 | 12,2 |
| Alex Ovechkin | WSH | 78 | 38 | 0,49 | 25 | 13 | 303 | 12,5 |
| Scott Hartnell | PHI | 82 | 37 | 0,45 | 21 | 16 | 232 | 16 |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | NJD | 77 | 37 | 0,48 | 24 | 10 | 310 | 11,9 |
| Corey Perry | ANA | 80 | 37 | 0,46 | 22 | 14 | 277 | 13,4 |
| Phil Kessel | TOR | 82 | 37 | 0,45 | 27 | 10 | 295 | 12,5 |
| Matt Moulson | NYI | 82 | 36 | 0,44 | 22 | 14 | 219 | 16,4 |
Here's peak Bobby Hull in 65-66:
| Player | Team | GP | G | GPG | EVG | PPG | S | S% |
| Bobby Hull | CHI | 65 | 54 | 0,83 | 31 | 22 | 351 | 15,4 |
| Frank Mahovlich | TOR | 68 | 32 | 0,47 | 22 | 10 | 245 | 13,1 |
| Alex Delvecchio | DET | 70 | 31 | 0,44 | 18 | 9 | 238 | 13 |
| Norm Ullman | DET | 70 | 31 | 0,44 | 24 | 7 | 259 | 12 |
| Bobby Rousseau | MTL | 70 | 30 | 0,43 | 20 | 10 | 256 | 11,7 |
| Stan Mikita | CHI | 68 | 30 | 0,44 | 18 | 11 | 244 | 12,3 |
| Jean Beliveau | MTL | 67 | 29 | 0,43 | 16 | 13 | 267 | 10,9 |
| Gordie Howe | DET | 70 | 29 | 0,41 | 22 | 7 | 274 | 10,6 |
| Bob Nevin | NYR | 69 | 29 | 0,42 | 20 | 8 | 221 | 13,1 |
| Bob Pulford | TOR | 70 | 28 | 0,4 | 15 | 11 | 238 | 11,8 |
Hull is in a league of his own here but his competition is weak. 07-08 is an outstanding goalscoring year from OV, but I think Stamkos in 2011-12 is better in pure goalscoring terms. The reason Stamkos this year is so forgotten is because he was completely overshadowed by Malkin. This is goalscoring leaders in 11-12 without Malkin (and Neal).
| Player | Team | GP | G | GPG | EVG | PPG | S | S% |
| Steven Stamkos | TBL | 82 | 60 | 0,73 | 48 | 12 | 303 | 19,8 |
| Marian Gaborik | NYR | 82 | 41 | 0,5 | 31 | 10 | 276 | 14,9 |
| Alex Ovechkin | WSH | 78 | 38 | 0,49 | 25 | 13 | 303 | 12,5 |
| Scott Hartnell | PHI | 82 | 37 | 0,45 | 21 | 16 | 232 | 16 |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | NJD | 77 | 37 | 0,48 | 24 | 10 | 310 | 11,9 |
| Corey Perry | ANA | 80 | 37 | 0,46 | 22 | 14 | 277 | 13,4 |
| Phil Kessel | TOR | 82 | 37 | 0,45 | 27 | 10 | 295 | 12,5 |
| Matt Moulson | NYI | 82 | 36 | 0,44 | 22 | 14 | 219 | 16,4 |
| Erik Cole | MTL | 82 | 35 | 0,43 | 24 | 11 | 241 | 14,5 |
| Michael Ryder | DAL | 82 | 35 | 0,43 | 28 | 7 | 211 | 16,6 |
Suddenly this looks like one of the very very best years ever in goalscoring and up there with Hull in dominance. Stamkos would have had a impressive lead in goals by his even strength scoring alone. This is not to say that Stamkos peaked higher than OV as a player, but since we are just talking about goalscoring I think Stamkos was more dominant than OV at their best.
The reason this is not talked about more is because Stamkos was a worse player than OV so he doesn't get the credit he probably deserves and of course Malkin who made Stamkos' goalscoring lead seem a bit less amazing. Here are the goalscoring leaders over the last half of the season with Stamkos dominating everyone except Malkin.
| 2012-01-01 to end of season | GP | G | GPG | EVG | PPG | S | S% |
| Evgeni Malkin | 44 | 35 | 0,8 | 28 | 7 | 190 | 18,4 |
| Steven Stamkos | 45 | 34 | 0,76 | 27 | 7 | 175 | 19,4 |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | 45 | 25 | 0,56 | 16 | 6 | 189 | 13,2 |
| Corey Perry | 43 | 23 | 0,53 | 16 | 6 | 148 | 15,5 |
| Alex Ovechkin | 41 | 22 | 0,54 | 14 | 8 | 160 | 13,8 |
| Max Pacioretty | 43 | 22 | 0,51 | 19 | 3 | 161 | 13,7 |
| Jason Spezza | 41 | 21 | 0,51 | 15 | 6 | 109 | 19,3 |
| Michael Ryder | 45 | 20 | 0,44 | 15 | 5 | 128 | 15,6 |
| Scott Hartnell | 46 | 20 | 0,43 | 11 | 9 | 143 | 14 |
| Erik Cole | 43 | 19 | 0,44 | 14 | 5 | 120 | 15,8 |
Seeing Malkin not only outplaying but outscoring Stamkos probably kept people from really appreciating what Stamkos was doing. Stamkos still had a special year but Malkin robbed him of a really really legendary goalscoring season.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,640
- 10,273
Don't you find it a bit coincidental that in 75 years of hockey history, by far the largest 4 outlier seasons all came within 10 years of each other, and that 10 years just so happens to coincide with an unprecedented explosion in goal scoring?
Some excuse it because it was Lemieux and Gretzky, and right or wrong they are regarded as super humans far beyond the talent of any players since. But then here is Brett Hull - a mere mortal - accomplishing the same exact thing, and actually to an even greater degree than Gretzky or Lemieux (as is suggested by adjusted goals).
So I think there is more going on here.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,640
- 10,273
There is no need to look at seasons in isolation though. It boggles my mind how often people do it, despite readily available and directly comparable data from surrounding seasons (during times when environmental factors didn't significantly change).
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Actually 59 (Geoff Cortnall had 27 goals) but still remarkable.
Still Pavel Bure scoring 59 goals in a season where his closest teammate had 14 goals seems even more incredible to me.
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 1,799
- 1,802
in sports with consistent prestige and worldwide desire to win, wherein the measuring device is a static object or distance, you can easily see that humans only ever get so good. the dial doesnt go to 11.
if we look at the best runs in the 100m since the track, blocks and shoes have been consistent, we can see that the numbers are consistent for 40 years. Same goes for the clean and jerk. Outliers like Bolt, and perhaps Lasha T are the Gretzky/Lemieux’s, (for people who want the two greatest to come fromthe same time). they are much closer to the pack than we tend to think regarding our greats
filinski77
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2017
- 2,621
- 4,304
I agree that the top-end goalscoring was more watered down, but that doesn't necessarily make Stamkos' more impressive. It just means that his % leads are inflated due to a lack of good competition.
| Player | Goals | % lead | |
| 1st | Ovechkin | 65 | |
| 2nd | Kovalchuk | 52 | 25% |
| 3rd | Iginla | 50 | 30% |
| 4th | Malkin | 47 | 38% |
| 5th | Zetterberg | 43 | 51% |
| 10th | Lecavalier | 40 | 63% |
| 20th | Sundin | 32 | 103% |
| 30th | Hejduk | 29 | 124% |
| 50th | Horton | 27 | 141% |
| Player | Goals | % lead | |
| 1st | Stamkos | 60 | |
| 2nd | Malkin | 50 | 20% |
| 3rd | Gaborik | 41 | 46% |
| 4th | Neal | 40 | 50% |
| 5th | Ovechkin | 38 | 58% |
| 10th | Moulson | 36 | 67% |
| 20th | Parise | 31 | 94% |
| 30th | Kane | 30 | 100% |
| 50th | Glencross | 26 | 131% |
| Lead over: | Ovechkin | Stamkos | |
| 2nd | 25% | 20% | 5% |
| 3rd | 30% | 46% | -16% |
| 4th | 38% | 50% | -12% |
| 5th | 51% | 58% | -7% |
| 10th | 63% | 67% | -4% |
| 20th | 103% | 94% | 10% |
| 30th | 124% | 100% | 24% |
| 50th | 141% | 131% | 10% |
So there's a few takeaways here:
1) Ovechkin lead over #2 is better. If you went by goals/gp, Malkin missed 7 GP in Stamko's year, and the result would be Ovi having a 20% goal/gp gap over #2 and Stamkos having a 9% gap over #2
2) Stamkos had a better % lead over 3rd and 4th due to low quality top competition compared to Ovechkin
3) The differences from 5th and 10th are very close and are the difference of Stamko's lower quality competition scoring 1-2 goals less than Ovi's
4) Ovechkin had better leads from 20th place onwards.
I think this is at best a better performance by Ovechkin relative to his peers, and at worst its a draw.
Then when you add in the fact that Ovechkin had a higher actual goal total, a higher adjusted goal total, and the fact that he was doing more with less teammate help, this gets tipped in Ovechkins favour.
Outliers have to happen - rarely, but if we exclude Gretzky and Lemieux, the only true outlier is the best season of Brett Hull. Outside of that, the 2nd-best season of Brett Hull (and even the 2nd-best season of Lemieux) is really no different than the 2nd-best season of Ovechkin or the peak season of Bure.
I have also looked at the average % margins of #1 over #5 and #10: in 1970-1996 (high scoring environment) they were at 38% and 59%; in 1996-present (lower scoring environment) they were 27% and 44%.
This is consistent with your idea that the margins are higher in a higher-scoring environment; but this is also consistent with Gretzky/Lemieux/Brett Hull all peaking very high one after another.
So I then look at the average % margins of #2 over #5 and #10: 1970-1996 yield 16% and 33%, 1996-present yields 14% and 30%. That's a minuscule difference and makes me lean more towards "yes, Gretzky/Lemieux/Brett Hull just all coincidentally peaked very high within a 10-year period".
With that said, we may want to observe more and if Ovechkin margins of wins remain untouchable for another 20-30 years, we may want to then reevaluate and say that sometimes in mid-90s Brett Hull type of leads became impossible.
So far we have Matthews catch lightning in the bottle and post 37% lead over #5 and 58% lead over #10 - still behind Ovechkin in 2007/08 (51% and 63%) and even Ovechkin in 2014/15 (43% and 61%).
this is a very interesting take on things goal scoring and Ovechkin's place, at least when it was written in 2016.
Why Alex Ovechkin Is Not The Best Goal Scorer Ever
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Confirmed with Link: Sheldon Keefe Fired -- New Coach Discussion Thread- Latest: RomanianLeafs
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Gold Medal 2024 IIHF WORLD CHAMPION - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 7Staked: $36,600.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-