I'd be curious how that number changes as you decrease the Top X. Do their deviations above mean increase, decrease or stay the same when you compare to Top 50, Top 20 or Top 10?
Really interesting, but I think using the top 100 goal scorers ends up hurting the players in years with more teams. In a 30 team league, the top 100 scorers are almost all going to be top liners, whereas in a 20 team league, you're now looking at all top liners plus 2/3rds of the 2nd liners. Even if we don't assume a secondary talent increase that coincides with the number of teams, we're still looking at likely more offensive opportunities and PP time for the same level players, which would increase their totals.
No it's not. There are statistical data that indicate that it's objectively more difficult to score in the NHL now than 30 years ago. There are no statistical data that indicate the effect of "modern training" on performance.
I don't have my calculator handy but I believe that 92 is better than 65.
Also, where does one purchase a calculator that answers which of two numbers is "better"?
I would imagine that there deviations would go down as we get into smaller and smaller sample sizes of elite numbers, that's just an assumption and I'll take a look cause I'm curious now.
That's a good point that I didn't consider, I'll make some smaller sample sizes and see what will happen.
I wanted to see how many goals Ovechkin would have if he played the same years as Gretzky. This is based off of Z-Scores from those respective years.
Age 20 Year - Gretzky Actual: 92 - Ovechkin Projected (63.47)
Age 21 Year - Gretzky Actual: 71 - Ovechkin Projected (57.95)
Age 22 Year - Gretzky Actual: 87 - Ovechkin Projected (81.26)
Age 23 Year - Gretzky Actual: 73 - Ovechkin Projected (79.28)
Age 24 Year - Gretzky Actual: 52 - Ovechkin Projected (66.06)
Age 25 Year - Gretzky Actual: 62 - Ovechkin Projected (38.74)
Age 26 Year - Gretzky Actual: 40 - Ovechkin Projected (49.25)
Age 27 Year - Gretzky Actual: 54 - Ovechkin Projected (75.29)
Age 28 Year - Gretzky Actual: 40 - Ovechkin Projected (74.89)
Age 29 Year - Gretzky Actual: 41 - Ovechkin Projected (78.01)
Age 30 Year - Gretzky Actual: 31 - Ovechkin Projected (66.29)
Gretzky actual age 20-30: 643
Ovechkin Projected age 20-30: 730.53
contrary to 99% of those on here..............I was THERE for both these eras.
Were you an Oilers (and Gretzky) fan during the 1980s, or is that a new thing?
I'd suggest that you are biased.
(To your point, there were many influences that altered the scoring environment between the late 1970s and the early 1980s).
Gretzky worked on his hockey conditioning by playing hockey.
He had a single-minded focus on hockey. This idea that he was a skinny slow weakling is approaching caricature levels.
Gretzky had exceptional endurance and recovery, outstanding quickness and agility etc.
Being a bulky gym rat may make you able to bench more but it doesn't necessarily make you a better hockey player.
Ovechkin hardly looked like a model of fitness himself a couple of years ago when he was still popping 50 in this league.
If the goal is simply to get the biggest number, Tony Hand had 105 one year. Better than Gretzky!
Or you could, you know, read the thread so that you actually know what's going on here.
Also, where does one purchase a calculator that answers which of two numbers is "better"?
What about you? Perhaps you could shed some light on where you are coming from by explaining your own experience instead of guessing at others motives.
Or you can waste everyone's time by trying to create a debate when there really isn't one. Gretzky was and will always be considered light years better than Ovechkin at the game of hockey by most people. The rest of this mumbo jumbo is tedious and irrelevant.
I don't have my calculator handy but I believe that 92 is better than 65.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html
In 1982 the average Goals a team scored per game was 4.01
In 2008 the average Goals a team scored per game was 2.78
If I had to prorate Gretzky's total in 2008 numbers I would say he would have got 92 * (2.78/4.01) = 63.78 goals so given prorating really isn't 100% accurate(it just gives you a rough idea) I would say his 92 goals was more impressive since my unscientific model basically say they relatively even(especially when you factor in the 2 extra games in which case Gretzky would have 65.38 goals over 82 games)
Avalanche fan, Canucks fan before that. I've always been a fan of the Oilers, actually, and have no love for the Capitals.
More relevant to this, I think that Wayne Gretzky's the best player in the history of the sport.
And although I was giving you any possible benefit of the doubt, I wasn't guessing at your motives.