Player with the most impressive on-ice Goal Differential?

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
As I've mentioned in a few threads, I find very interesting to look at players' total on-ice goals for and against, as I think this gives us -- esp. in reasonably large sample sizes -- the "real" measurement of a player's impact on the team. While one could fairly argue that this disadvantages the checking forward and the defensive defenceman, who have tough match-ups and rarely get power-play time, I find the reverse situation (measuring the mostly offensive player only by his 5-on-5 results) to be even more misleading. So, I'm going to try to rank some random notable players first by their total goals for/against, and then I'll do a second list according to the same but with Power-play goals against taken out, to see if that makes any big difference.

This is also an interesting way of looking at "scoring" stats in that, unlike most such stats, it probably favors contemporary players and specifically disadvantages players of the higher-scoring era. Players' roles tended to be more limited in early expansion and again nowadays, whereas in the 80s/90s it seemed to be more of a thing to have your 1st line out against the other team's 1st line, etc. Top-scorers also rarely kill penalties now.

Anyway, after looking at random players' career stats, I'm wondering how many players (with substantially long careers) have finished with a positive on-ice goal differential of 2 to 1 or better? That is, players who were on the ice for twice as many goals for as against over a career. It has to be a very short list.

I tend to start with Bobby Orr in these things, as the ice was so tilted when he was on. His career totals come out to: 1651 goals for and 781 goals against (those specific numbers aren't available, that I can find, for his rookie season, but since he was +1 overall, they probably wouldn't make a huge difference). That's incredibly impressive. It makes a ratio of 2.11 -- 1 for his career. Now, granted it was a short career of mostly prime only, but even in his 26 games with Chicago he was at 50 for and 25 against, which is ridiculous considering how banged up he was and how average the Hawks were.

However, Mike Bossy was at -- in a short career -- 2.50 -- 1. Pretty amazing, even though he almost never killed penalties.

Guy Lafleur: a ratio of 2.28 -- 1, even better than Orr's and with a considerably longer career! However, he also rarely killed penalties. And before praising Lafleur too much for his goal-differential dominance, we should pause to note that Steve Shutt's totals are 1264 for and 563 against, for a 2.25 -- 1 ratio, which is also better than Orr. So, we have a situation with Lafleur and Shutt where they played most of their careers on a hugely dominant team and were not really ever used in defensive situations. Still, pretty impressive career numbers! And I should note that Lafleur was still a huge plus on the so-so Rangers in the late 80s, and even a small plus on horror-bad Quebec his last two seasons.

Then, I found a more recent player whose numbers are off the charts: Peter Forsberg! Albeit he also had a shortened career, he did play regularly until age 34 (and briefly at 37), and his numbers come out to 1139 for and 559 against, for a ratio of 2.04 -- 1. That's impressive.

Here is a list of random players' ratios for career totals, ranked according to positive ratio, including the 5 players above, who are the only ones I've come across who are at 2.00 -- 1 or better for career:

2.50 Mike Bossy
2.28 Guy Lafleur
2.25 Steve Shutt
2.11 Bobby Orr (lacking data from first season)
2.04 Peter Forsberg
_________________

1.93 Sidney Crosby
1.89 Alex Ovechkin
1.84 Evgeni Malkin
1.83 Eric Lindros
1.80 Jaromir Jagr
1.64 Patrick Kane
1.63 Bryan Trottier (1.79 in New York)
1.62 Phil Esposito (lacking data from first four seasons in Chicago)
1.61 Bobby Clarke
1.59 Mario Lemieux
1.58 Denis Potvin
1.56 Nicklas Lidstrom
1.56 Sergei Fedorov
1.54 Wayne Gretzky (1.79 in Edmonton)
1.54 Larry Robinson
1.53 Paul Coffey
1.52 Ray Bourque
1.51 Peter Stastny
1.48 Connor McDavid
1.46 Joe Sakic (1.74 in Colorado)
1.40 Steve Yzerman

On the other side, some players are surprisingly unimpressive (attributable to various reasons, of course, but nevertheless):
1.19 Chris Chelios
1.19 Erik Karlsson
1.18 Mark Messier
1.18 Scott Stevens

**********
Okay, so now let's take those same random 30 players and re-rank them after taking away Power-play goals against (the purpose being to even the playing field of those who regular killed penalties and those who didn't, in theory). Obviously, everyone's ratio will get better (though Steve Shutt and Patrick Kane were only on the ice for 3 PP goals against their entire careers, so barely better), but the question is how will the rankings change?

So, then, it shakes down like this:

3.18 Bobby Orr (lacking data from first season)
2.64 Mike Bossy
2.62 Bobby Clarke
2.54 Peter Forsberg
2.35 Guy Lafleur
2.29 Denis Potvin
2.26 Steve Shutt
2.26 Nicklas Lidstrom
2.24 Ray Bourque
2.21 Bryan Trottier (2.38 in New York)
2.18 Sergei Fedorov
2.11 Eric Lindros
2.04 Sidney Crosby
2.03 Larry Robinson
_________________

1.96 Mario Lemieux
1.94 Phil Esposito (lacking data from first four seasons in Chicago)
1.93 Alex Ovechkin
1.92 Wayne Gretzky (2.27 in Edmonton)
1.92 Jaromir Jagr
1.91 Evgeni Malkin
1.87 Chris Chelios
1.85 Steve Yzerman
1.83 Paul Coffey
1.81 Joe Sakic (2.11 in Colorado)
1.72 Mark Messier
1.67 Scott Stevens
1.64 Patrick Kane
1.64 Connor McDavid
1.63 Peter Stastny

Chelios, Messier, and Stevens are somewhat redeemed in this measure, but still somewhat low is:

1.36 Erik Karlsson


Any interesting or surprising takeaways here? Only 4 players out of the 30 I selected never won the Stanley Cup, and the only two who never won for a complete career are Lindros and Stastny, which I think makes Lindros's excellent ratio all the more impressive.

However you measure these things, though, Bobby Orr tends to blow everyone away. With the usual caveats for the relatively early expansion era, etc., in 1970-71 Orr was on the ice for 258 Bruins' goals for and 55 non-PP goals against. That is insane. (The following season it's 209 - 54.) If Orr hadn't been charged with killing penalties at all, then in his peak years he would have, on average, been on the ice for 4 or 5 Bruins' goals for every 1 the opposition scored.

In 1977, Guy Lafleur was at 179 goals for and 43 non-PP goals against (actually, that's total goals against, as he didn't kill penalties at all, it seems), a ratio of about 4.16 -- 1, which is nutty good. Of course, everyone on the '77 Habs will look good in these sorts of stats.

Gretzky, in 1985, hit numbers like 249 goals for and 90 non-PP goals against, which is also incredible (2.77), but that season aside he never gets beyond about 2.5 goals for versus 1 against for any season.

In 2003, Forsberg was at 138 for and 42 against (3.29), which is incredibly good.

Crosby's numbers are really great in the 2012 and 2013 mini-seasons (injury + lockout). Those two partial seasons combined, he's at 119 for and 42 against, or a 2.83 ratio, but that's a small sample size.

Ovechkin at 2.27 in 2008.



**********

Anyway, just an interesting way to look at it. Thoughts, comments...?

And does anyone know any other players (besides Bossy, Lafleur, Shutt, Orr, Forsberg) who have a career ratio of 2.0 -- 1 or better?
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I find the ones impressive are Orr, for obvious reasons. Bourque comes to mind as well because he was put in all situations on teams where he not only was the defensive star but sometimes needed to be the offensive star. In other words, he is killing penalties constantly and needing to run the power play.

Forsberg's is off the charts too, but there needs to be context. He didn't kill penalties at all for the second half of his career. I don't know why, because he did in the first half. Different coaches I guess? Same with Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin. Very impressive and what you would expect from them. But none of them barely killed any penalties, Crosby the most out of the three and I honestly don't know why coaches never used him more in that situation unless they were afraid he'd get hurt blocking a shot, but either way they didn't do this. Which is why I am a little more impressed with Phil Esposito in this regards because he did kill a lot of penalties. Lindros' is impressive too because he killed more than Crosby, Malkin or Lindros. However, he also has the advantage of not playing in his old age and playing partial seasons.

Fedorov impresses me too because he killed tons of penalties and nice pick up with Coffey too just in case people want to criticize him. He played in all situations too and until the last few years of his career killed penalties. So his numbers are impressive in that context too.

Surprised Bossy was that high. True he never played shorthanded but he still sticks out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Bourque comes to mind as well because he was put in all situations on teams where he not only was the defensive star but sometimes needed to be the offensive star.
It's interesting that Bourque's and Lidstrom's differentials -- both overall and (esp.) when PP-goals against are wiped out -- come out almost exactly the same, a negligible difference. The two players are often compared to one another, and this kind of shows why.

But I think Bourque's result here is actually more impressive than Lidstrom's in that he didn't always play on very deep, solid teams, as Lidstrom kind of did from start to finish in his career.

It would be interesting to compare that Bourque number to his defensive peers on the Bruins over certain time-samples (say, 5 years at a time or whatever). Then, to compare Lidstrom to his peers similarly.

Of course, I don't have time to do this.
 

bathdog

Registered User
Oct 27, 2016
920
157
Great post, and very interesting subject indeed. Refreshing to read something that isn't only about individual scoring.

I haven't had time to really dig in, read, and reflect over your post in detail, but will do so when I have time. I glanced over the lists and I've been reflecting a bit about this recently. I've never doubted Ovechkin's offensive abilities, but he's far from great defensively, and he's good but not otherworldly possesion player in the traditional sense, but his numbers seems a bit odd as I've expected GA to drag him down a bit more than they seem to do in this regard.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,552
2,174
Thanks for putting this together, Panther.

Personally, I’m a very big believer in this kind of data-based analysis. Yes, all of the usual caveats and situational adjustments need to be kept in mind, but so often the results tell us so much about a player’s value.

Example: Mike Bossy. I’ve maintained for a long time that his play off the puck was first rate and that he did so many little things right that wouldn’t show up in the traditional stat line but, over time, quietly and efficiently contributed to victories.

Any chance you have run the numbers for Mark Howe?
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Any chance you have run the numbers for Mark Howe?
Yes! (These numbers are easily available on Hockey-Reference.com.)

Mark Howe's career total (NHL only) is 1696 goals for and 1178 against, or a 1.45 ratio.

Taking away his PP-goals against, his ratio improves to an excellent 2.07.

(His numbers are hurt a bit by his first three NHL seasons in Hartford where his numbers weren't very impressive.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerBruce

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
For kicks :
Michel Goulet is 1,54 with PP-goals against, and 1,75 without PP-goals against.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,579
18,346
Las Vegas
Bergeron surprisingly low at 1.42 but jumps to 1.99 without PP-goals against.

Looks like he is dragged down by being on bad Bruins teams early on.

His total ratio is a tale of 2 halves:

pre 2010-11: 1.19 (424 for and 355 against)
post 2010-11: 1.85 (762 for and 477 against)

From 2010-11 on, his ratio minus PP against is an absurd 2.23, right behind the rates of Lidstrom and Bourque

side note, looking at this reminded me how ridiculous his 2012-13 season was.

42 games
44 TGF
17 TGA (13 GA minus PPGA)

Thats a pace of 88 TGF and 34 TGA, or 2.58 (3.38 ratio minus PPGA)
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,552
2,174
Yes! (These numbers are easily available on Hockey-Reference.com.)

Mark Howe's career total (NHL only) is 1696 goals for and 1178 against, or a 1.45 ratio.

Taking away his PP-goals against, his ratio improves to an excellent 2.07.

(His numbers are hurt a bit by his first three NHL seasons in Hartford where his numbers weren't very impressive.)

Thanks for running the Howe numbers.

Another way of expressing the ratio is as a “Scoring Event Percentage”

Example: over the course of his career, Howe was on the ice for 2,874 scoring events. 1,696 of these were goals for. 59.01% positive percentage.

Remove power play goals against and Howe is on the ice for 2,517 scoring events. 1696 were goals for. 67.38% positive percentage.

If you want to do this for Gretzky, we have 60.06% positive percentage over his career (5805 total scoring events, 3520 were goals for). Remove power play goals against (447) and Gretzky is on the ice for 5358 scoring events. 3520 were goals for. 65.69% positive percentage.
 

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,491
10,045
There is going to be a lot of team-based noise in these stats relative to the individual. It's no coincidence that there is a strong correlation between this list and players from dynasties.

The most impressive to me are the guys making this list despite not having a great supporting cast.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,410
5,068
I've never doubted Ovechkin's offensive abilities, but he's far from great defensively, and he's good but not otherworldly possesion player in the traditional sense, but his numbers seems a bit odd as I've expected GA to drag him down a bit more than they seem to do in this regard

Ovechkin played most of is career on really good teams that help that metric, but also peak Ovechkin had really good EV possesion metric (he create lot of shot) and goal for - goal against ratio (could lead is team with 70% type of performance), it is later that he became a mediocre even strength player some season.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Interesting approach. Gretzky and Lemieux sag
I would say Gretzky and Lemieux are about what I'd expect given that each played about half their careers on bad teams. You'll notice those top-5 guys never played on a losing team in their careers (well, Lafleur did [barely] once in Montreal and then for 98 games with Quebec, and Forsberg once for only 40 games).

I would say Forsberg, Lindros, and Crosby come out extremely well here. Sure, Forsberg played on all good teams, but so did someone like Lidstrom, and Forsberg is way ahead him in a positive ratio. Lindros (like Bossy) is a bit in that 'short career' problem that skews it a bit, but considering he played on five losing teams in thirteen (really more like eleven) seasons, his high rating is pretty amazing. Crosby as well, though, again so far he's played on all good teams (except that dreadful one his first season).

Orr for the win, though.
 

bathdog

Registered User
Oct 27, 2016
920
157
Ovechkin played most of is career on really good teams that help that metric, but also peak Ovechkin had really good EV possesion metric (he create lot of shot) and goal for - goal against ratio (could lead is team with 70% type of performance), it is later that he became a mediocre even strength player some season.

All true, but that's about 3/14 seasons at that level, and while his teams were generally good, I didn't think he'd stack up quite so well in this regard (relatively speaking), considering the Pens GD is actually a little bit greater than the Caps seen over the whole span.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
For kicks :
Michel Goulet is 1,54 with PP-goals against, and 1,75 without PP-goals against.

That one actually surprises me. Not because Goulet wasn't a great player but his teams were mostly just good, not great. Plus he and Stastny usually weren't on the same line.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,552
2,174
Here’s a fun and instructive comparison of two defensive specialists who were contemporaries.

One played on a team that won multiple Stanley Cups (including a dynasty run) and the other played on a usually good/very good team that didn’t reach anything close to the same heights.

Bob Gainey (born 1953, rookie in 1973, 1160 career games) and Craig Ramsay (born 1951, rookie in 1971, 1070 career games).

Let’s compare:

Gainey was on the ice for 897 goals for and 992 goals against. That’s a “negative” ratio — 0.904:1 over his career.

Ramsay was on the ice for 1002 goals for and 934 goals against. That’s a “positive” ratio — 1.07:1 over his career.

Slight edge to Ramsay.

But both players were known to be go-to penalty killers, so let’s see how the comparison shakes out when we adjust for power play goals against.

Gainey was on the ice for an astounding 344 power play goals against over his career. That’s 34.6% of his 992 total!

Remove these power play goals allowed and Gainey’s career ratio becomes 1.622:1 — that’s very good.

But Ramsay’s numbers without the power play markers are even better.

Ramsay was on the ice for 367 power play goals against over his career. That’s 39.2% of his 934 career total. Wow.

Remove these power play goals allowed and Ramsay’s career ratio leaps to 1.76:1 — even better than Gainey!

Does this mean Ramsay was a better player than Gainey, career wise? Nope.

But the comparison offers an interesting take on 2 players who filled similar roles on teams that experienced different championship fortunes.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
It's interesting to do this with one team in one season, for comparison purposes. The first team I regularly watched was the 1986-87 Oilers. Here's how their regulars' goal-differential ratios break down, with the non-Power Play-goals-against ratio in parenthesis on the right:

2.31 Esa Tikkanen (2.31)
2.00 Kent Nilsson (2.17) *only 17 games played
1.94 Reijo Ruotsalainen (2.20)
*only 16 games played
1.90 Glenn Anderson (2.02)
1.89 Wayne Gretzky (2.44)
1.85 Mike Krushelnyski (2.02)
1.75 Jari Kurri (2.00)
1.46 Charlie Huddy (2.07)
1.35 Paul Coffey (1.81)
1.32 Kevin Lowe (1.87)
1.29 Randy Gregg (2.14)
1.26 Craig Muni (1.77)
1.20 Mark Messier (1.86)
1.11 Jeff Beukeboom (1.20)
1.08 Steve Smith (1.37)
1.00 Raimo Summanen (1.00)
0.90 Kevin McLelland (0.90)
0.83 Mark Napier (1.16)
0.81 Craig MacTavish (1.30)
0.78 Marty McSorley (0.78)
0.60 Dave Hunter (1.03)

Esa Tikkanen looks pretty good here! This was the first season he was on the Gretzky/Kurri line, and it may be a thing where Sather would double-shift Gretzky and Kurri in various situations, but might not do so with Tikkanen, who was only a sophomore at this point. I don't know, but anyway, nice positive ratio! Gretzky has easily the best ratio when PP goals-against are discounted (he was on ice for 27 PP goals against). Charlie Huddy was the best for defencemen, but Randy Gregg was a bit better when PP goals-against are discounted.

Short-handed offense (quite rare at the best of times) is not taken into account by my ratios, so I suppose Gretzky's 13 short-handed points (and Messier's 10) probably should also work for their main ratio, since each of those 'points' would negate a PP-goal scored against Edmonton, if you will. But there's no really accurate way to find out who was on the ice (and didn't get a point) for every SH goal scored, so forget it!

What to make of Craig MacTavish's and Dave Hunter's noticeably poor ratios (esp. Hunter's)? MacTavish had had all positive ratios in all his seasons prior (including the previous season, his first in Edmonton), but starting in 1986-87 he has all negative ratios for the rest of his career. Obviously, he was being primarily used as a checking center and taking tough face-offs in critical situations. At five-on-five he was +9, and he did score almost 40 points, so it wasn't like he had no offensive upside. Great player in the late-80s, though, this kind of stat isn't doing him justice, clearly. Hunter, I have a harder time figuring out, but he also was used as a checker, though I think not as much by 1986-87 as earlier in the 1980s. He was probably losing a step around this time, too.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
I did my own research on this very thing about six months ago, although including only Yzerman, Fedorov, Sakic, Forsberg and Lindros, and I did notice that Forsberg came out of that comparison as nonpareil. Then I threw his numbers against the ones of Mario's and Jagr's, and I realized that he really should have gotten one Selke at least.

He got kinda robbed in 97 (although playing only 65 games probably hurt him more than any possible "bias"). Still, a Selke or two would look good on his resume.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I would say Gretzky and Lemieux are about what I'd expect given that each played about half their careers on bad teams. You'll notice those top-5 guys never played on a losing team in their careers (well, Lafleur did [barely] once in Montreal and then for 98 games with Quebec, and Forsberg once for only 40 games).

I would say Forsberg, Lindros, and Crosby come out extremely well here. Sure, Forsberg played on all good teams, but so did someone like Lidstrom, and Forsberg is way ahead him in a positive ratio. Lindros (like Bossy) is a bit in that 'short career' problem that skews it a bit, but considering he played on five losing teams in thirteen (really more like eleven) seasons, his high rating is pretty amazing. Crosby as well, though, again so far he's played on all good teams (except that dreadful one his first season).

Orr for the win, though.

Chicken and egg issue. What came first?
 

double5son10

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
1,149
456
Denver
Here’s a fun and instructive comparison of two defensive specialists who were contemporaries.

One played on a team that won multiple Stanley Cups (including a dynasty run) and the other played on a usually good/very good team that didn’t reach anything close to the same heights.

Bob Gainey (born 1953, rookie in 1973, 1160 career games) and Craig Ramsay (born 1951, rookie in 1971, 1070 career games).

Let’s compare:

Gainey was on the ice for 897 goals for and 992 goals against. That’s a “negative” ratio — 0.904:1 over his career.

Ramsay was on the ice for 1002 goals for and 934 goals against. That’s a “positive” ratio — 1.07:1 over his career.

Slight edge to Ramsay.

But both players were known to be go-to penalty killers, so let’s see how the comparison shakes out when we adjust for power play goals against.

Gainey was on the ice for an astounding 344 power play goals against over his career. That’s 34.6% of his 992 total!

Remove these power play goals allowed and Gainey’s career ratio becomes 1.622:1 — that’s very good.

But Ramsay’s numbers without the power play markers are even better.

Ramsay was on the ice for 367 power play goals against over his career. That’s 39.2% of his 934 career total. Wow.

Remove these power play goals allowed and Ramsay’s career ratio leaps to 1.76:1 — even better than Gainey!

Does this mean Ramsay was a better player than Gainey, career wise? Nope.

But the comparison offers an interesting take on 2 players who filled similar roles on teams that experienced different championship fortunes.

I have seen the Gainey/Ramsay comparison before on these pages but I'm not sure I altogether agree that they played similar roles, in spite of both being defensive minded LWers. Ramsay spent much of the early part of his career on the Sabres #2 scoring line w/ Don Luce, a tremendous two-way player in his own right, and 50-goal scorer Danny Gare. Though Ramsay was always an excellent PKer he didn't fill a purely checking role on Buffalo until after age 30. Gainey would occasionally get moved up in the lineup for defensive zone draws or to help drive play but he was almost exclusively a 3rd line checking forward his whole career. So I'm not surprised to see Ramsay have a better goal-differential. He was obviously a better scorer than Gainey, but he was also playing with better scoring linemates on an actual scoring line for half his career, opportunities Gainey never had (though I doubt Gainey would've excelled more in a scoring role, he just didn't have the hands. He was valuable enough in the bottom 6. But maybe he goes from a 15-20 goal 35-40 point scorer to 20-25g, 45-50pt. scorer.)
 
Last edited:

TheEye

Registered User
Nov 4, 2018
191
132
Interesting approach. Gretzky and Lemieux sag

Chicken and egg issue. What came first?

Well, colour me shocked on this take. You really should restrain yourself a little more as it's patently obvious that you can't hide your jealously when a number of hockey's more contemporary players are consistently elevated above those in your bygone era.

Your starting point in all discussions is always from a point of conclusion, only inserting information that supports your hypothesis, while disregarding all other provided information. A good scientist you will never make. Fret nonetheless, as there's definitely a place on the cherry farm for those of your persuasion.

There are so many variables to consider here, it's shocking that one would simply want to take this analysis at face value. For example, even when considering strength of team, coaching style also comes into play. Not to mention the fact that the leader here played in an era when professional hockey expanded from 6 to 32 teams over a seven year period, with the equivalent of a few NHL teams (player volume) defecting to the rival professional league. Even with this consideration, to his detriment, comparing the said player to others during his era is very difficult, as he obviously has no comparable peer during that period, especially one playing the same position, on a similarly strong team, coached in the same fashion.

That said, if you're taking this data at face value, you're welcome to build your franchise around Steve Shutt and Guy Lafleur. I'll take Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux please. Good luck.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Is that you, Panther?
No, it's not -- I spell "color" the American way!

Look, we all know Canadiens1958 worships Henri Richard and has a life-size idol of him in his basement what he bows to daily. So, let's run the ratio for Sir Henri... unfortunately, unless somebody else has them, Hockey-Ref has his numbers only from 1967-68 through his final year in 1974-75 (when he played only 16 games). Still, the dude played on 11 Cup teams, right? I'm assuming he's gonna have some decent numbers:

Overall: 1.53
minus PP-goals against: 1.57

So, he's a little lower than Michel Goulet, but at least he's higher than Erik Karlsson!
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
No, it's not -- I spell "color" the American way!

Look, we all know Canadiens1958 worships Henri Richard and has a life-size idol of him in his basement what he bows to daily. So, let's run the ratio for Sir Henri... unfortunately, unless somebody else has them, Hockey-Ref has his numbers only from 1967-68 through his final year in 1974-75 (when he played only 16 games). Still, the dude played on 11 Cup teams, right? I'm assuming he's gonna have some decent numbers:

Overall: 1.53
minus PP-goals against: 1.57

So, he's a little lower than Michel Goulet, but at least he's higher than Erik Karlsson!


Prime 13 seasons should be available on NHL.com
 

Vujtek

Registered User
Oct 7, 2007
3,540
627
I tend to start with Bobby Orr in these things, as the ice was so tilted when he was on. His career totals come out to: 1651 goals for and 781 goals against (those specific numbers aren't available, that I can find, for his rookie season, but since he was +1 overall, they probably wouldn't make a huge difference). That's incredibly impressive. It makes a ratio of 2.11 -- 1 for his career. Now, granted it was a short career of mostly prime only, but even in his 26 games with Chicago he was at 50 for and 25 against, which is ridiculous considering how banged up he was and how average the Hawks were.

Team Goals For/Against statistics are available at NHL.com from 1959-60 season onwards. They have GF stats for earlier years as well there but those are based on only the amount of points they collected, so they're nothing more than raw estimates, basically minimums. But from 1959-60 season onwards they are official numbers. For Bobby Orr's rookie season he was on ice for 99 goals for, on ice for 95 goals against, on ice for 29 PP goals for, on ice for 26 PP goals against.

Including that rookie season for Orr, his career total falls just below the 2.00 threshold. He sits at 1749 GF and 877 GA, a ratio of 1.994.

Seems like the numbers you have (from Hockey-Reference?) are on same cases off by a goal or two. NHL.com gives Steve Shutt 1265 goals for, one more that you had. Those numbers you listed for Guy Lafleur in 1977 are also off by one (NHL.com gives him 178 GF and 42 non-PP GA). So there seems to be slight differences between NHL.com and Hockey-Reference there. Nothing extreme though but I'd give NHL.com preference as they are the official statistics.

Here's the direct link to NHL.com Plus/Minus-statistics: http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=teamGoalsFor
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->