What probability do you feel Ovechkin has to catch Gretzky now?

[Hank Plank]

New NHL record for Ovi

Ovi scored his 242th goal in the 1st period.
Gretzky is now 2nd.

242th? Did he also do it at the eleventy twelfth mark?

 

[Zuluss]

Ovechkin has an all-time great slapshot, but if he isn't the guy that I want with the puck on his stick to win any given game, how can I call him the greatest goalscorer?

The guy you want with the puck on his stick is Gretzky, the best playmaker of all time.
But that seems irrelevant to the question of who is the best goal-scorer of all-time.
Ask yourself a different question: who will you have Gretzky pass the puck to to rip off a shot?

It makes a difference in my mind, too, that Ovie has unloaded a factory more pucks on the net than so many of the other stalwarts of history.

Yes, that's what makes OV the best goal-scorer ever: he always finds a way to put a puck on the net.
Howe was this way too; we do not have the shots data for his prime years, but as a 35-year-old he was shooting the puck at a higher rate than 30-year-old Ovechkin. That's how Howe collected 14 top5 finishes in goals over his career (a feat Ovechkin will probably match this year).
There is no other way to score goals other than shooting the puck.

having watched Mario Lemieux throughout his career, he was a wizard with the puck and could beat a goalie any given way

Datsyuk was a wizard too; where does that put him among the best goalscorers of his generation?
There are no "style points"; garbage goals and highlight-reel goals, slapshots and breakaway goals count all the same.

 

[ItalianLeaf]

I can see him playing as good as selanne in his later years

 

[powerbomb]

The guy you want with the puck on his stick is Gretzky, the best playmaker of all time.
But that seems irrelevant to the question of who is the best goal-scorer of all-time.
Ask yourself a different question: who will you have Gretzky pass the puck to to rip off a shot?

I won't disagree that you want Gretzky reading the play with the puck on his stick that might win the game. If you are counting on his passing and vision, and an all-time great goalscorer, how can you lose? But like you said, it's irrelevant to the question of best goal scorer.

As for your question, yeah, I still want him feeding Lemieux the puck on a play he thinks will win the game, hands down. Ovechkin will hammer the puck; Lemieux's creativity will get the goal. Both might score, but I think the smart money's on #66.

Yes, that's what makes OV the best goal-scorer ever: he always finds a way to put a puck on the net.
Howe was this way too; we do not have the shots data for his prime years, but as a 35-year-old he was shooting the puck at a higher rate than 30-year-old Ovechkin. That's how Howe collected 14 top5 finishes in goals over his career (a feat Ovechkin will probably match this year).
There is no other way to score goals other than shooting the puck.

I wish there were stats on shots on goal throughout hockey history, as there's quite a dearth of statistical information when it comes to some of the historic greats dating back as far as Howe. Of course, Howe is known for his longevity playing professionally into his 50s. I never saw him in skates, so I can't comment on how the games played out or how he reached his many milestones, but the amount of inspiration he sowed across the world makes his greatness unassailable. He was a legend.

And while you indeed have to shoot the puck to score, it's worthwhile to consider the rate of success if the objective is to determine the all-time greatest succeeder in firing the puck into the cage. If one sniper hits 50 more targets than his rival but used 1,000 more bullets, it's not so impressive, is it?

Datsyuk was a wizard too; where does that put him among the best goalscorers of his generation?
There are no "style points"; garbage goals and highlight-reel goals, slapshots and breakaway goals count all the same.

Datsyuk was a marvel to watch. His hands were silky smooth, and he could rob a player and undress a goalie mere seconds apart. That doesn't automatically put him into the conversation of greatest all-time goalscorer, though. I think that Datsyuk's legacy was his defensive acumen combined with sheer smoothness in offensive talent. I've always wondered what his career might have looked like if he was in a run-and-gun team all his years, where he focused purely on scoring... but you're mistaken if you think end of game garbage goals should be considered just as seriously as chips-are-down impossible angle snipes when it comes to evaluating the greatest of the greats.

 

[Zuluss]

As for your question, yeah, I still want him feeding Lemieux the puck on a play he thinks will win the game, hands down. Ovechkin will hammer the puck; Lemieux's creativity will get the goal. Both might score, but I think the smart money's on #66.

I was just pointing out that a goal-scorer will probably not have "the puck on his stick" on a decisive play. Goal-scorers' job is to shoot; playmakers are more likely to carry the puck and have it on their stick in a decisive moment.
As for the quoted, one has to wonder why Ovechkin has more career goals despite playing in way lower-scoring era and way more goal-scoring titles than Lemieux. Somehow in real life Ovechkin's "hammering the puck" proved more effective in getting him goals than Lemieux' wizardry and creativity.

I wish there were stats on shots on goal throughout hockey history, as there's quite a dearth of statistical information when it comes to some of the historic greats dating back as far as Howe. Of course, Howe is known for his longevity playing professionally into his 50s. I never saw him in skates, so I can't comment on how the games played out or how he reached his many milestones, but the amount of inspiration he sowed across the world makes his greatness unassailable. He was a legend.

Howe's shots data are available starting with 1959/60. He was consistently shooting at higher than 5 shots per game clip (more than 400 shots in an 82-game season, and Ovechkin only topped 400 shots in 3 of 13 full seasons he played).
Gordie Howe Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Howe's shooting % was also pretty bad, even when he won his last goal-scoring title at the age of 34.
So if we are to discount Ovechkin's goalscoring because of high shots volume and low shooting %, we have to discount Howe's goalscoring even more.
And look, here is another volume shooter, Bobby Hull. By a strange coincidence, the third contender for best goal-scorer all-time besides Howe and Ovechkin.

And while you indeed have to shoot the puck to score, it's worthwhile to consider the rate of success if the objective is to determine the all-time greatest succeeder in firing the puck into the cage.

Take another look at Bobby Hull's and Howe's shooting %, this time after they moved to WHA. You see how much higher it is? That's because WHA goalies were bad and let in a lot of goals, it is not about Bobby and Gordie.
Similarly, players from higher scoring eras have higher shooting %, Lemieux and Gretzky included.

If one sniper hits 50 more targets than his rival but used 1,000 more bullets, it's not so impressive, is it?

No one is trying to hit a sniper's rifle or the sniper himself or throw something between the sniper and the target
In hockey, putting a shot on the net is hard, but when we see a team outshooting the opponent, we view it as a sign of that team being more active, dominating the game, etc, not as a sign of the team "wasting bullets".

but you're mistaken if you think end of game garbage goals should be considered just as seriously as chips-are-down impossible angle snipes when it comes to evaluating the greatest of the greats.

We probably need some statistics here - for example, I know that Ovechkin is currently 4th all-time in GWG and he is the only one in history to have 5 seasons with 10+ GWG
But that's not what I was talking about when I said style points do not matter. Beautiful and ugly goals count the same.

 

[Andon]

As for the quoted, one has to wonder why Ovechkin has more career goals despite playing in way lower-scoring era and way more goal-scoring titles than Lemieux. Somehow in real life Ovechkin's "hammering the puck" proved more effective in getting him goals than Lemieux' wizardry and creativity.

?? In real life Lemieux had cancer.

 

[GoldenSeal]

?? In real life Lemieux had cancer.

Lemieux Won Cups, Coached, GM'd, OWNED and kept the Pens in Pittsburg, HAD CANCER WHILE DOING IT AND BEAT THAT TOO. Everyone's excuses mean nothing!

Super Mario is in a league ABOVE everyone else. Even Gretz gives him those props.

Compare whoever you want but there's not player/coach/manager/owner that compares to Mario. None.

 

[SeanConn]

I feel like his chances are still really good. He's totally capable of playing into his early 40's...

 

[Big Phil]

I considered it a long shot at best before the pandemic, I consider it a long shot at best after the pandemic. And frankly it wouldn't make a difference if he did or didn't surpass 894 with respect to who I consider the greatest goalscorer of all-time... and it's neither Wayne or Alex.

If you ask me who I trust to score a goal with the game on his stick in crunch time, which thusly must hold the mantle of best scorer of goals in NHL history, it's Mario Lemieux. Hands down, the most gifted goalscorer of all-time. Alex Ovechkin has absolutely put up incredible stats in his career, but those who insist that he's the greatest... either never watched Mario play or are addicted to watching the same highlight reel shot on loop. Without question, Ovie has one of the all-time greatest slapshots from the slot, which he has put on full display and his place in history is assured, but in my mind it will never be as the true GOAT when it comes to pure goalscoring talent.

It's not a knock on him because his talent is undeniable. He is a force every game. But that doesn't mean fans should simply forget greatness that has come before, either. You can have an absolute cannon for a shot, but nobody had the dynamic range of #66 when it came to putting the biscuit in the net.

All that being said, it's fun to watch Ovechkin any given night and I hope that he pushes for that record as hard as he possibly can. There's nothing I love more than seeing greatness shine.

That idea is shared with many. I am not sure anyone else was more reliable to score a goal than Mario either. 8 career penalty shots, scored on his first 5 and then on his last one. While I commend Ovechkin and others such as Bobby Hull for scoring goals in a variety of ways, the truth is no one had a wider range of doing it than Mario. He could slap it if he had to, sure, he could snap it, he could come down the wing and somehow put it over the goalie's shoulder in the top corner. He could come on a breakaway and wait for the goalie to flinch and then put it upstairs and off the post/crossbar and in or he would just use his long reach to deke the goalie out of his jock.

 

[Raym11]

Ovechkin will score his 895th goal in a wheelchair if he has to.

Beating a Gretzky record like goals/assists/points is a big event in the history of hockey. This might be the only one that is ever broken of the 3.

We might not see someone get this close for decades if he doesnt do it

The 2x lockouts and COVID... seriously


I would let a 45 year old Ovechkin clap away on the powerplay if i had to and leave him on the bench the rest of the game

 

[powerbomb]

As for the quoted, one has to wonder why Ovechkin has more career goals despite playing in way lower-scoring era and way more goal-scoring titles than Lemieux.Somehow in real life Ovechkin's "hammering the puck" proved more effective in getting him goals than Lemieux' wizardry and creativity.

Umm... one doesn't "have to wonder" for very long to understand: in case you somehow missed it, Mario Lemieux was struck down with cancer in the prime of his career. Thankfully, Alex Ovechkin and so many other great talents have never had to grapple with such a life altering diagnosis. Glossing over such a fact is evidence of either ignorance or a bad faith argument.

As for the rest of your post and the idea that a high shot volume is itself proof of glory, let's agree to disagree. I'm of the opinion that, if we are tasked with evaluating who is the greatest at scoring goals, it's relevant to consider data from a per shot perspective as well. Taking a default view that he who fires the puck more must therefore be the better scorer seems silly. With that in mind, here are some numbers you might find interesting...

Mario Lemieux scored 613 goals in 745 games when he first retired from the league at the end of 1997 at the age of 31, amounting to a goal every 0.82 games. This was accomplished on 3,054 shots, or a 20.1% clip.

Alex Ovechkin scored 558 goals in 921 games, in the season ending at the age of 31 (2016-17), amounting to a goal every 0.61 games. This was accomplished on 4,541 shots, or a 12.3% clip.

The only reason I'm parsing the statistics this way is because it gives a jumping off point for continuous NHL experience leading to a point where their peak window should have closed. Longevity is an element of Ovechkin's legacy, to be sure, but not getting cancer doesn't make him a better NHL goalscorer. Play the tape, crunch the numbers, do whatever voodoo you like... there's no way you can convince me that Ovechkin is a better pure goalscorer than Lemieux, not because of what the stats say, but because I watched the careers of both players. They are both great in their own way, tremendous talents worthy of the record books, but Le Magnifique was truly magnificent in his artistry when it came to finding a way to put the puck in the net. I don't know how anyone who watched them both play could say otherwise, but that's fine: there's no accounting for taste, everybody has their favorites, and besides it's impossible to objectively compare different eras in a way that satisfies everyone's sensibilities.

At any rate: it would be an incredible accomplishment for Ovechkin to surpass 894. I hope that he does because frankly everyone should root for records to be surpassed, but it wouldn't change the calculus of greatness based on what I've witnessed. To all players--past, present, and future--I only wish them good health and long life, as this game is merely a game, but being the best scorer of his generation should be enough, whatever side you fall on in such a debate.

 

[filinski77]

Umm... one doesn't "have to wonder" for very long to understand: in case you somehow missed it, Mario Lemieux was struck down with cancer in the prime of his career. Thankfully, Alex Ovechkin and so many other great talents have never had to grapple with such a life altering diagnosis. Glossing over such a fact is evidence of either ignorance or a bad faith argument.

As for the rest of your post and the idea that a high shot volume is itself proof of glory, let's agree to disagree. I'm of the opinion that, if we are tasked with evaluating who is the greatest at scoring goals, it's relevant to consider data from a per shot perspective as well. Taking a default view that he who fires the puck more must therefore be the better scorer seems silly. With that in mind, here are some numbers you might find interesting...

Mario Lemieux scored 613 goals in 745 games when he first retired from the league at the end of 1997 at the age of 31, amounting to a goal every 0.82 games. This was accomplished on 3,054 shots, or a 20.1% clip.

Alex Ovechkin scored 558 goals in 921 games, in the season ending at the age of 31 (2016-17), amounting to a goal every 0.61 games. This was accomplished on 4,541 shots, or a 12.3% clip.

The only reason I'm parsing the statistics this way is because it gives a jumping off point for continuous NHL experience leading to a point where their peak window should have closed. Longevity is an element of Ovechkin's legacy, to be sure, but not getting cancer doesn't make him a better NHL goalscorer. Play the tape, crunch the numbers, do whatever voodoo you like... there's no way you can convince me that Ovechkin is a better pure goalscorer than Lemieux, not because of what the stats say, but because I watched the careers of both players. They are both great in their own way, tremendous talents worthy of the record books, but Le Magnifique was truly magnificent in his artistry when it came to finding a way to put the puck in the net. I don't know how anyone who watched them both play could say otherwise, but that's fine: there's no accounting for taste, everybody has their favorites, and besides it's impossible to objectively compare different eras in a way that satisfies everyone's sensibilities.

At any rate: it would be an incredible accomplishment for Ovechkin to surpass 894. I hope that he does because frankly everyone should root for records to be surpassed, but it wouldn't change the calculus of greatness based on what I've witnessed. To all players--past, present, and future--I only wish them good health and long life, as this game is merely a game, but being the best scorer of his generation should be enough, whatever side you fall on in such a debate.

Comparing Mario's 0.82 goals/gp to Ovi's 0.61 is pretty disingenuous. If you adjust for the average goals in the league relative to the games that each player played in that same time-frame, you can see that Mario played on average in a 26.8% higher scoring league.

Adjusting for that brings Ovi to 0.77 goals/gp vs. Mario's 0.82. Plus Ovechkin played 24% more games in that same time-frame being compared. Although Mario does come out on top, the difference is now quite small. I've been on the record multiple times admitting that it would be fair to state that at either guys 100% best, that Mario was likely a bit better. But nobody is at their 100% best for their whole career. Which is why when you consider the "greatest" of all time at goalscoring, I think Ovi comes out on top.

At the end of the day, Ovi lead the league in goals 9 times (compared to Lemieux's 3). On a /gp basis, Ovi is still ahead 8-6, which still gives Mario the benefit of the doubt for all of the games he missed. I think it is completely fair that due the massive advantage that Ovi has in goal leads, goal/gp leads, goal finishes etc, that he is the greatest goal scorer ever (even if at their very bests, Lemieux may have been slightly better).

 

[powerbomb]

Comparing Mario's 0.82 goals/gp to Ovi's 0.61 is pretty disingenuous. If you adjust for the average goals in the league relative to the games that each player played in that same time-frame, you can see that Mario played on average in a 26.8% higher scoring league.

Adjusting for that brings Ovi to 0.77 goals/gp vs. Mario's 0.82. Plus Ovechkin played 24% more games in that same time-frame being compared. Although Mario does come out on top, the difference is now quite small. I've been on the record multiple times admitting that it would be fair to state that at either guys 100% best, that Mario was likely a bit better. But nobody is at their 100% best for their whole career. Which is why when you consider the "greatest" of all time at goalscoring, I think Ovi comes out on top.

At the end of the day, Ovi lead the league in goals 9 times (compared to Lemieux's 3). On a /gp basis, Ovi is still ahead 8-6, which still gives Mario the benefit of the doubt for all of the games he missed. I think it is completely fair that due the massive advantage that Ovi has in goal leads, goal/gp leads, goal finishes etc, that he is the greatest goal scorer ever (even if at their very bests, Lemieux may have been slightly better).

What you've just posted is no less "disingenuous" than what I did, except half the numbers you're citing are imaginary statistics (multiplication alone doesn't solve for the equation of all that is different between eras, hence the last sentence in the penultimate paragraph of my previous post) and the other half compares full season awards between one player who has been remarkably healthy (i.e. never missed more than a handful of games) and another player who was remarkably unhealthy (i.e. routinely missed TONS of games, again, on account of cancer)--or were you surprised that Lemieux didn't lead the league in goals during seasons he only played 60 games, or 26 games, or 22 games? It stands to reason that a player who plays more games and takes more shots will eventually net more goals, but that alone doesn't make a compelling case for who is the better pure goalscorer.

Also: you completely ignored the massive gulf in shooting percentages which was ironically the precise reason behind collating that data in the first place. My point being, if the greatest goalscorer of all-time is THE player most feared by goalies, THE player most likely to put any given puck into the back of the net, THE player you would handpick to deliver a goal in a pinch, why not go with the guy potting one out of every five shots from all across the offensive zone? It's honestly not altogether close in my mind, and it isn't because the numbers tell me so, it's because of the eye test: I was in constant awe of how Mario could light the lamp from some impossible angle any given night. I've never seen a player more electrifying.

And just to be clear, I love seeing Ovie play. He's fun to watch and has one of the all-time great slapshots. I think he's the best goalscorer of his generation, hands down. ...but just because it's been a long time since I saw Lemieux lace 'em up doesn't mean I've forgotten the dazzling magic he could conjure on the ice.

But once again: reasonable people can reach different conclusions based on how they interpret the question and how they weigh the variables. Everybody has their favorites and their own way of looking at things. Anyone who thinks they can "prove" one player was better than another based on some cockeyed formula needs a reality check. ...but I always enjoy a debate, so long as it's pursued in good faith.

 

[filinski77]

What you've just posted is no less "disingenuous" than what I did, except half the numbers you're citing are imaginary statistics (multiplication alone doesn't solve for the equation of all that is different between eras, hence the last sentence in the penultimate paragraph of my previous post) and the other half compares full season awards between one player who has been remarkably healthy (i.e. never missed more than a handful of games) and another player who was remarkably unhealthy (i.e. routinely missed TONS of games, again, on account of cancer)--or were you surprised that Lemieux didn't lead the league in goals during seasons he only played 60 games, or 26 games, or 22 games? It stands to reason that a player who plays more games and takes more shots will eventually net more goals, but that alone doesn't make a compelling case for who is the better pure goalscorer.

Also: you completely ignored the massive gulf in shooting percentages which was ironically the precise reason behind collating that data in the first place. My point being, if the greatest goalscorer of all-time is THE player most feared by goalies, THE player most likely to put any given puck into the back of the net, THE player you would handpick to deliver a goal in a pinch, why not go with the guy potting one out of every five shots from all across the offensive zone? It's honestly not altogether close in my mind, and it isn't because the numbers tell me so, it's because of the eye test: I was in constant awe of how Mario could light the lamp from some impossible angle any given night. I've never seen a player more electrifying.

And just to be clear, I love seeing Ovie play. He's fun to watch and has one of the all-time great slapshots. I think he's the best goalscorer of his generation, hands down. ...but just because it's been a long time since I saw Lemieux lace 'em up doesn't mean I've forgotten the dazzling magic he could conjure on the ice.

But once again: reasonable people can reach different conclusions based on how they interpret the question and how they weigh the variables. Everybody has their favorites and their own way of looking at things. Anyone who thinks they can "prove" one player was better than another based on some cockeyed formula needs a reality check. ...but I always enjoy a debate, so long as it's pursued in good faith.

I understand that adjusting for era is not perfect, but comparing raw goal/gp and raw shooting% across significantly different eras will never get you even a moderately reasonable comparison.

I understand Lemieux missed games, which is why I compared goal/gp leads as well, which even with giving Lemieux the benefit of the doubt for games he did not play in, Ovi still came out ahead.

I feel like you are too attached to shooting % in this case, because generating scoring chances and shots are just as important as the % of your shots that go in net. It's like saying that Marchand is a better goalscorer than Matthews this season, just because he has a higher shooting %.

"My point being, if the greatest goalscorer of all-time is THE player most feared by goalies, THE player most likely to put any given puck into the back of the net, THE player you would handpick to deliver a goal in a pinch, why not go with the guy potting one out of every five shots from all across the offensive zone?"

-> Like I said, I think you have a disconnect between the greatest, and the best. But I won't continue to repeat myself on this.
-> If you really felt this way, why wouldn't Bossy be your best goalscorer of all time? He had a much better shooting % than Lemieux did. Or Gretzky for this matter, who after 999 games played had more GP, more goals, and a higher shooting % (19.9%) than Lemieux did. Or is Gretzky penalized for his fall-off as a goalscorer in his 30's (where Mario did not play much here).

In the end, I don't think either of us is budging, but at least we agree that it is up for interpretation. I simply view that Ovi's goal totals (in a significantly lower scoring era), and the fact that his goal finishes are unmatched by anyone in league history is enough to say he's the "greatest", even if at his best he may not be the "best" (even if he's very close in that department too).

 

[powerbomb]

I'm not saying that shooting percentage is the end-all, be-all determining factor for goal scoring prowess. I do believe that it's a facet worthy of some level of consideration when framing a debate over who should hold the mantle of "greatest goalscorer of all time," however, particularly if there is a significant discrepancy between shots fired between players in question. To construct a three-dimensional view of anything, you need to combine various perspectives, of which this is merely one.

Unfortunately I didn't get to watch Mike Bossy play so I can't speak to the eye test which is much more important for me to offer an informed opinion. His numbers are eye popping, and that career shooting percentage does make it more impressive, but as I've said consistently: this is a debate that hinges on a lot more than one mathematical equation or mindless numerical comparison. There is no way to account for every variable when contrasting eras.

As far as the difference between "greatest" and "best," I'll pass on the opportunity to dive into a tangent on semantics and the nuance of how individuals use language, other than to say you might consider the fact that while this is something you may feel is an important or otherwise meaningful distinction it might be met with a shrug of the shoulders by others, much the same way that I can feel that the overall conversion rate of shots fired is relevant in determining who was the king of scoring goals whereas you prefer to downplay the significance of any such competing angle. Maybe it's something, maybe it's nothing, depending on who you ask and what biases they may have. I won't accuse you of any kind of "disconnect" for not agreeing with any particular point I've made, though, because it would be worthwhile not in the least. I'm willing to acknowledge and appreciate the diversity of argumentation. If you want to believe you own some foolproof formula for deciding who is the best at hockey decades apart, more power to you. Patent it, write a dissertation, and enjoy your ascent into the pantheon of great sports thinkers, you sly devil, you!

As for me... yeah, no. I don't think it's controversial to maintain that Mario Lemieux was the absolute greatest pure goalscoring talent the game of hockey ever saw. I can and do appreciate the legacy that Alex Ovechkin has built in his career, I hope that he cracks that once-thought untouchable record, and I'll miss watching him play when he retires. ...and then I'll continue to watch tremendous talents emerge and carve out their own slice of greatness, too, decade after decade as I enjoy my favorite sport, chiming in on rare occasion to offer my own thoughts, while privately pondering why I ever bother.

 

[HurricaneFanatic]

10 shots tonight. Good Lord.

I personally think Mario is the best goal scorer of all time, but staying healthy and being healthy has to count for something. Mario 690 goals in 3633 shots. C'mon... That's insane efficiency.

 

[Zuluss]

Umm... one doesn't "have to wonder" for very long to understand: in case you somehow missed it, Mario Lemieux was struck down with cancer in the prime of his career. Thankfully, Alex Ovechkin and so many other great talents have never had to grapple with such a life altering diagnosis. Glossing over such a fact is evidence of either ignorance or a bad faith argument.

So that's your explanation of why OV has 9 goal-scoring titles and Lemieux has 3 -- Lemieux had cancer and had to retire first time at 31, otherwise he would have collected the remaining 6 goal-scoring titles. Got it.

I'm of the opinion that, if we are tasked with evaluating who is the greatest at scoring goals, it's relevant to consider data from a per shot perspective as well. Taking a default view that he who fires the puck more must therefore be the better scorer seems silly.

The better goal scorer is the one who scores more goals (relative to his peers, if you are comparing across eras). It is that simple.

Lemieux finished top3 in goals 6 times in his career. Ovechkin finished top3 11 times.
Lemieux led #10 in goals by 40% or more 3 times in his career. Ovechkin did so 8 times.

Sorry, but you cannot use Lemieux' cancer as an excuse for everything.

Mario Lemieux scored 613 goals in 745 games when he first retired from the league at the end of 1997 at the age of 31, amounting to a goal every 0.82 games. This was accomplished on 3,054 shots, or a 20.1% clip.

Alex Ovechkin scored 558 goals in 921 games, in the season ending at the age of 31 (2016-17), amounting to a goal every 0.61 games. This was accomplished on 4,541 shots, or a 12.3% clip.

So what?
Are you trying to compare goals-per-game rates from the time when 40 goals were not enough to crack top20 in goals and the time when for several years no single player in the league besides OV could repeat a 40-goal season?
Also, if shooting % is that important, do you also subscribe the opinion that Stamkos is a better goal-scorer than Ovechkin, because Stamkos has a higher career shooting % (17% vs 12.6%)

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

People put too much emphasis on goal scoring and disregard the fact that Lemieux is head and shoulders the better hockey player. Ovechkin couldn’t hold Lemieux’s jock strap when it comes to an overall hockey player. And there is only a couple that could.

Let’s get back on track of the actual topic.

 

[HurricaneFanatic]

People put too much emphasis on goal scoring and disregard the fact that Lemieux is head and shoulders the better hockey player. Ovechkin couldn’t hold Lemieux’s jock strap when it comes to an overall hockey player. And there is only a couple that could.

Let’s get back on track of the actual topic.

I don't think Ovi is even top 10 all time overall player.

 

[Zuluss]

I don't think Ovi is even top 10 all time overall player.

If the best goal-scorer of all time is not in your top10 ever, there is a problem with how you rank players.
Ovechkin is as close to Bobby Hull as we will probably ever get; and Hull is as close to consensus #5 all-time as possible.
Even if you disagree with Hull being #5 all-time or still see light between Hull and Ovechkin, there is little argument to keep Ovechkin out of top10 all-time given how close it is between him and Hull.

 

[Save By Thomas]

Hopefully 0%, but since I can't stand him it's probably more like 95%.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

The guy you want with the puck on his stick is Gretzky, the best playmaker of all time.
But that seems irrelevant to the question of who is the best goal-scorer of all-time.
Ask yourself a different question: who will you have Gretzky pass the puck to to rip off a shot?

 

[Beukeboom]

Umm... one doesn't "have to wonder" for very long to understand: in case you somehow missed it, Mario Lemieux was struck down with cancer in the prime of his career. Thankfully, Alex Ovechkin and so many other great talents have never had to grapple with such a life altering diagnosis. Glossing over such a fact is evidence of either ignorance or a bad faith argument.

As for the rest of your post and the idea that a high shot volume is itself proof of glory, let's agree to disagree. I'm of the opinion that, if we are tasked with evaluating who is the greatest at scoring goals, it's relevant to consider data from a per shot perspective as well. Taking a default view that he who fires the puck more must therefore be the better scorer seems silly. With that in mind, here are some numbers you might find interesting...

Mario Lemieux scored 613 goals in 745 games when he first retired from the league at the end of 1997 at the age of 31, amounting to a goal every 0.82 games. This was accomplished on 3,054 shots, or a 20.1% clip.

Alex Ovechkin scored 558 goals in 921 games, in the season ending at the age of 31 (2016-17), amounting to a goal every 0.61 games. This was accomplished on 4,541 shots, or a 12.3% clip.

The only reason I'm parsing the statistics this way is because it gives a jumping off point for continuous NHL experience leading to a point where their peak window should have closed. Longevity is an element of Ovechkin's legacy, to be sure, but not getting cancer doesn't make him a better NHL goalscorer. Play the tape, crunch the numbers, do whatever voodoo you like... there's no way you can convince me that Ovechkin is a better pure goalscorer than Lemieux, not because of what the stats say, but because I watched the careers of both players. They are both great in their own way, tremendous talents worthy of the record books, but Le Magnifique was truly magnificent in his artistry when it came to finding a way to put the puck in the net. I don't know how anyone who watched them both play could say otherwise, but that's fine: there's no accounting for taste, everybody has their favorites, and besides it's impossible to objectively compare different eras in a way that satisfies everyone's sensibilities.

At any rate: it would be an incredible accomplishment for Ovechkin to surpass 894. I hope that he does because frankly everyone should root for records to be surpassed, but it wouldn't change the calculus of greatness based on what I've witnessed. To all players--past, present, and future--I only wish them good health and long life, as this game is merely a game, but being the best scorer of his generation should be enough, whatever side you fall on in such a debate.

You are aware the cancer "only" stole 24 games away from Mario? Which of course in itself is incredible, but hardly a factor to his goal scoring. It was other injuries that kept him away from the rink.

I agree on the premise that I rather have a prime Lemieux on the ice than a prime Ovie if I needed a goal. However with nine Rockets, Ovie has dominated his surrounding consistently in a way Mario didn't. Mario had a lower GPG than Hull during some of his missed seasons for instance, and obviously couldn't match Wayne early in his career. I don't have the energy to do a proper comparison, but did Mario really trump other NHLers in GPG nine times? Also, extrapolating seasons where he played 20-30 games is pretty unfair to the others.

Mario have three rockets in the bag. 92-93 and 96-97 would highly likely have been his. I would say 86-87 was likely, but hardly given. So we're at a potential five (or 6) rockets. Where are the other four (3)? Could he have won 93-94 and 94-95? Absolutely, but we can't hand out Rockets based on 22 games or none. And even so, that would put the potential Rockets to seven or eight, still trailing Ovie.

 

[powerbomb]

Lol if you really believe that cancer only robbed Lemieux of 24 games in his career, dear god, bless your soul. Any reasonable person can imagine the seismic impact of such a major health diagnosis and the collateral effect it carries. If your point is that the injury report didn’t say “out with cancer,” well, touché.

Also I love how the Rocket Richard trophy which didn’t exist before 1999 is somehow the end-all, be-all measure of settling the score in people’s mind. I’ve said consistently that Ovi is the best goal scorer of his generation (which is why I’m not bothering to reply to that other dude and his frightening lack of reading comprehension), but that isn’t an opinion I arrived at due to seasonal hardware, either.

I have watched the majority of both player’s careers. I believe Mario Lemieux was the single greatest pure goalscoring talent the game of hockey has ever seen. While the argument theoretically becomes much more interesting if Ovi does eclipse 894 (in some other venue where conversation isn’t an exhausting zero-sum game anyway (imagine that)), I don’t actually care if anyone changes their mind on who their favorite is. The end?

 

[filinski77]

People put too much emphasis on goal scoring and disregard the fact that Lemieux is head and shoulders the better hockey player. Ovechkin couldn’t hold Lemieux’s jock strap when it comes to an overall hockey player. And there is only a couple that could.

Let’s get back on track of the actual topic.

Nobody is saying that Ovi is on the same tier overall as Lemieux. Lemieux is obviously much better.

This thread is about a goal scoring record, and has discussions around who is the best goal scorer. Has nothing to do with comparing players overall. So get outta here with that shit.