Will the top-10 all-time scoring list change much, or ever?

[MeHateHe]

Just scanning the all-time scoring on the NHL website and it strikes me that unless something changes to significantly increase scoring levels, there is a possibility that the top-1o all-time scoring list will never change again.

Sidney Crosby certainly has a chance. He is 267 points behind Phil Esposito's career total of 1,590. 267 points doesn't seem like much, considering he is a career 1.28 point-per-game player. At that rate, he's less than 200 games away from hitting the mark.

But he is 33 years old and his best years are certainly behind him, and his history of injuries certainly counts against him. Will he play another four seasons, and if he does, how many games does he play in each, and can he average, say 0.8 points per game?

Of the current players, only Connor McDavid has a higher point-per-game average (1.40 PPG). So yes, McDavid also has a shot, but given his career is only 400 games old, it's an open question what his longevity will be and whether he will settle into a lower PPG average.

The overall question is whose spot is assailable? We agree that no one will ever catch Gretzky's 2,857, yes? I would say the top 5 are all probably untouchable. (Ron Francis at 1,798 is #5). Is hockey the only sport where its top records are more or less out of reach?

Click to read more...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

it seems farfetched that thornton can put together 63 points to catch espo at #10, but i don't think anyone expected thornton to finish 5th in scoring five years ago either so you never know

 

[Professor What]

Thornton would probably need two more full seasons to have a shot at that. It doesn't seem very likely, but if there's anyone I'm not going to rule out on that, it's Jumbo Joe.

I don't think it really captures the full story on McDavid or Crosby to simply state their PPG average. For McDavid, the fact of the matter is, he's seen that number go up every season so far. I definitely think being in the North Division has inflated his numbers (it seems pretty obvious), but that alone doesn't explain away an increase of about 0.3 PPG from last season to this. I think McDavid is still getting better. If I were to guess, next year, we'll see his PPG come back down to earth a bit, but, assuming he's healthy, I'd be shocked if he doesn't clear 1.5 with relative ease. His career number will probably keep increasing for a little while. Even when it starts coming down, again, assuming he's healthy, I don't think he'll fall off a cliff. It's impossible to know what will happen that far out, but he's a strong candidate for this.

Crosby, on the other hand, is on the downhill slope of his per game scoring average. Still, he's putting up over a point per game. As stated in the OP, his injury history is the question. If he has four more seasons without missing too many games, he gets there. If he starts missing a bunch, it becomes more questionable. He's a really tough one here. He feels more likely than Thornton, but there's still a question mark.

Not mentioned in the OP is Ovechkin, and I think leaving him out is a mistake. He and Crosby are neck and neck in points, and he just might have a little extra motivation to hang around. Things like lockouts and Covid have hurt his quest, but the fact is, we're still talking about him and 895. I think he really, really wants it. As long as he feels that he has a shot at Gretzky's record and he's able to play, I don't think Ovi's going anywhere. It's going to take another four to five seasons for him to get to 895, if he gets there. If he's not missing significant games over that time, he'll be climbing up the list too. And if he gets four or five more seasons in and he's in close but no cigar territory, I can only imagine that he goes a little longer Built into his quest, should he get Gretzky's record is that the extra 165 goals he needs will be 61% of the points he needs. Interestingly enough, about 61% of his career points are goals. Of the guys who are relatively close, if I had to pick one, I'd go with Ovi, simply because I think he has the biggest drive to accomplish something that might get him there.

But there's another aspect to this question, and that's style of play in the league. Back in the 50s, I doubt anyone could have imagined the scoring rates of the 80s. And, back in the 80s, I doubt anyone could have envisioned the DPE. In recent seasons, we've been at more of an average scoring rate, but it's not going to stay there. It's going to go up and down, just like it always has. That's going to be a very important factor for active players who might have a shot and certainly for future players. If we drop to a scoring rate of under 5.5 GPG again, even someone like McDavid might struggle to break the top 10. If we end up at 7.0 GPG again, it brings more players into the discussion. Will it ever change? The odds say yes, because of the fluctuations of history. Will anyone active today do it? Well, that's a much fuzzier proposition.

 

[MeHateHe]

Thornton would probably need two more full seasons to have a shot at that. It doesn't seem very likely, but if there's anyone I'm not going to rule out on that, it's Jumbo Joe.



Not mentioned in the OP is Ovechkin, and I think leaving him out is a mistake. He and Crosby are neck and neck in points, and he just might have a little extra motivation to hang around. Things like lockouts and Covid have hurt his quest, but the fact is, we're still talking about him and 895. I think he really, really wants it. As long as he feels that he has a shot at Gretzky's record and he's able to play, I don't think Ovi's going anywhere. It's going to take another four to five seasons for him to get to 895, if he gets there. If he's not missing significant games over that time, he'll be climbing up the list too. And if he gets four or five more seasons in and he's in close but no cigar territory, I can only imagine that he goes a little longer Built into his quest, should he get Gretzky's record is that the extra 165 goals he needs will be 61% of the points he needs. Interestingly enough, about 61% of his career points are goals. Of the guys who are relatively close, if I had to pick one, I'd go with Ovi, simply because I think he has the biggest drive to accomplish something that might get him there.

I wondered about Ovechkin, but at some point, Russian machine breaks. He's 35 and has played a pretty physical style. He also is on a downward slope in his career. This year more than any his production has been a bit more sporadic than we've seen at previous points in his career, and that to me portends of Father Time catching up. You're right that he has a shot and you're right that he has the added incentive of the goal record to chase, but he ain't getting any younger.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

For what it's worth (and I'll be the first to admit it's not worth very much) - my career forecast projected McDavid to finish with more than 1,650 points. That would place him 9th all-time. He's missed around 40 games due to the COVID-shortened seasons, which hurts - but his pace this year has been tremendous, so he's out-performing the model.

The two biggest assumptions are injuries and retirement age. A single bad injury can ruin anyone's career. It's also tough to predict what age a player retires at. The model assumes 36 but as salaries get higher and the league expands, there's more incentive and opportunity for players to extend their careers (not to mention advances in medicine). Though maybe a player so reliant on speed might have less longevity than someone more balanced.

To answer the question more generally - "forever" is a long time. Most of the players near the top of the list played in a high-scoring era. Many of them would be near the top anyway, but it's conceivable that the level of offense can rise, and that could change the scoring charts significantly. But if we assume that the NHL's goals per game remains roughly consistent - I think it would be considered a disappointment if McDavid (and Crosby) aren't in the top ten by the end of their careers.

 

[Professor What]

I wondered about Ovechkin, but at some point, Russian machine breaks. He's 35 and has played a pretty physical style. He also is on a downward slope in his career. This year more than any his production has been a bit more sporadic than we've seen at previous points in his career, and that to me portends of Father Time catching up. You're right that he has a shot and you're right that he has the added incentive of the goal record to chase, but he ain't getting any younger.

That's true, but I don't think it's any more true for him than Crosby. After all, Crosby only played 41 games last year. If both stay healthy, and they go for the same number of seasons, I'd give the edge to Crosby. But his health still gives me more pause. He's not going to break any scoring records, and I don't think he'd be as passionate about doing so anyway. I think he'd be a lot more likely to decide that another injury in a couple of years was a sign that it's time to go.

As for production, yeah, Ovi might have been more sporadic, but he still has an 82-game pace of 45 goals this season. He may well be about to show some slowing down, but that's not a guy that's washed up. If he scores 33 goals per season for five years, he gets to 895. That's doable, even if he is starting down the hill finally. And I'll guarantee you he knows that.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I think you're very much underestimating the potential of both Crosby and McDavid here. First of all, since Crosby has played in 567 of Pittsburgh's last 615 games (92%), I don't really see why we should be projecting him as particularly injury-prone at this point in his career. Secondly, while Crosby is certainly post-peak, he has been a very consistent scorer over the past 7 years. There is room for quite a bit of decline and he's still easily on track to pass Esposito. I would expect Crosby's late career to be at least as good as Joe Sakic's, for example. Finally, retiring at age 37 would be young for a Canadian-born superstar in this era, especially a guy who by all accounts is a singly-focused rink rat like Crosby.

As for McDavid, you can't just handwave his future away as unknowable, because the entire premise of this thread is speculation. It is impossible to evaluate, say, the safety of Ron Francis' position at #5 without projecting the current strongest contender for that spot. And that's especially true if you're talking about forever, since there are going to be plenty more McDavid-type talents coming down the pipeline at some point.

Let's use Gretzky as a comparable for McDavid to project out their careers. The reason to choose Gretzky is to be very conservative. Not only did Gretzky have his production drop significantly after the Suter hit, but league average scoring dropped as his career went on as well. Also, while Gretzky was relatively healthy, he did miss some extended time here and there and probably represents a reasonable projection for missed time and overall GP, especially considering that Gretzky did not have an unusually long career (retired at age 38).

In his age 22-24 seasons, Gretzky scored 609 points. Over the past three seasons, adjusting for games cancelled due to Covid, McDavid was projected to score 364. That's 60% of Gretzky's total, so let's project the rest of McDavid's career by giving him 60% of Gretzky's numbers in every age-equivalent season. If you do that, you get 1623 career points for McDavid through age 38, plus whatever he scores over his final few games this year. That would rank him right behind Sakic for the 9th spot all-time, so I'd say even based on conservative assumptions McDavid is a very high probability bet to be a career top-10 scorer.

If you use adjusted points (to remove the factor of league scoring decline), then McDavid gets 75% of Gretzky's numbers and projects to 1889 career points (plus whatever he does for the rest of this year). That might slightly overstate things as adjusted stats underrate the 1980s, but it would put him #3 all-time and within easy range of catching Jagr, even if McDavid was majorly declined at that point and just wanted to hunt down a career finish Marleau-style.

As we've seen with pandemics and lockouts and injuries, there are many potential factors that can get in the way, so of course nothing is guaranteed. However, the future is a very, very long time. I think the only position that is out of reach on the top-10 all-time scoring list is #1.

 

[MeHateHe]

Thornton would probably need two more full seasons to have a shot at that. It doesn't seem very likely, but if there's anyone I'm not going to rule out on that, it's Jumbo Joe.



But there's another aspect to this question, and that's style of play in the league. Back in the 50s, I doubt anyone could have imagined the scoring rates of the 80s. And, back in the 80s, I doubt anyone could have envisioned the DPE. In recent seasons, we've been at more of an average scoring rate, but it's not going to stay there. It's going to go up and down, just like it always has. That's going to be a very important factor for active players who might have a shot and certainly for future players. If we drop to a scoring rate of under 5.5 GPG again, even someone like McDavid might struggle to break the top 10. If we end up at 7.0 GPG again, it brings more players into the discussion. Will it ever change? The odds say yes, because of the fluctuations of history. Will anyone active today do it? Well, that's a much fuzzier proposition.

Unless there is a significant change to goalie equipment, an increase in the size of the net, or some radical change in the rules to make defending more difficult, we are never going to see the type of scoring we saw in the 80s. A return to the rugby-on-ice era is unlikely, because I think the league learned its lesson, but it seems even less likely that the routine 7-5 games we saw in 1987 will return.

 

[Professor What]

Unless there is a significant change to goalie equipment, an increase in the size of the net, or some radical change in the rules to make defending more difficult, we are never going to see the type of scoring we saw in the 80s. A return to the rugby-on-ice era is unlikely, because I think the league learned its lesson, but it seems even less likely that the routine 7-5 games we saw in 1987 will return.

I agree with that too. But, a return to a 7 GPG rate would be something a lot closer to 1995-96 (actually about 10% lower than that year) than 1981-82, when there were just over 8 GPG scored (and, for the record, the 5.5 GPG number I gave was noticeably higher than the depths of the DPE). The actual numbers aren't really that important though. The point is, there's going to be fluctuation, because things change, be it rules, equipment, or techniques. But just think about what a difference a mere 10% difference in scoring over a player's career could make. It's the difference between a guy who would score 1600 points and just make the top 10 scoring 1440 and coming well short if it's 10% lower and his scoring 1760 points and flirting with the top five if it's 10% higher.

But, regardless of all of that, the four guys who have been brought up in this thread all have at least semi-realistic shots if things stay as they are now. Where they fall in likelihood is up to the individual to decide, but the chance is there for all of them.

 

[MeHateHe]

I think you're very much underestimating the potential of both Crosby and McDavid here. First of all, since Crosby has played in 567 of Pittsburgh's last 615 games (92%), I don't really see why we should be projecting him as particularly injury-prone at this point in his career. Secondly, while Crosby is certainly post-peak, he has been a very consistent scorer over the past 7 years. There is room for quite a bit of decline and he's still easily on track to pass Esposito. I would expect Crosby's late career to be at least as good as Joe Sakic's, for example. Finally, retiring at age 37 would be young for a Canadian-born superstar in this era, especially a guy who by all accounts is a singly-focused rink rat like Crosby.

As I said, I think Crosby has a reasonable shot to pass Espo, with the strong caveat that production for players has a tendency to fall off a cliff when a player hits his mid-30s. You're right that he's fairly single-minded and, by all accounts, in great shape so that bodes well for him. But age and the potential for further injuries has to catch up to a player.

As for McDavid, you can't just handwave his future away as unknowable, because the entire premise of this thread is speculation. It is impossible to evaluate, say, the safety of Ron Francis' position at #5 without projecting the current strongest contender for that spot. And that's especially true if you're talking about forever, since there are going to be plenty more McDavid-type talents coming down the pipeline at some point.

Let's use Gretzky as a comparable for McDavid to project out their careers. The reason to choose Gretzky is to be very conservative. Not only did Gretzky have his production drop significantly after the Suter hit, but league average scoring dropped as his career went on as well. Also, while Gretzky was relatively healthy, he did miss some extended time here and there and probably represents a reasonable projection for missed time and overall GP, especially considering that Gretzky did not have an unusually long career (retired at age 38).

I just re-read what I said about McDavid and I'll stand by it. He's had a great start to his career and he is a great player. It is simply too early in his career to expect that he will be able to maintain the pace he's set or, for that matter have an extended career. Witness Guy Lafleur, who, despite having a modest start to his career, turned into a great player for six seasons, and then tailed off again. McDavid's upside is much higher than Lafleur's, but Lafleur was in the mix the best player in the game at the time.

I'm mostly noting that scoring trends are down and players' careers are typically shorter. I'll quibble with your contention that Gretzky did not have an unusually long career - it was 20 seasons - but that's not an essential point.

There are a lot of factors that go into a long, productive career. While I think McDavid has the potential to hit the top 10, my point was only that it's too soon to make any prediction to that effect.

 

[Staniowski]

Crosby and Ovechkin obviously both have a chance.

It's impossible to predict, but there are going to be some good players who play forever....if a good scorer like Patrick Kane is one of those players, he could do it.

Yes, of course McDavid can do it.

One thing to remember....if Ovechkin, for example, gets there first, that will drive up the scoring total of the # 10, making it more difficult for Crosby....and if Crosby, Ovechkin, and Kane all enter the top 10, that makes it more difficult for McDavid, etc.

 

[The Panther]

Unless there is a significant change to goalie equipment, an increase in the size of the net, or some radical change in the rules to make defending more difficult, we are never going to see the type of scoring we saw in the 80s. A return to the rugby-on-ice era is unlikely, because I think the league learned its lesson, but it seems even less likely that the routine 7-5 games we saw in 1987 will return.

The average game in 1987 was 4-3.

 

[The Panther]

I do feel like scoring has changed quite a bit in the past four years or so. I started noticing it in 2017-18 and (more so, I think?) the next year, when it started becoming easier to beat goalies. Physicality around the net (cross-checks, vicious hits, etc.) has bottomed out, and at the same time it's suddenly become possible again for shooters to beat goalies on the short side.

I think that last point is really what's noticeable more than anything. Around 2010 to 2016, I just did not see shooters with clear lanes trying to beat goalies to the short side. Because it was basically impossible to score by doing so. But now it is very possible to do so. I guess the minor tweaks to goalie equipment size actually worked...

McDavid is the obvious current player who has a reasonable chance to crack the top-10 in raw points, but it's not going to be easy. But if NHL scoring stays where it is (or gets even higher), and if the League stays as clean as it is now (McDavid doesn't have to worry about Chelios or Suter), and he had great longevity, health, etc., then he has a shot.

 

[Professor What]

One thing to remember....if Ovechkin, for example, gets there first, that will drive up the scoring total of the # 10, making it more difficult for Crosby....and if Crosby, Ovechkin, and Kane all enter the top 10, that makes it more difficult for McDavid, etc.

That's an interesting point. If Thornton makes it, I don't think it's as big of a deal, because he won't be expanding the number far at all. But, if Crosby and Ovechkin stay healthy and try to push things out as far as they can, there could be a much bigger boost to that last spot. More than anything, while I don't think it eliminates McDavid by any stretch of the imagination (long, healthy career, he still makes it), you are making me wonder how much the goalposts might be moved for him.

Nice addition with Kane too. I don't know that he would have ever occurred to me.

 

[bobholly39]

I fully expect both Crosby and McDavid to be top 10 all-time by the time they retire.

 

[Stephen]

Crosby is 8 years younger than Thornton and a little over 200 points behind which he could reasonably cover in 3-4 years on a fairly noticeable decline, so he could be at Esposito's top 10 if he has the inclination to grind it out another 5 seasons.

 

[The Panther]

Has Crosby given any hint yet as to how long he wants to go?

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I just re-read what I said about McDavid and I'll stand by it. He's had a great start to his career and he is a great player. It is simply too early in his career to expect that he will be able to maintain the pace he's set or, for that matter have an extended career. Witness Guy Lafleur, who, despite having a modest start to his career, turned into a great player for six seasons, and then tailed off again. McDavid's upside is much higher than Lafleur's, but Lafleur was in the mix the best player in the game at the time.

I don't agree that Guy Lafleur is a reasonable comp for McDavid in terms of projecting longevity. Lafleur was from a generation with much shorter careers, whereas the best players born since 1961 have been able to maintain their elite play almost universally later than stars born in the 1940s and 1950s.

I'm mostly noting that scoring trends are down and players' careers are typically shorter. I'll quibble with your contention that Gretzky did not have an unusually long career - it was 20 seasons - but that's not an essential point.

Who has shorter careers? Compared to what? I agree that the career length of average players, particularly forwards, is down in the current league compared to the early '00s, say, but even then I'm not convinced that necessarily extrapolates out to all-timers like Crosby or McDavid (see Jagr, Lidstrom, etc.)

I'll concede that I was a bit imprecise about my Gretzky claim, what I meant was that Gretzky did not retire at an unusually old age for a generational talent, which I think is a defensible statement.

There are a lot of factors that go into a long, productive career. While I think McDavid has the potential to hit the top 10, my point was only that it's too soon to make any prediction to that effect.

McDavid has 402 career GP, it's definitely not too soon to make a historically informed prediction. Generational talents actually tend to follow a pretty typical pattern, they are elite players as teenagers, they take another leap in their early twenties into their peak level of play, and they don't fall off a cliff early like average players do but remain elite well into their late thirties.

It's fine to have an ultra-conservative, "We won't know until we know" perspective on the future, but it's very confusing to see that outlook on McDavid in the exact same thread where you are asking the rest of this forum whether anyone will ever finish in the top 10 in NHL scoring again. That response requires speculation about the talent of unborn children and NHL scoring levels generations from now, which is several orders of magnitude more speculative than projecting the next dozen years for an active superstar currently in the middle of his peak.

 

[The Panther]

I don't agree that Guy Lafleur is a reasonable comp for McDavid in terms of projecting longevity. Lafleur was from a generation with much shorter careers, whereas the best players born since 1961 have been able to maintain their elite play almost universally later than stars born in the 1940s and 1950s.

Yeah, that was a strange comparison, I think. In addition to your point, Lafleur didn't have an all star-level season until he turned 23, whereas McDavid had that at 18-19.

At their 23rd birthdays, Lafleur had scored 175 points and McDavid 443, including three 1st-team All Stars.

 

[Professor What]

There's a danger to assuming that a similarity between two players means that the later player is going to take the same path as the earlier player in any case. There was a point that we didn't know if Crosby would last long enough to have the kind of impact he's had because of concussions. I remember people writing him off because of that, and it would have been easy to say that he was going to follow the same arc as Lindros or Kariya, which ended up being nowhere near true. And honestly, his injury history looks a lot more like one of them than McDavid's scoring history looks like Lafleur's. Such a comparison also ignores the impact that Lafleur's car wreck had on him. Unless there's a crystal ball that says the same will happen to McDavid, I think that's a very poor parallel.

 

[Big Phil]

Is hockey the only sport where its top records are more or less out of reach?

Yes and no. It is hard to imagine anyone ever touching Ty Cobb's career batting average of .366. No modern player is above .311 and anyone who is at .300 is near the end of their career, except Mike Trout. Pete Rose's 4256 career hits I assume will be taken to all of our graves. Cobb's 4189 won't get passed either.

If there is a record in the other team sports from a statistical standpoint that is similarly untouchable to Gretzky's 2857 points I guess it is Cobb's .366.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Is hockey the only sport where its top records are more or less out of reach?

no one will ever touch wilt chamberlain's single season records

 

[Big Phil]

Crosby or Ovechkin have a shot at hitting 1590 points. I'd put my money on Crosby since he is younger and it still scoring at a pretty good pace in the NHL. Also has the better PPG for his career.

Malkin and Kane would be the other veterans with a shot, albeit maybe a longer shot. It all depends how long they play. I can see Kane playing longer than Malkin.

Thornton is 63 points away, but he is also very old now. Probably in his last season, even if he plays one more he doesn't get 63 points.

McDavid is your next best bet. So much can happen with injuries and even just overall play. McDavid is the king of the NHL right now but will he skate this well when he is past 30? Hard to say, and hard to say how he adjusts when it happens. There is a reason the ones in the top 10 all had long careers, insane peaks, and/or tons of scoring titles. It isn't an accident. So it will be hard.

 

[MadLuke]

Healthy McDavid chance are good, scoring is similar to say 71-72 right now and I imagine the league will take effort to avoid an other 97 to 2004 or 2011 to 2017 if they achieve it, he started out of the block so well that he could.

Crosby was both quite unlucky injury wise and got an other dead puck era level of scoring for an significant part and he is still in the maybes.

 

[GMR]

no one will ever touch wilt chamberlain's single season records

Or Dave Schultz' single season PIM record.