Would another Rocket make OV the GOAT goalscorer?

[PenguinSpeed]

-Of course. Back in the 90's you are looking at around 89-91%. Today you are looking at 90-91.5%. The difference is there, but it is small. Thats my point with the efficiency numbers.

-Those stats can be seen here

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[ryerockarola]

Call Ovechkin GOAT goal scorer but just don't call him an elite goalscorer because of that playoff thread asking to not call him an elite goalscorer haha.

 

[roflstomper]

-If thats the way you want to look at it, fine. He might have the most goals. I prefer efficiency like any smart General Manager would want. A 19% shooting percentage for a career vs a 12% shooting percentage screams not even close.

Not taking into account different eras od SV%, stick lube etc.:

What if 2 players both play exactly 20 minutes a night. One takes 200 shots a year at 19 percent and scores 38 goals. The other at 12 percent takes 380 shots and scores 46. You're telling me you want the first guy?

 

[HTFN]

Not taking into account different eras od SV%, stick lube etc.:

What if 2 players both play exactly 20 minutes a night. One takes 200 shots a year at 19 percent and scores 38 goals. The other at 12 percent takes 380 shots and scores 46. You're telling me you want the first guy?

Don't forget, goals scored via efficiency rather than relentlessness get a x2 points multiplier.

 

[Frank Drebin]

-Those stats can be seen here

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Would you expect someone facing .940 goaltending on average to score more or less than someone facing .912?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Not taking into account different eras od SV%, stick lube etc.:

What if 2 players both play exactly 20 minutes a night. One takes 200 shots a year at 19 percent and scores 38 goals. The other at 12 percent takes 380 shots and scores 46. You're telling me you want the first guy?

-I want the most efficient player. That isnt rocket science. I dont want a player blasting around shots that dont find the net. If you want that you can rewatch the 2009, 2016, and 2017 Pens / Caps series. Efficiency won.

 

[HTFN]

-I want the most efficient player. That isnt rocket science. I dont want a player blasting around shots that dont find the net. If you want that you can rewatch the 2009, 2016, and 2017 Pens / Caps series. Efficiency won.

tip:

if it didn't require a save, it's not registered as a shot. the second player not only scores more goals per year, he also creates 180 additional scoring opportunities, rebounds, etc.

efficiency didn't win, goaltending and luck won. depth scoring won.

Crosby and Guentzel were as efficient as I've ever seen them this year, what did that get them?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Would you expect someone facing .940 goaltending on average to score more or less than someone facing .912?

-There wasnt a 94% . The highest in league history was 1955 at 91.9% The lowest was Gretzky's heyday at 87.3%. So with 100 shots taken ON goal, the difference is a 4 goals.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

tip:

if it didn't require a save, it's not registered as a shot. the second player not only scores more goals per year, he also creates 180 additional scoring opportunities, rebounds, etc.

efficiency didn't win, goaltending and luck won. depth scoring won.

Crosby and Guentzel were as efficient as I've ever seen them this year, what did that get them?

-It doesnt even come close to covering a 7% difference, dont be ridiculous.

 

[HTFN]

-It doesnt even come close to covering a 7% difference, dont be ridiculous.

when the player also scores more tangible goals? it absolutely does. more goals, and more scoring opportunities. "efficiency" doesn't win you hockey games on its own.

 

[Frank Drebin]

-There wasnt a 94% . The highest in league history was 1955 at 91.9% The lowest was Gretzky's heyday at 87.3%. So with 100 shots taken ON goal, the difference is a 4 goals.

I know. The difference is 3%, the same difference between today's goalies and those in 1988. (91.3vs 88.0)

 

[PenguinSpeed]

when the player also scores more tangible goals? it absolutely does. more goals, and more scoring opportunities. "efficiency" doesn't win you hockey games on its own.

-Considering Ovi is going to take the most shots in NHL history by a landslide and only has 515 assists for an entire career which barely ranks in the Top 150 in history. I strongly, strongly beg to differ.

 

[mouser]

-If thats the way you want to look at it, fine. He might have the most goals. I prefer efficiency like any smart General Manager would want. A 19% shooting percentage for a career vs a 12% shooting percentage screams not even close.

How do those shooting %’s compare when adjusted for average goalie save % over their careers?

Lemieux played most of his career when the goalie save %’s were significantly lower then they are since Ovechkin entered the league.

 

[snipes]

-Those stats can be seen here

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

A lot of numbers in the .87-89 range in the 80s.

Don't get me wrong it's Lemieux >> Ovi as a player. I miss watching the Magnificent One but scoring goals is more difficult in this era.

 

[HTFN]

-Considering Ovi is going to take the most shots in NHL history by a landslide and only has 515 assists for an entire career which barely ranks in the Top 150 in history. I strongly, strongly beg to differ.

that whole sentence makes me a little bit embarrassed for you.

where do you think he's going to wind up on that goals list again? Points?

but yeah, we should think less of him for his shooting percentage. He must not really be all that skilled, just... what? why is this a knock on him? isn't shooting a skill? isn't shot suppression part of a defender's job, so players who can reliably create scoring chances (and goals) are very valuable?

You're reaching so, so hard.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

that whole sentence makes me a little bit embarrassed for you.

where do you think he's going to wind up on that goals list again? Points?

but yeah, we should think less of him for his shooting percentage. He must not really be all that skilled, just... what? why is this a knock on him? isn't shooting a skill? isn't shot suppression part of a defender's job, so players who can reliably create scoring chances (and goals) are very valuable?

You're reaching so, so hard.

-We can agree to disagree. 12% shooting percentage playing with a non-wooden stick taking the most shots by a landslide. No point in continue discussing.

 

[Red Dread]

Pens won back 2 back cups, people still came out in droves calling the team overrated.

Caps finally win 1 and they're the greatest team of all time and Ovechkin is now the greatest player to ever play the game.


Yeah, but you know, we're salty, high in sodium we are, hmm...

Yes, you are. You're ignoring the countless times the Pens and Crosby were (rightfully) praised. It was annoying af as a Caps fan, but I understood it.

Caps finally get a Cup after 44 years, and Ovi after 13, in which many, including Pens fans, labeled him as a nothing player and choker. It's gonna be a celebrated thing. Maybe just deal with it?

 

[mouser]

-We can agree to disagree. 12% shooting percentage playing with a non-wooden stick taking the most shots by a landslide. No point in continue discussing.

That’s just a silly argument. By that logic players in the past using wooden sticks were inherently better shooters then today’s players with composite sticks. In spite of the fact goaltending these days is substantially better on average then a couple decades ago.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

That’s just a silly argument. By that logic players in the past using wooden sticks were inherently better shooters then today’s players with composite sticks. In spite of the fact goaltending these days is substantially better on average then a couple decades ago.

-Goal tending is substantially better? Dominic Hasek, Patrick Roy, Marty Brodeur? Those are 3 of the best goalies of all time. Slow down with irrational crap

 

[Plural]

He already is in the conversation. Another Rocket would probably be enough to make him the most popular choice but not consensus pick.

 

[RageQuit77]

Not taking into account different eras od SV%, stick lube etc.:

What if 2 players both play exactly 20 minutes a night. One takes 200 shots a year at 19 percent and scores 38 goals. The other at 12 percent takes 380 shots and scores 46. You're telling me you want the first guy?

Volume vs selectivity. Every sensible guy would take that volume shooter with better SOG. Why? More you shot, even with relatively low S%, more your team's net goal scoring production likely will be (rebounds and all). Ok, someone could argue that great play maker can create more goals by excellent passes, that he doesn't have to shoot himself. But that's irrelevant when we talk about goal scorers now, by definition a player who touch a puck last before in goes to the net.

"Low S%" cannot be used as an argument against Ovi. If you do so, you must then always mention his insane shooting volume, and what's most important the amount of goals scored too. In this particular comparison you can also ask: "why that 19% percent shooter doesn't shoot more then to catch up that about 200 goal difference to that 12% shooter?"

My different era aunt and her barber know that hockey games are won by scoring goals.

 

[Blades of Steel]

Give Ovy all that. And he is still putting up 100 with his eyes closed.

Players are just faster, more skillful and bigger now.

Ovy would go from facing tough competition of today to a bunch of slow dudes with second jobs.

Yeah, how many players from the 80s - 90s make a NHL team today? Think about that..

 

[RageQuit77]

To topic's question: No. Ovi doesn't need 8th Rocket to cement himself the GOAT goals scorer. Few hundred goals from top 10 goal scoring seasons would be enough.

Rockets and pre-trophy goal scoring wins are funny thing, they adjust themselves automatically to their goal scoring era of making, being always absolute to their corresponding season. Relative comparisons between seasons are meaningless when counting amount of Rockets won. Winner(s) scored always most. Most important here in this evaluation isn't only the total amount of goals the winner managed to put in, but a difference to 2nd best of each season.

When Bobby Hull played, NHL was little more than Elite beer league when counting participating teams in it. Less players to compete with. Different amount of games per season. Different rules. etc.

Ovi's 7 Rockets are the result of harder goal scoring era than any other multi-rocket / goal scoring winning assortment of anybody else. Someone can count differences of differentials between the 1st and 2nd scorer (I know that someone has done that already, but can't find/too lazy to find it now).

 

[PensandCaps]

Yeah, how many players from the 80s - 90s make a NHL team today? Think about that..

The avergae player back then ain't Even making the AHL..

 

[DitchMarner]

-If thats the way you want to look at it, fine. He might have the most goals. I prefer efficiency like any smart General Manager would want. A 19% shooting percentage for a career vs a 12% shooting percentage screams not even close.

Since when are shots on goal bad?

Would there be such a fuss over advanced stats if greater shot volume was considered a negative thing?