HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Ogopogo's Greatest Goal Scorers - Updated for '05 - '06

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-23-2006, 08:34 PM
  #26
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
Another good job. These lists are interesting and a good basis for discussion. If I remember correctly you use the same formula for "Points" but weight the results for dominant years. Do you also weight the goals & assists lists for dominant years?
Yes, they are all done with the same formula.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 08:36 PM
  #27
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
This is a list of adjusted-for-era goals, as of the end of 2006. This makes no attempt to 1) look at playoff production 2) look at dominace 3) look at anything other than career goal-scoring.

(Also, in case anyone's interested, there are still some definite bugs in this model that I'm trying to work out. Specifically, it overrates players from the 20's and late 90's/00's and underrates them from the 40's. Trying to account for this.)

1) Gordie Howe, GP: 2061 G: 944
2) Wayne Gretzky, GP: 1543 G: 805
3) Brett Hull, GP: 1309 G: 783
4) Phil Esposito, GP: 1369 G: 702
5) Luc Robitaille, GP: 1471 G: 694
6) Steve Yzerman, GP: 1561 G: 685
7) Jaromir Jagr, GP: 1143 G: 675
8) Mark Messier, GP: 1808 G: 671
9) Bobby Hull, GP: 1203 G: 669
10) Mario Lemieux, GP: 926 G: 656
11) Maurice Richard, GP: 1255 G: 655
12) Brendan Shanahan, GP: 1387 G: 651
13) Mike Gartner, GP: 1480 G: 647
14) Dave Andreychuk, GP: 1687 G: 643
15) Marcel Dionne, GP: 1388 G: 640
16) Joe Sakic, GP: 1274 G: 626
17) Joe Nieuwendyk, GP: 1281 G: 591
18) Jean Beliveau, GP: 1292 G: 589
19) John Bucyk, GP: 1709 G: 579
20) Peter Bondra, GP: 1077 G: 577
21) Frank Mahovlich, GP: 1328 G: 572
22) Nels Stewart, GP: 1173 G: 565
23) Stan Mikita, GP: 1529 G: 563
24) Dino Ciccarelli, GP: 1279 G: 563
25) Mats Sundin, GP: 1189 G: 561
26) Teemu Selanne, GP: 988 G: 558
27) Ron Francis, GP: 1778 G: 551
28) Pierre Turgeon, GP: 1318 G: 544
29) Jari Kurri, GP: 1295 G: 536
30) Norm Ullman, GP: 1584 G: 535
31) Mike Modano, GP: 1202 G: 530
32) Mark Recchi, GP: 1293 G: 523
33) Pat Verbeek, GP: 1471 G: 520
34) Alex Delvecchio, GP: 1767 G: 517
35) Jeremy Roenick, GP: 1208 G: 516
36) Keith Tkachuk, GP: 927 G: 516
37) Alexander Mogilny, GP: 1023 G: 510
38) Guy Lafleur, GP: 1160 G: 500
39) Theo Fleury, GP: 1120 G: 499
40) Sergei Fedorov, GP: 1085 G: 494
41) Pavel Bure, GP: 731 G: 490
42) Mike Bossy, GP: 771 G: 487
43) Aurel Joliat, GP: 1277 G: 481
44) Jean Ratelle, GP: 1371 G: 477
45) Howie Morenz, GP: 1062 G: 476
46) John LeClair, GP: 977 G: 473
47) Bernie Geoffrion, GP: 1029 G: 473
48) Michel Goulet, GP: 1110 G: 472
49) Ted Lindsay, GP: 1327 G: 468
50) Tony Amonte, GP: 1125 G: 462
51) Dale Hawerchuk, GP: 1222 G: 462
52) Joe Mullen, GP: 1109 G: 459
53) Gil Perreault, GP: 1228 G: 456
54) Bryan Trottier, GP: 1309 G: 454
55) Brian Bellows, GP: 1232 G: 451
56) Vincent Damphousse, GP: 1420 G: 449
57) Bernie Nicholls, GP: 1177 G: 445
58) Doug Gilmour, GP: 1518 G: 444
59) Rick Tocchet, GP: 1180 G: 444
60) Pat LaFontaine, GP: 893 G: 442
61) Glenn Anderson, GP: 1173 G: 442
62) Dean Prentice, GP: 1566 G: 437
63) Lanny McDonald, GP: 1141 G: 433
64) Steve Thomas, GP: 1276 G: 430
65) Darryl Sittler, GP: 1131 G: 428
66) Stephane Richer, GP: 1094 G: 425
67) Eric Lindros, GP: 741 G: 424
68) Denis Savard, GP: 1245 G: 424
69) Gary Roberts, GP: 1100 G: 423
70) Yvan Cournoyer, GP: 1039 G: 423
71) Ray Ferraro, GP: 1303 G: 419
72) John MacLean, GP: 1236 G: 417
73) Rod Brind'Amour, GP: 1223 G: 415
74) Rod Gilbert, GP: 1156 G: 411
75) Dave Keon, GP: 1417 G: 409
76) Owen Nolan, GP: 949 G: 405
77) Paul Kariya, GP: 772 G: 405
78) Andy Bathgate, GP: 1236 G: 404
79) Steve Larmer, GP: 1056 G: 403
80) Henri Richard, GP: 1417 G: 399
81) Bill Cook, GP: 845 G: 396
82) Ray Bourque, GP: 1665 G: 391
83) Garry Unger, GP: 1151 G: 389
84) Tomas Sandstrom, GP: 1027 G: 389
85) Zigmund Palffy, GP: 707 G: 389
86) Claude Lemieux, GP: 1236 G: 388
87) Harvey "Busher" Jackson, GP: 1091 G: 387
88) Peter Stastny, GP: 1002 G: 387
89) Cam Neely, GP: 769 G: 385
90) Bill Guerin, GP: 980 G: 384
91) Charlie Conacher, GP: 797 G: 383
92) Rick Middleton, GP: 1030 G: 383
93) Alexei Yashin, GP: 823 G: 381
94) Trevor Linden, GP: 1281 G: 381
95) Ray Sheppard, GP: 851 G: 380
96) Scott Young, GP: 1217 G: 379
97) Geoff Sanderson, GP: 1035 G: 379
98) Scott Mellanby, GP: 1403 G: 379
99) Markus Naslund, GP: 879 G: 378
100) Cy Denneny, GP: 912 G: 377

==

Great work Ogopogo. I definitely realize the effort required to do lists like this. Biggest surprise? Probably seeing Selanne in 25th. How far does Jagr have to go before he cracks your top ten?

Also, is the list you posted NHL only, or did you include the NHA, PCHL, WCHL, etc, stats as well?
Great work on your list as well, Outsider.

If Jagr finishes 2nd or better in goal scoring in any year he will crack the top 10 on my list. Or a combination of lower finishes in the top 7 would work as well.

This is only NHL. I still have to put together the list with all of the major pro leagues - if I only had all the time I wanted...

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 08:51 PM
  #28
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Consider this an official un-invitiation to this thread.

Thanks.
Your lists are excellent and have become a very important piece of hockey information requisite to a great understanding of the game that we all love. When I saw that you had Claude Provost ranked higher than Yvan Cournoyer on your Top Goal Scorers list I knew you truly understood the game of hockey.

chooch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2006, 01:49 PM
  #29
gabriel
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
I was working something where you take the adjusted totals of all the players who played in two straight seasons and compare the two seasons. For example if it was 20% higher when WWII broke out, then you could assume that the quality was 20% lower. This would be a good way to compare the WHA and PCHA to the NHL. Going backwards and forwards you could figure out every season. Unfortunately, it would take forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
Good idea, have you seen this paper (http://hockeyanalytics.com/Research_...ivalencies.pdf) by Gabriel Desjardins? He proposes a similar method, but only compares non-NHL leagues to the NHL (as opposed to looking at it year-by-year within the NHL).

You're right, this would be a huge task, but with sufficient knowledge of Excel, it could be done. I may give it a shot this spring. I'll need to figure out the details of it though.
hi - I don't think what you're proposing works.

League Equivalencies assumes that a small number of players jump to a league of constant difficulty. Those players should not disturb the new league themselves.

But if you take the group of NHL players who played in year 1 and compare their performance to year 2, all you're calculating is the difference in offense between the two seasons. The result you'll get is that seasn with low offense look tougher, and high offense looks easier - ie - 1952 and 2003 are the highest quality hockey we've seen, and 1982 is the lowest.

  Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2006, 04:52 PM
  #30
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabriel
hi - I don't think what you're proposing works.

League Equivalencies assumes that a small number of players jump to a league of constant difficulty. Those players should not disturb the new league themselves.

But if you take the group of NHL players who played in year 1 and compare their performance to year 2, all you're calculating is the difference in offense between the two seasons. The result you'll get is that seasn with low offense look tougher, and high offense looks easier - ie - 1952 and 2003 are the highest quality hockey we've seen, and 1982 is the lowest.
Just curious, how do come to the conclusion that 1952 and 2003 are the highest quality hockey of all time and that 1982 is the lowest?

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2006, 05:52 PM
  #31
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabriel
hi - I don't think what you're proposing works.

League Equivalencies assumes that a small number of players jump to a league of constant difficulty. Those players should not disturb the new league themselves.

But if you take the group of NHL players who played in year 1 and compare their performance to year 2, all you're calculating is the difference in offense between the two seasons. The result you'll get is that seasn with low offense look tougher, and high offense looks easier - ie - 1952 and 2003 are the highest quality hockey we've seen, and 1982 is the lowest.
Good point. I didn't think that through very clearly, did I?

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2006, 06:47 PM
  #32
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabriel
hi - I don't think what you're proposing works.

League Equivalencies assumes that a small number of players jump to a league of constant difficulty. Those players should not disturb the new league themselves.

But if you take the group of NHL players who played in year 1 and compare their performance to year 2, all you're calculating is the difference in offense between the two seasons. The result you'll get is that seasn with low offense look tougher, and high offense looks easier - ie - 1952 and 2003 are the highest quality hockey we've seen, and 1982 is the lowest.
I think adjusting for league wide scoring rates in each year would obviously have to be done to avoid that problem. It`s not specified in the Desjardins study if the numbers were adjusted. If they weren`t, then since the WHAs GPG was always higher than the NHLs, so adjusting would put those players WHA point totals downwards, which would make the WHAs equivalency rating even higher.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2006, 04:15 PM
  #33
gabriel
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Just curious, how do come to the conclusion that 1952 and 2003 are the highest quality hockey of all time and that 1982 is the lowest?
They're not and that's why the proposed method doesn't work. Because scoring was lowest in 1952 and 2003, it appears to be more difficult. And because scoring was highest in 1982, it appears to be easier.

  Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2006, 04:25 PM
  #34
gabriel
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
I think adjusting for league wide scoring rates in each year would obviously have to be done to avoid that problem. It`s not specified in the Desjardins study if the numbers were adjusted. If they weren`t, then since the WHAs GPG was always higher than the NHLs, so adjusting would put those players WHA point totals downwards, which would make the WHAs equivalency rating even higher.
Let's say that the regular players in the league don't change at all. (This is not all that different from what happened in the early 1960s, e.g.)

In year 1, say those players had 3000 goals and 5000 assists in a league that averaged 3 goals and 5 assists per game.

In year 2, say goal scoring dropped to 2.7 per game and 4.5 assists per game. If those same players got 2700 goals and 4500 assists, then their adjusted scoring rate is exactly the same in both years, which means the league equivalency is 1.0 (in either direction.)

But did the quality of the league change?

If goaltenders suddenly got better and that's why the scoring rate dropped, then the quality increased. Except our league equivalency is 1.0.

But what if the league made the nets smaller. Then there was no change in the quality of the league.

The point is that you can only use this method when you have a small number of players moving from league-to-league. If you have a large number of players, then they will perturb the quality of the league they move to.

  Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2006, 05:56 PM
  #35
Ol' Jase
PLAYOFFS??
 
Ol' Jase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,480
vCash: 500
I really respect the work you have put into this, and I do understand how you come about your findings. However, there are intangibles to consider (i.e. linemates) that I can't find taken into account. I'm sorry, but I can't take Bill Flett ahead of Gilbert Perrault on any list. Sorry, just my opinion.

Ol' Jase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2006, 06:22 PM
  #36
MAF
Registered User
 
MAF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
This is a list of adjusted-for-era goals, as of the end of 2006. This makes no attempt to 1) look at playoff production 2) look at dominace 3) look at anything other than career goal-scoring.

(Also, in case anyone's interested, there are still some definite bugs in this model that I'm trying to work out. Specifically, it overrates players from the 20's and late 90's/00's and underrates them from the 40's. Trying to account for this.)

...
8) Mark Messier, GP: 1808 G: 671
...
10) Mario Lemieux, GP: 926 G: 656
Messier has 15 goals more than Lemieux (adjusted, but it doesn't matter), but played almost 900 games more than Lemieux -- so he is the better goal scorer ?

These lists don't make any sense when compairing only totals and no relations.

MAF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2006, 07:59 PM
  #37
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oljase
I really respect the work you have put into this, and I do understand how you come about your findings. However, there are intangibles to consider (i.e. linemates) that I can't find taken into account. I'm sorry, but I can't take Bill Flett ahead of Gilbert Perrault on any list. Sorry, just my opinion.
Thats because you actually saw them play. I still think the funniest is Provost over Cournoyer as a scorer. Good comic value these lists.

Thanks.

Maybe an asterisk should be put next to a player that Omo actually saw play.

chooch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2006, 09:51 PM
  #38
Bluesfan1981
Registered User
 
Bluesfan1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
How is Bobby Hull only 9th? He led the league in goals 7 times.

Bluesfan1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2006, 12:12 AM
  #39
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAF
Messier has 15 goals more than Lemieux (adjusted, but it doesn't matter), but played almost 900 games more than Lemieux -- so he is the better goal scorer ?

These lists don't make any sense when compairing only totals and no relations.
Read what I wrote. "This is a list of adjusted-for-era goals, as of the end of 2006. This makes no attempt to 1) look at playoff production 2) look at dominace 3) look at anything other than career goal-scoring." The point of my list was to show career totals and NOT to take make any statements about which players are better. I never said Messier is a better goal-scorer; I agree with you that that's a ridiculous statement.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.