So there being more goal scorers in the league that year diminishes what Ovechkin did because everyone was slumping/ had off years than when stamkos did it? Try to bend the numbers as much as you like but in a year that only had a .10 higher league gpg and his team only scored 6 more goals the entire year than Tampa did this year, having less support than Stamkos had this year, Ovi scored 65.
That's all there is to it.
You need to crunch the numbers
Ovechkin in 07-08 scored 27.31% of his teams goals and was involved in 47.1% of his teams goals scored
Stamkos in 11-12 scored 25.86% of his teams goals and was involved in 41.8% of his teams goals scored
Washington scored 238 goals that year, Tampa scored 232 goals this year.
Ovechkin had 65 goals and 112 points, Stamkos had 60 goals and 97 points.
Last edited by Left Circle OneTimer: 04-08-2012 at 03:42 PM.
Your right, Ovechkins second leading scorer of 69 on a team that scored .7 more gpg than Tampa Bay did this year shows he got so much help. I guess ovechkin also got so much help in his rookie year when he had 425 shots and his second leading teammate had 52 points?(who wasn't even a linemate)
You guys are failing hard but its not surprising the things people would say to bring down a guy like Ovi. More shots on goals is a good thing. It shows you are dominating puck possession and that means the other team doesn't have the puck.
Stamkos was responsible for 41.8% of his teams goals this year compared to the 47.1% of his teams goals that Ovechkin was involved with in 07-08.
Stamkos had 23 more points than the second leading scorer on his team, Ovechkin had 43 more.
But, but, but, we are talking about goals? Okay fine, Stamkos scored 25.86% of his teams goals while Ovechkin scored 27.31% of his teams goals in 07-08.
You guys are obviously confusing Ovi's 65 goal year when he had minimal help to some of the other years where Green was ppg and Backstrom was over a ppg. Well unfortunately for you guys, that's not the case.
You're confused. My point has nothing to do with Ovi getting scoring help from his team. It has to do with him playing on a team that could actually play some defense and maintain offensive zone pressure (things that help generate more shooting opportunities). If Ovi played on this years Lightning he wouldn't have had nearly as many shots as he did in 07/08, thus not as many goals (maybe less than 60). You don't generate 450 shots without help from your team.
I'm not sure why you are taking this so personally. Ovi's 65 goal season was amazing, no doubt. The most I will say is that Stammer's 60 goal season was just as impressive, I'd never say it was better.
You're confused. My point has nothing to do with Ovi getting scoring help from his team. It has to do with him playing on a team that could actually play some defense and maintain offensive zone pressure (things that help generate more shooting opportunities). If Ovi played on this years Lightning he wouldn't have had nearly as many shots as he did in 07/08, thus not as many goals (maybe less than 60). You don't generate 450 shots without help from your team.
I'm not sure why you are taking this so personally. Ovi's 65 goal season was amazing, no doubt. The most I will say is that Stammer's 60 goal season was just as impressive, I'd never say it was better.
The fact of the matter is that your making no sense since Ovi's 07-08 team had less help than Stamkos did this year. Try harder to hide your bias.
I'm trying to take off my homer glasses here and look at this objectively...
Ovi's 65 was amazing, and Stammer's 60 is pretty close. But as much as I hate to admit it, and I hate it a lot... Ovi's totals are more impressive. I'd still rather have Stamkos on my team, though.
Not me, Stamkos is not dangerous every time on the ice when I see him play. Ovie of old was. Stamkos is just not the same kind of threat to put a goal on the scoreboard as even say a Crosby or Malkin in my opinion.
Compare Ovi vs. Stamkos of today for star power and it's close - we know what Ovi is capable of - Stamkos just has to do a lot more for his team before I take him first.
Its much harder today. Its rare for anyone to hit 100 points these days... in 1995/96, Mario Lemieux had 161 points with a wonky back. A handful of players had over 100 points.
The goalies are much better these days and the systems are more sophisticated.
It's so much more impressive now. The goalies wear so much equipment, and defenseman are basically allowed to molest forwards in the offensive zone. Stamkos is a god.
I also think that the pressure on Ovechkin should be taken into account. The Caps were fighting for their playoff lives, any loss could mean their season was over in 2008.
From March 1st 2008 to April 5th 2008, the day the Caps clinched a spot, Ovechkin scored 17 goals in the final 17 games. The Caps went 13-4 in that span. That is the definition of coming up big when it matters.
Nothing against Stamkos I am sure he could have done the same thing, but for the last two to three weeks the Lightning were playing for nothing other than stats. There was zero pressure on him.
Still his season was amazing and as hard as he works I have no doubt he can do it again.
48 of stammers goals were EV 10 on the PP and 2 EN your argument about 4 on 4 OT is moot in this case.
What the hell does that have to do with scoring in overtime? You do realize that you can score EVEN STRENGTH goals in OT don't you? 4 on 4 benefits a guy like Stamkos a lot, as shown by his record breaking 5 OT goals this season.
Is this a serious question? It's harder. Look at some of the 50 goal scorers from the past. A good number of them weren't even anything special as players. Off the top of my head, Cheechoo is pretty much the only random 50 goal scorer of the past 15 years.
Ovechkins 65 goal season is way more impressive than Stamkos. He didnt have a guy like St. Louis feeding him that season.
OK, according to the Tampa Bay Times, Martin St. Louis had assists on only 20 of Stamkos' 60 goals. Unfortunately, it didn't break down how many were primary but it's probably safe to assume they weren't all primary. (I'm sure there's a way to look it up but I have no idea how.)
anyone here think a prime Mario Lemiuex or Wayne Gretzky with all the clutching and grabbing, no two line passes had it any easier than the guys do today? No, they were simply so far above the majority of todays players that they lifted the guys around them to the heights players today with a watered down league cannot compare to. How many more good to great players would be on every team with 20 teams in the league? Those guys played with wooden sticks instead of carbon fiber cannons.
Half of all shots get blocked by defense men today.
What the hell does that have to do with scoring in overtime? You do realize that you can score EVEN STRENGTH goals in OT don't you? 4 on 4 benefits a guy like Stamkos a lot, as shown by his record breaking 5 OT goals this season.
so 1/12 of his goal scoring came from 4 on 4, yep this is definately a gamebreaker, twice that much came from the pp and almost half that from empty netters.
margins of victory (with all-time single-season adjusted goals rank in parentheses):
stamkos in '12: 10 goals (7th all time)
ovechkin in '08: 13 (2nd)
bure in '00: 14 (17th)
lemieux in '96: 7 over jagr, 14 over everyone else (10th)
but then again:
hull in '92: 16 (20th)
hull in '91: 35 (1st)
obviously we would have to adjust those margins for era, but even in the high scoring early 90s, hull blows everyone else away. even gretzky (6th) and esposito (4th) never destroyed the competition the way hull did.
but after hull, you could make the argument that bure in '00 is at least up there among the most impressive big scoring seasons ever (even though he finished with "only" 58). the adjusted stats have him tied for 17th all time in adjusted goals (not even bure's best "adjusted" season-- he is 13th the next season), but i have a hunch that 58 in 2000 is probably at least as tough as 60 in 2012 and maybe even 65 in 2008.
the adjusted rankings seem off to me, but then i have no idea what factors go into calculating adjusted goals.
margins of victory (with all-time single-season adjusted goals rank in parentheses):
stamkos in '12: 10 goals (7th all time)
ovechkin in '08: 13 (2nd)
bure in '00: 14 (17th)
lemieux in '96: 7 over jagr, 14 over everyone else (10th)
but then again:
hull in '92: 16 (20th)
hull in '91: 35 (1st)
obviously we would have to adjust those margins for era, but even in the high scoring early 90s, hull blows everyone else away. even gretzky (6th) and esposito (4th) never destroyed the competition the way hull did.
but after hull, you could make the argument that bure in '00 is at least up there among the most impressive big scoring seasons ever (even though he finished with "only" 58). the adjusted stats have him tied for 17th all time in adjusted goals (not even bure's best "adjusted" season-- he is 13th the next season), but i have a hunch that 58 in 2000 is probably at least as tough as 60 in 2012 and maybe even 65 in 2008.
the adjusted rankings seem off to me, but then i have no idea what factors go into calculating adjusted goals.
why not put the actual numbers up instead of your "adjusted stats"
Just because fewer goals are scored today doesn't mean goals scored in years earlier are worth less, in fact it points to less talent in the game today than in those years where scoring was higher when medical tech and equipment (for all players) was not as good. or guys had full time jobs outside of the game and didn't spend all their time training.
Not sure I ever heard Ron Mclean yell "gretzky scores 2/3 ds of a goal!!"
Last edited by SilverHaireDevil: 04-08-2012 at 11:04 PM.
Id say its about the same in 2012 (hooking & clog the crease) vs 1995 (clutch & grab). While Ovie didnt have much help, he did have some rising star plkayer sin Backstrom, Green, Semin. The game was more wide open when he got 65. The game has face a steady decline in offensive production since the 1st post lockout season. Ovie's #'s have suffered as well as he hasnt adapted well to the changes. You see Stamkos doesnt rely on the one timers nearly as much (maybe 10-12 goals this yr?), most of his goals are actually in the crease or garbage variety. He adapted as he found out last season that teams were smothering him constantly (hence the 2nd half goal drop in 10/11).
by the logic espoused by the "adjusted stats" group does this make Sam Gagner's 8 point night a better achievement that Darryl Sittlers 10 point night? or is a point a point? a goal a goal?
Jagr had 62 in '96, not '95 and yes, goals were easier to come by in that particular year (though not in the several seasons that would follow). You'll notice a whole Hell of a lot of guys from that era having the best numbers in their career in '96. Iirc, there were still a bunch of expansion teams who hadn't gotten on their feet yet and there was a gigantic obstruction crackdown up until the ASB that had what seemed like entire games being contested on special teams.
Jagr and Mario just mirrored each other and ate teams alive on the pp. They'd trade QB duties, the other one would float to a circle with his stick in shooting position and just blast one-timers (wristers from Jags). If the other team tried to block the pass, they'd just throw the puck back to Zubov or Francis and they'd put it in one or the other's wheelhouse for a really tough shot to stop.
Stamkos isn't as good now as Jagr was then, but his 60 is more impressive to me.
But, but, but, we are talking about goals? Okay fine, Stamkos scored 25.86% of his teams goals while Ovechkin scored 27.31% of his teams goals in 07-08. 
