| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2010 : 12:53:45
|
Poll Question:
Is Alex Ovechkin still the Most Prolific goal scorer in the league?
Lemieux owns Gretzky
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2010 : 13:18:55
|
yes. despite a slump in goals this year, Ovechkin still leads all other NHL players - by a wide margin - in goals scored since the lockout year, with nearly 280. Since the lockout 5 years ago he has had 3 50-goal seasons and the only 60-goal season since the lockout - the other sesaon was a paltry 46.
Sid has certainly had very healthy seasons, and this year is looking to be another MVP-style season and possibly a 50 goal season as well. But he has not scored goals consistently the way that Ovechkin has, over an extended period of time. |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2010 : 13:58:50
|
Ovechkin's the popular choice and it is hard to argue with the total number of goals, but I have a different definition of prolific. To me, prolific does not mean most. To me, prolific means most productive.
I took a look back at the 5 seasons since the lock out and I did not include this season. From that list, there are only 4 players who have scored 30 or more goals in each of those seasons. They are Ovechkin, Iginla, Heatley, and Kovalchuk. To me, anyone who has less than 30 goals in a season is not a prolific scorer.
So, here are the dirty details of those 4 players in the past 5 seasons
Iginla - 191 goals, 1441 shots, 13.3% shooting % (ave of 38 goals and 288 shots per season)
Heatley - 219 goals, 1372 shots, 16% shooing % (ave of 44 goals and 274 shots per season)
Kovalchuk - 230 goals, 1507 shots, 15.3% shooting % (ave of 46 goals and 301 shots per season)
Ovechkin - 269 goals, 2159 shots, 12.5% shooting % (ave of 54 goals and 432 shots per season)
Looking at that, personally I like Heatley. He scored 10 fewer goals per season than Ovechkin, by he also does that on 150 fewer shots each year. That's huge! It's not like we are comparing Horcoff's shooting % here. These are the best of the best.
As a comparison (and I know the math doesn't work this way) but if Heatley's effeciency was acheived with Ovechkin's shot output it would result in 344 goals in the past 5 seasons. An average of nearly 70 goals a year.
Ovechkin scored the most, but I don't think he is the most productive based on the ludacrious number of shots he takes every year. Even if one opened up the criteria and looked at the players who have scored 30 or more goals in 4 of the last 5 seasons, only Zach Parise and Eric Staal have a lower shooting %.
Heck, if you open it up further to all the players who have had at least one season of 30 goals, Ovechkin would rank #86 out of 100.
Conversly, Dany Heatley ranks 3rd in out of 21 players who have more 3 or more 30 goal seasons, he ranks #1 in player who have 4 or more 30 goal seasons.
Most Goals = Ovechkin
Most Productive = Dany Heatley |
|
|
|
Guest0889
( )
|
Posted - 12/11/2010 : 14:36:48
|
| Heatley has been in the NHL longer thats why..... and lemieux does not own gretzky they are both gods, cant argue with gretzkys stats tho he's the only player to break a 200 point season and that wasnt even the season where he got 92 goals.... And if you are talking about players being productive Mike Bossy got 50 goals every season for like 11 seasons |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2010 : 14:49:11
|
quote:
To me, prolific does not mean most. To me, prolific means most productive.
I think you're getting confused with the word "efficient", it is not the same as prolific. To quote the dictionary:
quote:
pro·lif·ic
#8194; #8194;/pr#601;#712;l#618;f#618;k/ Show Spelled[pruh-lif-ik] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
producing offspring, young, fruit, etc., abundantly; highly fruitful: a prolific pear tree.
2.
producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer.
3.
profusely productive or fruitful (often fol. by in or of ): a bequest prolific of litigations.
4.
characterized by abundant production: a prolific year for tomatoes.
The most prolific goalscorer is just the guy that scores the most, period. No matter how many shots you take to get there. |
|
|
|
Guest6269
( )
|
Posted - 12/11/2010 : 15:22:35
|
| Yeah Beans your analysis is more relevant to the question: "Out of the most prolific goal scorers, who is the most successful shooter?" |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2010 : 22:41:53
|
I wish I was as prolific at English as Beans!! 
Interestingly, just checked at 11:30MST on NHL.com who the shot-taking leader is this year: Ovechkin!!! His shooting percentage: 8.8%!
Seems to support Bean's theory.
But, I would have to argue that Beans, your argument about shooting percentages is futile in this very crucial way:
Is there a quantitative measure for shot quality? NO!
As a result, there is no way to say that because Ovechkin has more shots(and a lower shoot percentage than similar caliber players) he is a less efficient scorer. If he had more goals on more chances of the same quality as his colleagues, and still had a lower percentage on equal quality chances, then of course I could easily agree with you Beans.
Unless you come up with a measure to weight shots according to quality, based on velocity, trajectory, range etc. it is essentially futile to compare shot totals. Though a higher shot total may suggest a less efficient scorer, it may simply indicate a player more proficient at getting an opportunity to take a shot at the net.
So, leave shot percentages as proof out of this. Use them merely as statistics that wag a suggestive finger unconclusively at the proposition that maybe, possibly, Ovechkin is not as effecient a scorer that his cohorts.  |
|
|
|
andarchy
Top Prospect
19 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 08:58:00
|
| The question asks if Ovechkin is still the most prolific goal scorer in the league. From the looks of last year and so far this year, the answer would be NO. The question isn't "who has scored the most goals in the last 5 seasons?". The best part is, as soon as analysts started to question whether Crosby could ever score as many goals as the league leaders, he has scored the most goals since. Almost as though he only turned it on because people said he couldn't. And by the way, Lemieux might not 'own' Gretzky, but he would have broken a crapload of his records had he not gotten terribly ill. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 09:39:39
|
I've brought this point up in the past and I find it interesting how quickly people brush the point under the table without any real rationale behind it. Prolific still does not mean most. To quote the definitions above:
producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer.
To me, that does not mean the most. Most is part of it, but being able to produce to a high level under specific conditions. Productivity is a measure of production over a period of time or attempts/cycles. A car performance is based on KM per hour, a baseball players performance is based on hits per at bats ,dirty oilsands companies base their performance on barrels of oil produced per day.
No one would say an Oil rig that produces 100k barrels of oil in a month is more productive than an oil rig that produces 100k barrels of oil a day. It's absurd.
To measure productivity, one can not look only at the most.
I know that shooting percentage is a difficult stat to compare (much like +/-) as there are tons of factors that go into it. Different teams, different quality of shots, etc. Ultimately, it does take skill to be able to take the number of shots that Ovechkin does. However, I still challenge how effective he is. When other players have the ability to score on fewer shots, I have a difficult time just passing the torch to Ovechkin. Considering he is on pace to take the record for most shots taken in the history of the NHL in less than 1200 games, there is validity to the argument. It took Ray Bourque over 1600 games to get that honor.
Don't look at it as shooting %, but purely on the number of shots.
Do this for me. Take a list of what you consider to be the top 5 goal scorers in the NHL. Now, take Ovechkin off that list and try to assume on how many more goals those guys would score with 30-40% more shots than anyone else. Would one of those other guys score more than Ovechkin at that point?? Would one of those guys score significantly more goals than the others shooting say 550 times when the next closest player has less than 400 shots??
If your answer is yes they would, it proves my point.
|
|
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 09:48:43
|
| But Lemieux didn't... speculation doesn't increase your totals in the record book. Gretzky owns the records and he earned them. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 10:36:39
|
quote:
The question asks if Ovechkin is still the most prolific goal scorer in the league. From the looks of last year and so far this year, the answer would be NO. The question isn't "who has scored the most goals in the last 5 seasons?". The best part is, as soon as analysts started to question whether Crosby could ever score as many goals as the league leaders, he has scored the most goals since
andarcy - the question also isn't who has scored the most goals in the last 1.4 seasons". OV has been outscored by a grand total of 14 goals over the last 1.5 seasons, so its not like he's sunk into obscurity or anything.
Crosby (and Stamkos) both have 1 50-goal season each now, it is too early to know if they will continue to produce at this pace or not. Just like after OV's first 50 goal season people didn't know if he'd do it again. So, to quickly say that OV is no longer the most prolific is premature, in the grander scale.
quote:
I know that shooting percentage is a difficult stat to compare (much like +/-) as there are tons of factors that go into it. Different teams, different quality of shots, etc. Ultimately, it does take skill to be able to take the number of shots that Ovechkin does. However, I still challenge how effective he is. When other players have the ability to score on fewer shots, I have a difficult time just passing the torch to Ovechkin. Considering he is on pace to take the record for most shots taken in the history of the NHL in less than 1200 games, there is validity to the argument. It took Ray Bourque over 1600 games to get that honor.
Shooting percentage is a very iffy stat at best - you point out many reasons why. So I generally discount it as a stat that measures performance, it is merely a side stat in most cases, something of interest. In the end, I would bet most NHL GM's and coaches don't really care if OV takes 10 shots to score a goal or 1 shot - they care about the goal.
I agree that the fact that OV gets so many shots is impressive - and from what I see he doesn't waste them either, its not like he's lobbing them in from centre ice or anything, it shows that he consistently gets himself into scoring positions and takes the shots to try and score. I don't take that away from him at all - in fact, one might ask why the other current goal scoring leaders or Heatley don't get as many shots as OV, and thus perhaps score more goals.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 11:08:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
[quote]
I agree that the fact that OV gets so many shots is impressive - and from what I see he doesn't waste them either, its not like he's lobbing them in from centre ice or anything, it shows that he consistently gets himself into scoring positions and takes the shots to try and score. I don't take that away from him at all - in fact, one might ask why the other current goal scoring leaders or Heatley don't get as many shots as OV, and thus perhaps score more goals.
I disagree with this. I have watched 50+ games of Ovechkin and I often watch him in the past taking shots from well outside the scoring zone. Trying to use the defensemen as a screen on the rush, shooting from the outside, etc. Not all of those are 'good shots' and I would think that about 1/3 of what Ovechkin throws at the net are garbage shots with not chance of going in. So why take them?? Ovechkin takes the shot the split second he can. Not because he should, just because he can.
Look at the best in the games history and they all have a commonality. That is they don't waste their chances and they don't take a shot for the sake of taking a shot. Gretzky never took more than 369 shots in one season his entire career which subsiquently was the season he had 92 goals. Ovechkin's LOWEST shots in a season was 368. Brett Hull, who was widely regarded as being a shoot first player who rarely passed had a career his of 408 shots. Mike Bossy, who is stil the most prolific goal scorer in the history of the game never had more than 315 shots and 6 times had 50 or more goals on 300 or fewer shots. #2 on my all time list of goal scorers would be Mario Lemieux who never took more than 382 shots in a season. His career high in goals(85) was on just 313 shots.
It's not like these guys didn't have more opportunities to shoot. They could have shot a lot more but it would not have made them score equitably more not would it have help their team win any more.
Alex Ovechkin has 3 of the 6 highest single season shooting records and only Phil Esposito has a season with more shots. Even looking at that. Esposito scored 76 goals on 550 shots. Ovechkin's 528 shots(#2 all time) produced 56 goals. Don't tell me that goalie pads have enough of an impact on this!!
Let's put this in a straight apples to apples comparison.
Alex Ovechkin
2008/2009 - 56 goals on 528 shots
2009-2010 - 50 goals on 368 shots
Ovechkin's most goals (65) were produced during his highest shooting % seasons (14.6%)
Cold hard facts. Not guessing on how many shots are good shots or bad shots or anything else. Ovechkin, though his career, does not score more based on shooting more. He can score as much or more by taking smart shots. Until he can figure that out himself, he will not be my most prolific scorer.
However, he is on pace this season for the lowest shots in his career. Maybe he has figured it out. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Guest9103
( )
|
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 16:54:11
|
You have to look at the goals scored too... The vast majority of Heatley's are just waiting in front, waiting to be fed. Ovechkin (and Crosby and Kovalchuk, dunno about Stamkos since I haven't seen him much) all work much harder for their goals.
Heatley needs an elite set-up guy to be able to produce. Some of these others do not and I therefore respect their goal scoring abilities a lot more.
Imagine Crosby's totals if he had someone like Thornton, Backstrom or St-Louis on his line all the time, instead of some pylons & occasionally Malkin on the PP... |
|
|
|
Utemin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
451 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 18:48:33
|
Of course he is! He gets not only a lot of goals, but the highest quality goals unlike Cindy's wimpy flukes
Don't hate me because i'm Beautiful |
|
|
|
Guest4224
( )
|
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 19:46:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Utemin
Of course he is! He gets not only a lot of goals, but the highest quality goals unlike Cindy's wimpy flukes
Get over your hatred of Crosby. Of course all his goals have been flukes :). I would imagine you would suggest that his assists and points are all flukes.
Utemin credibility = 0.
I'm surprised you haven't contradicted yourself lately. Perhaps a posting of more than a couple of sentences would solve that problem.
To stay on topic, I wish most players can have a slump like Ovechkin. Our expectation of Gr8 is very high. That is like saying Gretz sucked because he couldn't continue to get 200 points. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 20:49:30
|
Personnaly it is still Jarome Iginla how many players can say they have scored 30 or more every season since 1999? for over a decade!!! and the two seasons before 99 , he had 29 and 28 respectivly, I know right now there is all sorts of hype about crosby ovechkin and stamkos but this guy has done it since these guys were under the age of 14! I know Crosby Ovechkin and Stamkos will probably be able to say the same one day, but for now it is iggy to me!
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 21:31:07
|
quote:
The question asks if Ovechkin is still the most prolific goal scorer in the league. From the looks of last year and so far this year, the answer would be NO. The question isn't "who has scored the most goals in the last 5 seasons?". The best part is, as soon as analysts started to question whether Crosby could ever score as many goals as the league leaders, he has scored the most goals since.
You raise a good point, the answer is really governed by your time period. So Mario, what is your time period for this question? Over the last year, OV has lost the mantle of most prolific (albeit by only 14 goals in that time period). Over the last 5, he wins hands down. In the last day, they are both equally un-prolific.
quote:
Personnaly it is still Jarome Iginla how many players can say they have scored 30 or more every season since 1999?
Patsy, Iggy might win the "who is the most consistent goal scorer" question then.... You're right, there are not many goal scorers that can claim 30+ goals a year for 12 straight years.
However, this is the prolific thread 
quote:
Let's put this in a straight apples to apples comparison.
Alex Ovechkin
2008/2009 - 56 goals on 528 shots
2009-2010 - 50 goals on 368 shots
Ovechkin's most goals (65) were produced during his highest shooting % seasons (14.6%)
Cold hard facts. Not guessing on how many shots are good shots or bad shots or anything else. Ovechkin, though his career, does not score more based on shooting more. He can score as much or more by taking smart shots. Until he can figure that out himself, he will not be my most prolific scorer.
However, he is on pace this season for the lowest shots in his career. Maybe he has figured it out. We'll see.
Again, you are arguing efficiency - and I suppose its fine if you want to believe that OV is not the most prolific scorer because he takes more shots to get there. Coaches and GM's don't care how many shots you take to score a goal - so long as you score it - and at the end of the day its only statisticians and hockey geeks that care about things like shooting percentage. Some seasons OV takes more shots than others to get his 50-60 goals per season. He still gets 50-60.
And guest9103 - in fairness, OV has a pretty good setup man in Backstrom, its not like he's doing it all on his own. But I agree, Heatley benefits mightily from his line, and he does get a lot of "garbage goals".
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 22:00:30
|
Coaches don't care about number of goals, shots, or anything else other than winning games. So the point of what the coach likes is moot. Much like the garbage arguement that Heatley gets garbage goals. If that was the case, then why has Heatley been able to score all those goals playing with tons of different players in his career??
Why is Mike Bossy considered the most prolific goal scorer in the history of the game?? Why is Mario Lemieux so highly regarded as a goal scorer?? Why?? Because they had huge goal totals and had very high efficiency. There are players that have more goals than those guys but they are not considered in the elite.
Again, to answer the question, by definition, is not the player with the most goals. It is the player with a high number of goals and a high effeciency in their ability to score.
And again, I prove something and some continue to dodge the facts with weak attempts with comments like "no one cares unless they are hockey geeks." Ovechkin can score nearly as many goals without shooting as much. I proved that. Furthermore, Washington was more successful in the season he had fewer shots a slightly fewer goals.
But the coach doesn't care about that right??? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2010 : 22:51:58
|
quote:
Again, to answer the question, by definition, is not the player with the most goals. It is the player with a high number of goals and a high effeciency in their ability to score.
*sigh* OK Beans, if you want to ignore the definition of "prolific" and make up your own, and give that award to Heatley, thats cool.
I still say it depends on your time period, and after that its just a case of crunching numbers.
Mario - perhaps you could clarify the question?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 05:06:33
|
It's definitely not Heatley, IMHO. Can't be Stamkos yet, it's too early for him. And Crosby has only recently entered this category, and it's in the middle of his second season of being a sniper.
It's still Ovechkin, but he's just hanging on at this point, and by the end of the season, may be eclipsed by Crosby IF (and it's a big if) Ovechkin doesn't come within 5 goals of him or better.
The one thing you DO NOT want to do is assume today's slump is going to be reflected at the end of the year statistics . . . especially with a well proven, elite superstar like Ovechkin. I would even add that for Kovalchuk, who has been really struggling in New Jersey . . . would not count these guys out yet in terms of salvaging their season statistically.
At the end of the regular season, I'll make my true judgement on whether it's Ovechkin, Crosby or Stamkos now.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 07:14:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Again, to answer the question, by definition, is not the player with the most goals. It is the player with a high number of goals and a high effeciency in their ability to score.
*sigh* OK Beans, if you want to ignore the definition of "prolific" and make up your own, and give that award to Heatley, thats cool.
I still say it depends on your time period, and after that its just a case of crunching numbers.
Mario - perhaps you could clarify the question?
Who is making up definitions??
producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer.
Is there a confusion on what frequency is??
the number of times a value recurs in a unit change of the independent variable of a given function.
I am not making anything up. I simply have a higher expectation. I am looking at it comparing how often a player scores compares to the shots they take and people don't have a single argument that is valid to this point. Saying that Heatley has garbage goals or that Ovechkin just scores more so his coach doesn't care how many shots he takes proves nothing.
As I said, in most any other comparison, no one would say that something is more productive based on shear volume without looking at cycles.
Except when looking at goal scoring I guess.
And just curious Slozo, why not Heatley??? He has produced consistently for a long period of time regardless of the team he is on or the talent he is with.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 12/13/2010 07:15:20 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 09:26:19
|
what you are doing is pulling a single word out of a larger definition, and making it the focus of the entire definition. I can do that too:
producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer
OV since the lockout. Sid since Jan 1 2010. Heatley never.
|
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 10:58:50
|
WOW, I did not anticipate causing such a stir when I created the poll. I raised the question because even though Ovechkin has always taken a ton more shots then everyone else prior to the last yr & half he scored so many more goals then everyone that it was hard not to validate his reign at the top. But as nuxfan mentioned he only has 14 less goals now in the last yr & half. Although the differntial in goals may not be extreme, when you add up the fact that he takes atleast 100 more shots then that difference does become extreme.
I am not going to add much in regards to the arguement as most of the members points where all relevant just going to respond to some of the comments that where completely irrelevant or off in left field.
Although, I find most peoples points valid i have to go with beans and the way he completely broke it down. Comparable to Passer Rating in the NFL (Yes i know completely different sport but its easiest way to break down a players productivity & effiecency.) When I said prolific (productive) I meant scoring at the highest rate of effiecency. I agree that Ovechkin scores the most goals as stats do not lie but when a guy routinely fires the puck at the net from anywhere on the ice as oppose to passing I can hardly call him the most effiecent or best goal scorer.
As far as some peoples statements that Danny Heatley needs a solid set up guy to score, you must have forgot his years in ATL where the only player he had with him (Kovalchuk) would not give up the puck unless someone stole it off him. Please do not respond with Marc Savard as he was not nearly the player then that he ended up becoming. Don't be a DB and say Hossa as they where traded for one another. The arguement of a quality set up man is irrelevant anyway, Regardless of who is passing the puck a goal scorer still has to finish which is much easier said then done. If having a quality set up guy was all it took or was a crucial part of it then there would be 3x the number of 50 goal scorers per season as their is an abundance of quality play makers in the league.
Lastly, to those of you who felt it necessary to comment on something completely off topic. Regardless of your opinion about my signature "Lemieux owns Gretzky" you will never change my mind on the topic as i believe gretzky amassed his most prolific seasons in an era where as you call my current penguin wingers the goalies where "pylons" who were routinely scored on along the ice.
I realize the point that you are making and can agree that statiscally gretzky was the best but it is an arguement that will always be debated (same as Roy & Brodeur, and a plethora of other comparisons). Growing up i was a Lemieux fan and watched him dominate the league when gretzky was still in his prime as well. So to me Lemieux will always be the best if you do not like to bad so sad. (Not directed towards everyone just those who felt it was necessary to mention even though it was completely irrelevant to the topic)
Enjoy your day!
Lemieux owns Gretzky |
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 11:22:58
|
The question is he still the most prolific a time period should be pretty self explainable as he has only been in the league for 6 yrs.
Lemieux owns Gretzky |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 11:30:41
|
I'll tell you why Heatley is nowhere near my top three right now, Beans.
Joe Thornton.
And I'll elaborate . . .
2 seasons of 39 goals with Joe Thornton on a stacked team. That's the last two years, btw . . . and this year, Heatley has 13 goals so far, same as guys like Vanek, Neal, Toews, and Cleary. In terms of expectations for Heatley, that is piss-poor, I'd say.(I know Ovechkin only has around 12 goals right now, but Heatley didn't score 50 last year, or 56 the year before, and he remains an elite player at this point)
Heatley has been very good, but not great. Consistent, yes - but not elite, especially not the last two years.
The BEST NHL GOALSCORER should be one of the elite from the last few years, full stop.
For me, that would include a very small group: Ovechkin, Crosby, Kovalchuk (past his scoring prime perhaps, but included) and probably Stamkos now. Heatley would now be second tier, and Kovalchuk after this season would be relegated to second tier as well looks like. So maybe just Ovie, Crosby,
Fair enough explanation?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 11:43:12
|
Thanks for the clarification Mario.
Based on prolific being volume and efficiency, I would argue that OV has NEVER been the most prolific goalscorer in the NHL, so there is no mantle for him to lose.
Out of the premier goal scorers in the NHL over the last 2-5 seasons - OV, Crosby, Kovalchuk, and now Stamkos - OV has by far the lowest shooting percentage. OV's best shooting percentage was 14.6% in his monster 07/08 season, but besides that he has hovered around a 12% average.
Compare to Crosby's career average of nearly 15.5%, Kovalchuk's average of 14.5% (if you exclude his time in NJ its over 15%), and Stamkos's 16.6% (albeit over only 3 years). There is really no comparison. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 12/13/2010 11:44:56 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 11:52:06
|
Hey Nuxfan, pot calling the kettle black?? You accuse me of taking only a specific part of the definition yet you are only looking at quantity. Sure, whatever. I never argued that Ovechkin scores the most and part of the reason he scores the most is because he takes a huge number of shots. But I did take both sides of the defintion. I took only those player who score alot. A total of 4 player with all 30+ goal seasons since the lockout. Then I looked at those player effieciency.
Who is making their own definitions??
Mario - Nice post. Makes sense. Not because you agree with me but because it is clear now. It's not most, it's best, right??
Slozo - Fair enough. Granted when I take a look at the list of pure goal scorers, a guy who has scored the 3rd most goals since the lock out, does it at a very high effieceny, and has done it with 2 different teams, under two different coaches, and using 2 different systems, I am impressed. But I won't argue with your logic as I also believe if you put any of your list of elite players with Thornton, they would produce as well or better than Heatley. I just have to go on what actual happens without too many assumptions. |
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 11:57:15
|
NP Nuxfan. Even though he has never been the most effiecent his overall goal production in comparsion to everyone over the 3yr period still seperated him from the pack would you not agree Nuxfan?
Lemieux owns Gretzky |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 12:18:01
|
quote:
Even though he has never been the most effiecent his overall goal production in comparsion to everyone over the 3yr period still seperated him from the pack would you not agree Nuxfan?
He's separated from the pack only by the sheer number of both shots and goals he has. But when you are asking about volume+efficiency, he has never in his career been the best. He's not even close, about 20% less efficient than the other "elite" goal scorers Crosby, Kovalchuk, and Stamkos. And yes, Heatley also outdoes OV in this regard, as Beans has demonstrated.
Which is really why I assumed you were equating "prolific" to "volume", because the only thing OV is about is volume.
quote:
You accuse me of taking only a specific part of the definition yet you are only looking at quantity
Actually Beans, I took the REST of the definition, as noted below:
producing offspring, young, fruit, etc., abundantly; highly fruitful: a prolific pear tree.
2.
producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer.
3.
profusely productive or fruitful (often fol. by in or of ): a bequest prolific of litigations.
4.
characterized by abundant production: a prolific year for tomatoes.
But hey, its moot as Mario has cleared up his intent of this thread.
EDIT:
man. I just realized that you've even been misreading the definition of prolific from the getgo. I haven't been reading your posts close enough...
"highly productive"
"Productive" is subtly different from "productivity". If something is "productive", it simply produces - it is literally the process of creating or the capability of producing something, period. Ergo, if something is "highly productive", it produces a lot - "Ovechkin is the most productive goal scorer".
Productivity is a measurement of the rate of production, ie, how many cycles it takes to be productive - "Crosby has a better rate of productivity than Ovechkin"
There is nothing in the definition about prolific being a measure of productivity - it simply means high production. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 12/13/2010 12:52:49 |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 13:27:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15....Again, to answer the question, by definition, is not the player with the most goals. It is the player with a high number of goals and a high effeciency in their ability to score.
At the end of a player's career they will look at how many goals the player scored in the amount of games they played - and based on that people will determine if the guy is a prolific scorer or not....not the amount of shots they have taken. Surely it will enter in as an interesting side note if players are close in "goal-to-game" ratios, but otherwise it doesn't bring much value. Fun to discuss though. |
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 16:52:37
|
I found it absolutely frightening how close Beans was to convincing everyone that his definition of prolific is more accurate than the actual definition. Fascism at pickuphockey.com? Double-plus-ungood.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2011. |
|
|
|
Guest5806
( )
|
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 17:57:01
|
| he has a better shot than crosby |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 21:05:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
I found it absolutely frightening how close Beans was to convincing everyone that his definition of prolific is more accurate than the actual definition. Fascism at pickuphockey.com? Double-plus-ungood.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2011.
Ouch?? I am not sure if that is a shot or a compliment???
Leigh, you bring up a good point regarding goals per game. That is often one of the top standards of measuing goal scoring. Although, assist per game is rarely discuss? However, I digress. Let's take a glance as goals per game.
Taking the same 4 players that have produced more than 30 goals in each seasons since the lockout(Heatley, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, and Iginla), they are not only the guy who scored the most but also played the most. They are all between 399 games and 394 games and they have between 269 and 191 goals. Subsequently, the next closest player in goals is Crosby with a distant 159.
Ovechkin leads the group at .68 GPG, then Kovalchuk at .58, Heatley at .55, and Iginla at .48.
Another interesting thing (at least in my opinion) is to look at PPG and EVG. Ovechkin had the most PPG, but not by much. Actually, Ovechkin had the lowest % of goals coming on the PP of the entire group at just less than 34%. Heatley lead that group with nearly 40% of his goals coming on the PP, Kovalchuk at 37%, and Iginla at just over 34%.
Maybe I might be not looking at this right. It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I am not a big man.
It is an interesting conversation however, at the end of the day I think it's splitting hairs. I don't think too many fans would be complaining if one of these guys was the 1st line winger for their favorite team.
I would take any one of these 4 today as they are the elite. However, Crosby, Gaborik(statistically), Stamkos, Nash, Zetterberg, Parise, Staal, and Marleau are in a group very close behind.
Even more importantly, 62% of all stats are irrelevant. Who do you want on the ice, a goal down, with 30 seconds left??? |
Edited by - Beans15 on 12/13/2010 21:08:51 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2010 : 08:35:50
|
Right now, a goal down, 30 seconds left, I want Ovechkin, maybe Crosby. Kovalchuk was not far behind a year ago.
In your humble last post there Beans (love the Fletch reference, btw), you touched on one thing that I didn't mention but always consider - power play goals, or what I call the "soft goals". Heatley, as you pointed out, benefits the most from that, and has amazing linemates. He rarely, if ever, dominates a game like Kovalchuk or Ovechkin or Crosby can. I see a bit of this in Stamkos, although I do believe he is more talented than that . . . again though, a bit early to tell.
I also like to look at how many third period goals a guy has, how many game tying/go ahead goals they have . . . I know the GWG stat is often misleading, but again, put together with these other stats it gives a bit of a broader picture.
And, to add to my reasoning, I also look at goal scoring as a much more of a "what have you done for me lately" category. The window for being a top sniper, for even the elite players, is pretty short, and five years is too long . . . just think, 5 years ago, guess who led the league in goals, and is now playing minor hockey?
That's right . . . Jonathan Cheechoo, he of the 56 goal season, playing with the talented playmaker Thornton. Jagr had 54 then . . . now he's practically retired. Kovalchuk had 52, now he can't seem to hit the broadside of a barn.
All I am saying is, I think for top sniper, you almost have to go with a two, three year at most time period to evaluate, and you have to weigh many things.
In the end, no one can dominate a game like Crosby or Ovechkin can at this point, and as goal scorers, they are a threat to score from anywhere, at any time. I would challenge anyone here to answer anyone other than these two for the question that Beans just asked.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 12/14/2010 08:38:00 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2010 : 09:03:23
|
I'll take up that challenge Slozo! I think you were referring to who i'd want on the ice, a goal down, with 30 sec's to go? ME! I wanna be the hero!
No, really, i'd take Crosby or Ovechkin any day. If i had to pick one or the other, prob Crosby because if he didn't score, he'd likely pick up a first assist on whoever did tie it (then he'd prob win it in OT). This assumes of course we're talking current players? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2010 : 12:41:11
|
Today, I take Crosby. As Willus stated in another thread, Crosby today(and for the past yearish) has been able to will the game to his liking. Something guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, and Forsberg once did.
I need a goal, I want Crosby on the ice. |
|
|
|
nsyof
Top Prospect
1 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2010 : 01:12:28
|
Some of you are looking way too into the question....If you had to pick one player who you would want on your team and you think would score the most goals who would it be?
Most people would impartially pick Ovechkin because he scores..simple as that..who cares about his shooting percentage or amount of shots. Those shots are earned either way whether it is his accuracy from far out or getting to the net..As of right now I would take Crosby of course...he plays with a bunch of pylons compared to Ovi and Heatley who have all stars on their lines...Crosby has found his touch without Malkin all year and I think it is hear to stay...with Semin being an UFA next year he is most likely gonna be leaving,therefore, in my eyes Ovi will have a lack of goals..
And to say that GM's dont care about goals is ridiculous...ultimately its wins but how do you win...with goals and goaltenders....if a team lacks in goals they will get a goal scorer...With 12 goals this year Ovi has currently passed the torch to Crosby who right now is the best player in the world....nuff said |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Ovechkin still the NHL's best goal scorer 
