Who Do You Think Will Lead the Wings In Scoring

[toby91_ca 620]

Not sure how you can say Ovechkin is the goal scoring god and no one is even close. You'd have to at least admit that Stamkos is close. If you take the past 6 seasons, both have missed sometime, but Ovechkin has scored 256 goals and Stamkos has scored 253 goals. Stamkos has a better gpg stat over that period....if that's not AT LEAST close, not sure what would be as some would argue that Stamkos is the better goal scorer using those stats. Perhaps it's because Ovechkin had 53 last year to Stamkos' 43 and the year before, Ovechkin had 51 to Stamkos' 25, but Stamkos only played 37 games, so that's a 55 goal pace over 82 games.

[kipwinger 8,807]

Stamkos is close. He's the only other person in the ballpark as far as I'm concerned.

[kickazz 5,459]

Not sure how you can say Ovechkin is the goal scoring god and no one is even close. You'd have to at least admit that Stamkos is close. If you take the past 6 seasons, both have missed sometime, but Ovechkin has scored 256 goals and Stamkos has scored 253 goals. Stamkos has a better gpg stat over that period....if that's not AT LEAST close, not sure what would be as some would argue that Stamkos is the better goal scorer using those stats. Perhaps it's because Ovechkin had 53 last year to Stamkos' 43 and the year before, Ovechkin had 51 to Stamkos' 25, but Stamkos only played 37 games, so that's a 55 goal pace over 82 games.

He said PP god not goal scoring god. I said the same.

Ovie thrives on the PP more over the course of the season than Stamkos does. At least according to overall numbers.

In terms of just straight goal scoring I think they are very very close.

Edited September 30, 2015 by kickazz

[robb himself 143]

I vote Tatar. I think he takes over as the guy this year.

[Euro_Twins 4,485]

He said PP god not goal scoring god. I said the same.

Ovie thrives on the PP more over the course of the season than Stamkos does. At least according to overall numbers.

In terms of just straight goal scoring I think they are very very close.

Ovechkin is the goal scoring god period. He is in his own league and no one is close.

I agree stamkos is as close as the nhl has to ovie though

[kickazz 5,459]

Ah i thought he meannt mrazekfanboy's comment.

My mistake

[Franzine 739]

Tatar gets 40 goals this year.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Guess what.

There was a season 2005/06 i believe where Henrik Zetterberg scored nearly haf his goals (maybe 18 or so) on the PP.

Boy Zetterberg sure turned out okay to me.

Point is. People are jumping on this "oh Nyquist can only score on the PP" bandwagon without any legitamate argument really. They have what? One season to go off of? Come on give me a break..

He has had two real seasons and one of them he happened to score mostly on PP. That's all I gather from this.

There's plenty of players who have had seasons where they scored heavily on the powerplay rather than full strength

Zetterberg

OVetchkin - He is THE power play legend.

yzerman

...

For the record I'm not making a point that he's a better goal scorer than Tatar. I'm just making a point that we really don't have jack s*** to go off of. Too early to judge. Besides I'm one of the few who thinks that PP superstars are a good thing. For some reason people think being good on PP makes you inferior. Ha. I'll take 14 goals from Nyquist on the PP if that means we get to score on opponents.

I don't see what the problem is with saying Nyquist struggles to score when not on the powerplay when historically Nyquist has struggled to score when not on the powerplay. I'll give you he absolutely kicked ass in his rookie year, scoring at a shooting% that was absolutely unsustainable, and back when he was an unknown in the league and was treated by defending teams like it. If you think that stint was closer to his norm than last year, that's fine, but I personally think that streak was something we won't see from anyone for quite a long time, Nyquist included. I will agree with you that its too early to predict what his entire career will turn out to be, and I'm certainly not trying to predict his future, but I'm not going to say Nyquist is perfectly okay with his scoring distribution until he actually proves that he is on the ice. In other words, I'll keep saying Nyquist lives and dies by the powerplay until he can prove with some consistency that he doesn't.

[kickazz 5,459]

I don't see what the problem is with saying Nyquist struggles to score when not on the powerplay when historically Nyquist has struggled to score when not on the powerplay. I'll give you he absolutely kicked ass in his rookie year, scoring at a shooting% that was absolutely unsustainable, and back when he was an unknown in the league and was treated by defending teams like it. If you think that stint was closer to his norm than last year, that's fine, but I personally think that streak was something we won't see from anyone for quite a long time, Nyquist included. I will agree with you that its too early to predict what his entire career will turn out to be, and I'm certainly not trying to predict his future, but I'm not going to say Nyquist is perfectly okay with his scoring distribution until he actually proves that he is on the ice. In other words, I'll keep saying Nyquist lives and dies by the powerplay until he can prove with some consistency that he doesn't.

So you want to pick and chose and look at ONE season where he produced half his goals on the power play and say he "lives and dies by the powerplay"?

Hows this.

AHL stats

2011-2012 - 22 goals only 7 on the powerplay

2012-2013 - 23 goals 9 on the powerplay

2013-2014 - 7 goals - 1 on the powerplay

There is literally no statistic you can give me that he lives and dies by the PP except for last season where he happened to shine on the PP. Literally his entire career in the AHL or college career shows that he didn't simply rely on the powerplay. Not only that, his rookie year in the NHL adds to it as well (bigger defenders)

College, AHL, NHL numbers.

Edited October 1, 2015 by kickazz

[Euro_Twins 4,485]

Last season more than half of Nyquist's goals were from the powerplay. The year before he went on that wild rampage to close out the season where he was scoring at some unsustainable percentage, which brings his career numbers closer to the average you mentioned. He was also something of an unknown that year, so he was granted the time and space that rookies often see, and established goal-scorers do not. He's a talented shooter, but the concern over Nyquist struggling to find time and space to score is a valid one.

Over the last two seasons ovie has scored 49 of his 104 goals on the pp. I don't understand what the problem is with scoring a lot of goals on the pp is.. don't you want guys who can put the puck in on the pp?

[Echolalia 2,961]

So you want to pick and chose and look at ONE season where he produced half his goals on the power play and say he "lives and dies by the powerplay"?

Hows this.

AHL stats

2011-2012 - 22 goals only 7 on the powerplay

2012-2013 - 23 goals 9 on the powerplay

2013-2014 - 7 goals - 1 on the powerplay

There is literally no statistic you can give me that he lives and dies by the PP except for last season where he happened to shine on the PP. Literally his entire career in the AHL or college career shows that he didn't simply rely on the powerplay. Not only that, his rookie year in the NHL adds to it as well (bigger defenders)

College, AHL, NHL numbers.

That one season is about half his entire NHL career. It's also the most recent half. Statistically that's a pretty big chunk. Also, cmon don't bring up what he did in college, or AHL, or peewee. I know you know those numbers mean absolutely nothing in the NHL. Kirk Matlby was a 50 goal scorer in juniors. Not surprisingly, that trend didn't continue.

Over the last two seasons ovie has scored 49 of his 104 goals on the pp. I don't understand what the problem is with scoring a lot of goals on the pp is.. don't you want guys who can put the puck in on the pp?

Don't get me wrong, scoring on the power play is perfectly fine. But ideally, you also want to see him have more success at even strength. Ovechkin, Stamkos, Zetterberg, etc have all proven throughout their NHL careers to be able to reliably score at even strength and on the power play. Nyquist has not. At least not yet.

[kipwinger 8,807]

If Nyquist's preseason is any indication, he's still got a lot to learn about scoring at even strength. He does fine off the rush, and in broken coverage. But he's not really great at establishing zone time or creating offense off the cycle. Probably because in those situations he tends to get overwhelmed easily...since he's kinda weak.

I think as he strengthens up and learns to play in traffic he'll be fine. But for the time being the lion's share of his scoring will be on the PP and off the rush, because that's where perimeter players do their damage.

[Echolalia 2,961]

If Nyquist's preseason is any indication, he's still got a lot to learn about scoring at even strength. He does fine off the rush, and in broken coverage. But he's not really great at establishing zone time or creating offense off the cycle. Probably because in those situations he tends to get overwhelmed easily...since he's kinda weak.

I think as he strengthens up and learns to play in traffic he'll be fine. But for the time being the lion's share of his scoring will be on the PP and off the rush, because that's where perimeter players do their damage.

I agree with this assessment. He's not so effective in tight coverage, and does most of his damage when he gets open. Not coincidentally that's often on the power play, during a breakdown in coverage, or on the rush, as you mentioned. Who knows if that's how his entire career will be. Perhaps not. But it's certainly how he's been performing. Edited October 1, 2015 by Echolalia

[Richdg 267]

Overall points? Green if he stays healthy. Yes many of those will be second assists, but those do count as points. Goals Tatar most likely.

[joesuffP 1,746]

Tatar gets 40 goals this year.

That GIF is awesome. One of the best hockey games in recent memory

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

Not sure how you can say Ovechkin is the goal scoring god and no one is even close. You'd have to at least admit that Stamkos is close. If you take the past 6 seasons, both have missed sometime, but Ovechkin has scored 256 goals and Stamkos has scored 253 goals. Stamkos has a better gpg stat over that period....if that's not AT LEAST close, not sure what would be as some would argue that Stamkos is the better goal scorer using those stats. Perhaps it's because Ovechkin had 53 last year to Stamkos' 43 and the year before, Ovechkin had 51 to Stamkos' 25, but Stamkos only played 37 games, so that's a 55 goal pace over 82 games.

Because he's not close to Ovechkin. Ovechkin will score most likely 800 goals when his career is over, Stamkos won't get close to that.

More GP = harder to maintain GPG. I already went through this with you in the other Ovi thread about 6 months ago. Not to mention Ovi's 65 goals season ranks #2 as the best goal scoring season of all time when to prorate the numbers by goal scoring through the era's. Ovi also scored 30+ goals in his first 10 seasons, only done by 5 other players, even in a lockout season he scored 32 goals in 48 games.

Stamkos can't and will not hold a candle stick to Ovi when he retires. It's painfully obvious.

Top Scorers GP Goals GPG

Alex Ovechkin 758 475 0.63

Steven Samkos 492 276 0.55

Jarome Iginla 763 336 0.44

Rick Nash 707 320 0.45

Ilya Kovalchuk 589 309 0.52

Patrick Marleau 769 302 0.39

Sidney Crosby 624 301 0.48

Eric Staal 762 301 0.40

Marian Hossa 702 298 0.42

Thomas Vanek 741 298 0.40

Corey Perry 720 296 0.41

Stamkos GPG in the playoffs = 0.26

Ovechkin GPG in the playoffs = 0.50

Edited October 1, 2015 by DatsyukianDekes

[kickazz 5,459]

Interesting stats.

Theres also the factor that with S Louis gone, Stamkos has had more responsiblities. I can see him evolving into a playmaker/goal scorer as his career progresses. Ovechkin has a Backstrom. Stammer unfortunately doesnt.

Id like to think that Ovie is just seen as a pure goal scorer. With Stamkos I think he expects himself to have more responsbility than that.

He will probably stay 40+ scorer but 50+ I'm not sure.

[Buppy 1,720]

That one season is about half his entire NHL career. It's also the most recent half. Statistically that's a pretty big chunk. Also, cmon don't bring up what he did in college, or AHL, or peewee. I know you know those numbers mean absolutely nothing in the NHL. Kirk Matlby was a 50 goal scorer in juniors. Not surprisingly, that trend didn't continue.

Don't get me wrong, scoring on the power play is perfectly fine. But ideally, you also want to see him have more success at even strength. Ovechkin, Stamkos, Zetterberg, etc have all proven throughout their NHL careers to be able to reliably score at even strength and on the power play. Nyquist has not. At least not yet.

Statistically, it's still one season.

Didn't really struggle all that much either. He had 13 EVG. The 56 players in the league who scored between 23-31 goals averaged right around 18 EVG. If you take his first year into account, and try to normalize the numbers instead of just ignoring them because they don't support your theory, he'd be pretty close to those numbers. That he had a couple super hot streaks that year is balanced in large part by the fact that he only played 2/3rds of the season. Normalize his numbers and it puts him around 17-24 EVG that year.

At worst you might conclude that he's a little below average at ES for a scorer of his level. Seems more likely that he's pretty normal, with his first year a little better than you'd expect and last year a little worse. If anything I would say his success on the PP last year is further from the norm than his struggles at ES.

[vladdy16 2,154]

This is about who will lead the Wings in scoring this season. Let's keep it to Detroit in here, but feel free to start an overall leading scorer thread.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Statistically, it's still one season.

Didn't really struggle all that much either. He had 13 EVG. The 56 players in the league who scored between 23-31 goals averaged right around 18 EVG. If you take his first year into account, and try to normalize the numbers instead of just ignoring them because they don't support your theory, he'd be pretty close to those numbers. That he had a couple super hot streaks that year is balanced in large part by the fact that he only played 2/3rds of the season. Normalize his numbers and it puts him around 17-24 EVG that year.

At worst you might conclude that he's a little below average at ES for a scorer of his level. Seems more likely that he's pretty normal, with his first year a little better than you'd expect and last year a little worse. If anything I would say his success on the PP last year is further from the norm than his struggles at ES.

A couple things. What exactly are you doing to normalize this data? Because the basis of your argument is how you're adjusting the data for your case but you haven't actually explained the method you use, so I have no way to distinguish whether you are actually putting forth a valid point, or if you're just saying "normalize" then following it up with numbers friendly to your argument.

But more to my point: I'm not discrediting that first season because it goes against my argument. I'm discrediting that first season because the attention Nyquist will see from opposing teams for the rest of his career likely won't be as lax as it was that year. He's a known threat and there's tape on him now, so if he is going to have any amount of success, it's going to be by overcoming this new obstacle that wasn't present a couple years ago, but will be present for the remainder of his career. That means what worked in year 1 may not work in years 2 through X, and based on how last season went, it would appear that Nyquist is still learning to adapt to the tighter coverage. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include that variable in my assessment.

Finally, you're right that 13 even strength goals isn't all that bad, but it's disproportionally low for someone who had 14 on the power play, and it supports the idea that Nyquist, who did so well the year before yet suddenly hit a wall, but still seemed to thrive on the power play where he would still see the time and space that he had the previous season.

[Buppy 1,720]

A couple things. What exactly are you doing to normalize this data? Because the basis of your argument is how you're adjusting the data for your case but you haven't actually explained the method you use, so I have no way to distinguish whether you are actually putting forth a valid point, or if you're just saying "normalize" then following it up with numbers friendly to your argument.

But more to my point: I'm not discrediting that first season because it goes against my argument. I'm discrediting that first season because the attention Nyquist will see from opposing teams for the rest of his career likely won't be as lax as it was that year. He's a known threat and there's tape on him now, so if he is going to have any amount of success, it's going to be by overcoming this new obstacle that wasn't present a couple years ago, but will be present for the remainder of his career. That means what worked in year 1 may not work in years 2 through X, and based on how last season went, it would appear that Nyquist is still learning to adapt to the tighter coverage. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include that variable in my assessment.

Finally, you're right that 13 even strength goals isn't all that bad, but it's disproportionally low for someone who had 14 on the power play, and it supports the idea that Nyquist, who did so well the year before yet suddenly hit a wall, but still seemed to thrive on the power play where he would still see the time and space that he had the previous season.

Didn't exactly do anything. I meant normalize in the general sense, meaning try to adjust the numbers to account for whatever you think is skewing them rather than just throwing them out altogether.

For example, you say the attention paid to him last year was lax, (though you don't have any evidence of that, other than that it sorta seems like it would be a thing...) but I'm sure you're not suggesting that no one played any kind of defense at all against him. So how much do you think his numbers were inflated that year? 20%, 40%, 50%? It's already a small data set, no need to make it smaller by ignoring a big part of it.

What you're doing is confirmation bias. Trying to interpret the data in a way that supports your conclusion.

The actual data is this:

Year 1: 57gp, 22evg, 6ppg, 78% at ES

Year 2: 82gp, 13evg, 14ppg, 48% at ES

First year was far more effective at ES than the second, but also much less effective on the PP. The most likely explanation is simple year to year variance that we see all the time, with the truth somewhere around the middle. That middle suggests that he's pretty normal in terms of scoring distribution. Likely to stay close to normal even if you adjust the 1st year numbers.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Didn't exactly do anything. I meant normalize in the general sense, meaning try to adjust the numbers to account for whatever you think is skewing them rather than just throwing them out altogether.

For example, you say the attention paid to him last year was lax, (though you don't have any evidence of that, other than that it sorta seems like it would be a thing...) but I'm sure you're not suggesting that no one played any kind of defense at all against him. So how much do you think his numbers were inflated that year? 20%, 40%, 50%? It's already a small data set, no need to make it smaller by ignoring a big part of it.

What you're doing is confirmation bias. Trying to interpret the data in a way that supports your conclusion.

The actual data is this:

Year 1: 57gp, 22evg, 6ppg, 78% at ES

Year 2: 82gp, 13evg, 14ppg, 48% at ES

First year was far more effective at ES than the second, but also much less effective on the PP. The most likely explanation is simple year to year variance that we see all the time, with the truth somewhere around the middle. That middle suggests that he's pretty normal in terms of scoring distribution. Likely to stay close to normal even if you adjust the 1st year numbers.

Except it's not simple year to year variance. I looked at the top ESG scorers from 2013-2014 and compared it to their scores the following year. I also looked at just rookies in the first year to make the data source closer to Nyquist's. So we're looking at Monahan, Palat, Mackinnon, Bjugstad, Johnson, Jenner, Hertl, Nichushkin, Scheifele, and Kreider, and comparing it to Nyquist. I wanted to look at the change in PPG/total goal ratio change between the two years.

Monahan rose from 13% in 2013/14 to 32% in 2014/15 for a change of 19%.

Palat rose from 13% to 19%. Change of 6%

Mackinnon dropped from 33% to 21%. Change of 12%

Bjugstad rose from 0% to 29% (he scored 0ppg in that first season). Change of 29%

Johnson went from 21% to 27%. Change of 6%

Jenner dropped from 25% to 22%. Change of 3%

Hertl rose from 20% to 23%. Change of 3%

Nichuskin dropped from 14% to 0% (he scored 0 goals second year. Only played a handful of games). Change of 14%

Scheifele rose from 8% to 20%. Change in 12%

Kreider dropped from 35% to 33%. Change in 2%.

Nyquist rose from 21% to 52%. Change in 31%. Which is clearly an outlier here. The next closest player scored 33% of their total goals year 2 on the power play. Nyquist is almost 20% higher than that. His change from year 1 to year 2 was also greater than anyone else at a 31%. Bjugstad was next at 29% change and he didn't score at all on the power play. After that the next closest was 19%. Most of the other guys were within 15% of their previous totals (average of 13, standard dev of 10). So clearly there is a significant change in Nyquist's two seasons that doesn't follow the general trend of the league. It's more accurate to look at it as two separate data sets (year 1 vs subsequent years) and not as a continuum, because Nyquist's data doesn't follow a bell curve. So which data set is closer to true? The one where he scored at a historical shooting% and was making news for scoring at a gpg pace that was tops league-wide for the second half of the league? Or the one where he has a disproportionate amount of his goals in the powerplay? But either way there still needs to be a reason why the data has such a large discrepancy between the two years. Kip did a good job summarizing my opinion on the matter, which is that Nyquist is having trouble adjusting to tighter coverage.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Echolalia

[sjr2012 439]

I think Goose or Tats will lead the Wings I say tats has more scoring chances but goose gets more goals 30

[Ram 240]

Tatar

[MileHighWingsGuy 178]

Larkin