View Single Post
11-13-2012, 02:55 AM
Registered User
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 29,775
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So rule changes had no bearing on Cooney Weiland leading the NHL in goals and scoring during the 1929-30 season? Weiland never matched this performance before or after.
So are we attributing that "blip" to rule changes, and not the fact that they had a 13 point Pittsburgh Pirates team in the division? I think they scored at almost a 2 goal clip higher against Pittsburgh that year than the rest of their opponents, for example. Dit Clapper also scored way, way more than any season before or after. Gainor, etc, etc.

Now, did it impact Boston more than anyone else, or something? Doesn't seem to. Next highest scoring team in the division was the Rangers, and lo-and-behold, there's Boucher with a number that sticks out. Both Cook brothers also set career highs. Keeling established his career high, Murdoch's wasn't a high, but sticks out like a sore thumb beside other consecutive seasons, etc.

Lets look at the highest scoring teams in the other division, shall we? Start with the Habs. Morenz? Not a career high in '29/30. Lepine? Yes. Joliat? No. Larochelle? No. Mantha? Yes. Not as strong a correlation. How about the next highest scoring team, the Maroons? Stewart had a career high at age 27. It wasn't Siebert's career year. Nor Smith's. Nor Trottier. Was for Phillips. Again, not as strong of a correlation.

It looks to me like the rule change affected league scoring, but Nalyd seems to be closer to the truth when he suggests that the rule change didn't affect who was "the best", just how they had to play. Since one of the aberrations you point to has a plausible enough alternate explanation (imo), I have to suppose the others do, too.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote