View Single Post
12-16-2012, 01:51 AM
Registered User
jkrx's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Oh it's relevant, it just doesn't support your case.

Let's take the case for Howe in goalscoring in 51,52,53 he leads the NHL in scoring but I count close to 17 or 18 guys taking up the other 27 top 10 spots (variance).

Then in 54, at the old age of 25 he dips 16 goals from 49 to 33. He only falls to 2nd place from 1st.

In a larger league any drop of 16 goals from 1st is almost an automatic drop out of the top 5, the years it doesn't happen are exceptions.

In 55 he misses 6 games and scores only 29 goals good for 5th in 55 but it would have placed him in a tie for 2nd in 54.

You get the idea though, there is variance in each and every year and in every players career, throw in more variables and there is more chance for variance, ie add more teams and top players for non traditional feeder systems and you have more, or at least the likelihood of it, variance.
Yet Bobby Hull led the league in scoring even after the expansion to 12 teams and he led the WHA in scoring even if there were an influx of players fron non-traditional feeder markets. We arent talking about top-10 in scoring or even top-5. We are talking about Bobby Hull, top-3 in scoring 10 times leading it 7 times and had top performances against soviets best. So no, it's not really relevant in this case. If we were talking about Andy Bathgate you might have had a point.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote