View Single Post
Old
03-27-2013, 02:45 PM
  #37
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Was this suppose to change anything? Charlie Conacher has more offensive credentials then those 6 forwards of you combined.
Well, let's take a look....

Since Strum's percentage system seems to be the most accepted way of using the percentage method, I'll use his benchmarks.

In all my profiles, I use each players' best 6 season percentages as the way to measure their offensive peaks, so to avoid any thought of my cherry-picking stats, I will stick to the 6 season range here.

Combining the best 6 seasonal scoring percentages of the Watson-Savard-Conacher line, they come out with an very impressive score of 1500. Conacher led the way with 608, followed by Savard with 523, and Watson dragged them down with a 369.

Doing the same with the Hay-Turgeon-Iginla line, they come out with an almost identical score of 1508. Iginla led with 533, followed by Turgeon at 496, and Hay at 479.


I've been known to make errors in some calculations, so for accuracy's sake, here are the percentages I came up with for mark's players:
Denis Savard - 100(1988), 98(1983), 83(1986), 83(1987), 81(1982), 78(1985)
Charlie Conacher - 121(1934), 121(1935), 100(1931), 96(1932), 95(1936), 75(1933)
Harry Watson - 83(1949), 68(1948), 57(1952), 56(1951), 54(1947), 51(1950)

All of my players have these in their profiles.



What does that mean?

Well, that's an offensive comparison only, but I think it shows that mark's second line is no better offensively than ours.

With Turgeon being softer than Savard, and Watson being quite a bit tougher than Hay, his line brings more toughness. Defensively, I would think our line a little stronger.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote