HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Most impressive goal scoring season of all time?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-07-2012, 09:17 AM
  #26
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
9 of those were into an empty net, and he held a significantly high margin above #2 because there was a void at the top usually filled by Selanne (33 goals because of the effects of his leg - this after having three-straight 50-goal seasons) and Jagr (42 goals because he missed 19 games), hence why 2nd and 3rd place were Nolan and Amonte. By comparison, Selanne beat an actual goaltender 50 times in 1998 despite missing 9 games in an even lower-scoring season. Bure in 2000 wasn't the best of the years surrounding the turn of the century, let alone all-time.
Some excellent points here. This is why its good to look at the context the stats were made, and not just take them at face value.

shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 09:56 AM
  #27
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 26,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Here we go. Downgrading someone's accomplishments because they were that much better than everyone else. Three 50 and more seasons in the defensive oriented late original 6 is an incredible accomplishment. I say Hull's dominance beats Gretzky's regarding goal scoring dominance.
I agree, but I'll see your Golden Jet, raise with Joe Malone, who hit the mesh 44 times in a 20 game season (1917-1918)...

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:41 AM
  #28
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
Some excellent points here. This is why its good to look at the context the stats were made, and not just take them at face value.
All except my oversight when I said Selanne had three-straight 50s. After getting some rest, off the top of my head, I know it was 51-52-47.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 02:34 PM
  #29
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I agree, but I'll see your Golden Jet, raise with Joe Malone, who hit the mesh 44 times in a 20 game season (1917-1918)...
Considering he only beat Denneny by 22%, I would say it pales in comparison to Hull.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 02:41 PM
  #30
redbull
springtime hockey!
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
The thing about Brett Hull, is he only had 45 assists, and focussed entirely on scoring those 86 goals. Gretzky had 120 assists (almost 3 times as many as Hull), and focussed more on creating plays and scoring chances. Despite this, he was still able to score 92 goals! Just imagine if he had focussed entirely on goals like Hull? How many would he have scored? 120? 130? Let's adjust that...
it would be a better message board if comparison's to Gretzky just weren't discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And Gretzky was able to score over 90 in the 1980s. Others came close but nobody did it.

So Mahovlich scored 48 in 1961, but only 32 in 1965. If Mahovlich's 48 goal season was in 1965, would that make Bobby Hull a worse player somehow? I just don't see the % over second place to be a very useful measure of goal scoring dominance - it often tells more about the second place scorer than it does about the first place scorer.

I think Bobby Hull very well may have the most impressive goal scoring season of all time, but I'm not as sure about it as I used to be.
Gretzky AT LEAST DOUBLED all but 6 other HHOF players in scoring, from 1981 - 87....same era...If it was easier for some in that era, it was still almost TWICE as "easy" for 99.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
92 is in fact 92.... Numbers are like that.

While I agree scoring 92 in 2012 would be more impressive, 59 in 2012 just isn't as impressive.

People still try for 50 in 50 because Rocket did it in one of the weakest seasons in NHL history when most players were in WWII... Still it was a goal a game!!!!

People remember the truly memorable seasons like Ruth with 60 home runs in baseball. Or 200 points for Gretzky... Or the 50 in 50 for Rocket.

If someone got 70 goals or a goal a game today... Or 150 points them you can start arguing to compare it to Gretzky's records in a different era. 59 goals, or even 65 doesn't cut the mustard.
excellent post.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 06:43 PM
  #31
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I agree, but I'll see your Golden Jet, raise with Joe Malone, who hit the mesh 44 times in a 20 game season (1917-1918)...
You make an interesting point here. As time goes on, we tend to forget long ago accomplishments. Malone's incredible season happened 40 years before I started following hockey. Bobby Hull's big seasons happened 40 years before most of the posters here started following the game. No wonder most of them are nostalogic about the 80's and Gretzky.

I am glad you are posting here Killion.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 07:49 AM
  #32
drs151
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,326
vCash: 500
since this always turns into a comparison against Gretzky Ill offer my own personal opinion.

In order for someone today to match Gretzkys 92 goal seasons imo they would have to hit somewhere around 73-75 goals. 80 goals today in my eyes would be defintely better than Gretzkys 92. But I dont see anyone hitting the 70 goal mark never mind the 80. And for points I think they would have to be somewhere around the 150 point mark to consider it close to waynes 200+ seasons. And even then someone would have to do it for 6 years in row. (yes I know gretz had 5 200+ point seasons but also had a 196 point season)

drs151 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 08:06 AM
  #33
Mothra
The Groovy Guru
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,592
vCash: 500
Not sure its been pointed out.....but im pretty sure ive heard Adam Oates say he is really proud of the big Brett Hull season because, other than the insane amount of goals....none were EN

I cant say ive cofirmed that as fact but I do remember him saying it

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 01:49 PM
  #34
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
Not sure its been pointed out.....but im pretty sure ive heard Adam Oates say he is really proud of the big Brett Hull season because, other than the insane amount of goals....none were EN

I cant say ive cofirmed that as fact but I do remember him saying it
It's definitely fact that Brett Hull didn't score empty-net goals until his 500th game.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19930564


My default answer is always Hull's 86.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 03:18 PM
  #35
WingsFan95
Registered User
 
WingsFan95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
9 of those were into an empty net, and he held a significantly high margin above #2 because there was a void at the top usually filled by Selanne (33 goals because of the effects of his leg - this after having three-straight 50-goal seasons) and Jagr (42 goals because he missed 19 games), hence why 2nd and 3rd place were Nolan and Amonte. By comparison, Selanne beat an actual goaltender 50 times in 1998 despite missing 9 games in an even lower-scoring season. Bure in 2000 wasn't the best of the years surrounding the turn of the century, let alone all-time.
Interesting, will have to look back at that.

WingsFan95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 03:20 PM
  #36
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,341
vCash: 800
Probably hull 86

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 04:05 PM
  #37
Aurel Joliat
Registered User
 
Aurel Joliat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
Joe Malone's 44 goals in 20 games

Aurel Joliat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 08:25 AM
  #38
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Malone obviously if we're going to use math.

If not then until somebody scores 93 it's Gretzky's 92.

Adjusted goals has no credibility whatsoever. It's like adjusted IQ. We're all smarter than Einstein today. Any high school drop out born today is smarter than Einstein. Just because we have the internet.

Talent is what it is. Poor math doesn't change that. Einstein failed math and could still comprehend the connection between his ideas and the Lorentz transformations. Can anyone on this board espousing adjustment understand the connection between branes and gravity? Gretzky scored 92 goals. A grade 4 level of math technique (in this country I work and teach math) cannot change that.





Last edited by Dalton: 04-09-2012 at 08:42 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 09:09 AM
  #39
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Malone obviously if we're going to use math.

If not then until somebody scores 93 it's Gretzky's 92.

Adjusted goals has no credibility whatsoever. It's like adjusted IQ. We're all smarter than Einstein today. Any high school drop out born today is smarter than Einstein. Just because we have the internet.

Talent is what it is. Poor math doesn't change that. Einstein failed math and could still comprehend the connection between his ideas and the Lorentz transformations. Can anyone on this board espousing adjustment understand the connection between branes and gravity? Gretzky scored 92 goals. A grade 4 level of math technique (in this country I work and teach math) cannot change that.
I made this point before on this board but there is no way in hell the majority of us are smarter than Einstein. Dont conflate intelligence with knowledge (Feyerabend had a great quote comparing the physicists of Einstein's generation with those after saying that the latter may have surpassed the former in terms of just their discipline but that they lack a well-rounded philosophical mindset the old guys had). In fact there is no way in hell the majority of us are more knowledgeable than Einstein when it comes to physics. Yes the science has advanced beyond Einstein's time but how many people are studying it at a level beyond Einstein? Even among those how many have the understanding that Einstein had? Even going back to Newton how many people now have the understanding of classical mechanics or optics that he had?

I share some of your hesitation and skepticism concerning adjusted goals but you take it too far. The fact is that contexts are different from 82 to 12. Comparing stats from both years ignores this change in context. The motivation for adjustment according to the different contexts is perfectly understandable. The problem occurs because the adjustment itself is so simplistic. Adjusting on leaguewide goal scoring trends for individuals ignores that individual contexts may be different from the general aggregate leaguewide context by a lot. There are differing contexts within a single season itself that make comparing stats problematic within that year so what happens when we span eras? This all with respect to goals which is one of the stats i think that is most representative too. One can say that these adjusted goals represent some kind of proportion of individual goals to the total leaguewide goals scored thus representing some kind of value but this doesnt tell us what is 'better'.

But im a guy who thinks that stats are too heavily relied on anyway so...


Last edited by toob: 04-09-2012 at 09:19 AM.
toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 10:57 AM
  #40
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Well said. My post was hasty and simplistic.

I would compare talent to being knowledgeable. We look at the accomplishments of great people and judge their talent putting it into historical context such as who were the greatest composers of all time. Nobody adjusts Bach. We accept his talent. Who adjusts Lady Gaga to Schubert for example?

Yet we have this board representing hockey using simplistic math to bring all kinds of players to Gretzky's level. No credit is given for talent.

My remark about all of us smarter than Einstein is to illustrate this point displayed by those who think any journeyman player today could simply travel to Gretzky's era and be a star. Would they even understand how the game was played then? Rigid systemic play based on what came after against the free flowing talent driven hockey of the day may result in them failing to even make a team. Just being fit may only earn a tryout. Lot's of fit, fast skaters don't make teams I'm sure.

Archimedes makes the list of best mathematicians of all time based on his accomplishments which reveal his talent. Is he adjusted downward because he lived about 2000 years ago in simpler times with less head to head competition?

Who's to say really ( for example) that the guy who scored 44 goals in 22 games isn't the most talented goal scorer of all time? That he wouldn't outscore everyone today? Maybe break Gretzky's records as an example. Talent is not adjusted according to era or context. It is what it is.

92 goals is 92 goals. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica is Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Some say the greatest book ever written. 92 goals is the most ever scored. Some say the greatest hockey performance ever. Comparing this to 60 goals just because it's 2012 is like comparing my paper on the influence of math on Greek cosmology to Newton's work just because mine was written in the twentieth century. I am being respectful not going too far.

It's long due that this adjustment idea received more serious consideration.

I'm no fan of stats and probability as a personal endeavour but as many have stated on this board if you're inclined to use them use them properly. This simplistic goals per game analysis so obviously fails on so many levels not the least being measuring talent.

If you haven't discovered this site it may interest you or other readers.

www.edge.org

fixed the link. dot org not dot com. Apologies.


Last edited by Dalton: 04-09-2012 at 11:53 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:19 AM
  #41
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,364
vCash: 500
There are some good ones: Hull's 1966 season followed rather closely with his 1967 season for those of you that forgot. He had 52 while Mikita his next closest competitor had 35.

A lot of things go into play here. First off how many goals did they get? Secondly, how many goals did they get in comparison to the next best goal scorer? Who were the goal scorers competing with them? Lastly, I think its important as well if there was a record at stake. Hull had a record in 1966, as did Gretzky. Heck, as did Esposito in 1971. Truth be told, Esposito beat the previous record by a higher margin than Gretzky even.

That being said, Gretzky abolished the 50-in-50 record and did it in 39 games which might never be broken in our lifetime. I think that adds a bit to that spectacular season.

Yes, to me it matters that Gretzky had 92 while the guy considered to be the best goal scorer for a few years prior to that only had 64. High flying 1980s or not, that's incredible and it wasn't even what he did best.

Also if people are forgetting to mention Espo's season in 1971 just because he had Orr then you'd better not mention Brett Hull's season in 1991 because he had Oates. I don't buy into that very much, because you still have to put the puck in the back of the net and those were both some incredible seasons:

Esposito 1971, 76 goals - next best 51 (Bucyk)
Hull 1991, 86 goals - next best 51 (Yzerman, Neely, Fleury)

Those two above years are pretty good as well. Some might say Lemieux would have been neck and neck with Hull but in the surrounding years for Hull where he led the NHL in goals there wasn't one year from 1990-'92 that Mario would have beaten him in goals had he played a full season. Hull in 1991 sticks out like a sore thumb.

Ovechkin in 2008 and 2009 are very good too, as is Stamkos' 2012 season. But there isn't the seperation there as much. Ovechkin and Stamkos were the best goal scorers those years for sure but Malkin had 50 while Stamkos had 60. There is seperation, but from a goal scoring perspective Stamkos needs to do more to get on this very difficult list. Those years are reminiscent of Bossy in 1979 and 1981 who was definitely the best goal scorer in the NHL, but not a WHOLE lot more significant than Dionne those years. However, he did crack the very difficult 50-in-50 in 1981.

But either way, Gretzky scoring 92 is probably the best. Then again, scoring 87 in 1984 when the next best was Goulet at 56 might be just as good. You got to go with Gretzky here.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:40 AM
  #42
vadim sharifijanov
#bryantreevesbad
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There are some good ones: Hull's 1966 season followed rather closely with his 1967 season for those of you that forgot. He had 52 while Mikita his next closest competitor had 35.

A lot of things go into play here. First off how many goals did they get? Secondly, how many goals did they get in comparison to the next best goal scorer? Who were the goal scorers competing with them? Lastly, I think its important as well if there was a record at stake. Hull had a record in 1966, as did Gretzky. Heck, as did Esposito in 1971. Truth be told, Esposito beat the previous record by a higher margin than Gretzky even.

That being said, Gretzky abolished the 50-in-50 record and did it in 39 games which might never be broken in our lifetime. I think that adds a bit to that spectacular season.

Yes, to me it matters that Gretzky had 92 while the guy considered to be the best goal scorer for a few years prior to that only had 64. High flying 1980s or not, that's incredible and it wasn't even what he did best.

Also if people are forgetting to mention Espo's season in 1971 just because he had Orr then you'd better not mention Brett Hull's season in 1991 because he had Oates. I don't buy into that very much, because you still have to put the puck in the back of the net and those were both some incredible seasons:

Esposito 1971, 76 goals - next best 51 (Bucyk)
Hull 1991, 86 goals - next best 51 (Yzerman, Neely, Fleury)

Those two above years are pretty good as well. Some might say Lemieux would have been neck and neck with Hull but in the surrounding years for Hull where he led the NHL in goals there wasn't one year from 1990-'92 that Mario would have beaten him in goals had he played a full season. Hull in 1991 sticks out like a sore thumb.

Ovechkin in 2008 and 2009 are very good too, as is Stamkos' 2012 season. But there isn't the seperation there as much. Ovechkin and Stamkos were the best goal scorers those years for sure but Malkin had 50 while Stamkos had 60. There is seperation, but from a goal scoring perspective Stamkos needs to do more to get on this very difficult list. Those years are reminiscent of Bossy in 1979 and 1981 who was definitely the best goal scorer in the NHL, but not a WHOLE lot more significant than Dionne those years. However, he did crack the very difficult 50-in-50 in 1981.

But either way, Gretzky scoring 92 is probably the best. Then again, scoring 87 in 1984 when the next best was Goulet at 56 might be just as good. You got to go with Gretzky here.
re: margin of victory, and the shortcomings of the adjusted numbers per hockey-reference.com, it seems weird to me that bure's 2000 season is only the 17th highest adjusted single-season goal total ever.

the empty net goals adding to his goal total was mentioned upthread, but i don't think that factors into h-r's adjustment.

bure's 2001 season is ranked 13th all time, with an almost identical goal total (59 to 58) and a much smaller margin of victory (5 to 14). seems like if you adjust for league-wide scoring numbers, you also would want to factor in the median or average goal total for top five, or top ten, or top twenty goal scorers. even if there are more goals league-wide, if there are fewer goals at the top, that might indicate that it was harder for ONE SINGLE player to hit a high total that year-- whether this is due to a drop in powerplay chances, or some other factor.

i don't want to get into an argument about bure or that season specifically (jagr and tebow were hurt, e.g.), but i would like to think about other factors that might be incorporated to improve how we adjust stats for era.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:40 AM
  #43
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 26,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
You make an interesting point...
All the more "incredible" when you consider Malone played during an era when the rules were such that offence was stifled, smothered, not a whole lot of room to move, air to breathe...

...on pace to score 100G's in 50G's, 164 in an 82G season, biting at his heels the inimitable Cyril Denhe, Denneh, Denneny.. oh I give up..

The Ghost of Phantom Joe haunts me to this day. "What if?" as based on stats alone, the most prolific goal scorer the game has ever known, playing in handcuffs that not even Houdini could bust out of.


Last edited by Killion: 04-09-2012 at 12:27 PM.
Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:43 AM
  #44
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,979
vCash: 500
Definitely if somebody scores 92 goals next year, it's going to be placed higher than Gretzky's monstrous accomplishment. The thing is: nobody will. Ever.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:49 AM
  #45
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 26,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
...but from a goal scoring perspective Stamkos needs to do more to get on this very difficult list.
I agree.. "eventually, Steven Stamkos will be a great player, but first he has to mature, fill out some". Barry Melrose

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 12:10 PM
  #46
FDBluth
Registered User
 
FDBluth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 10,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Well said. My post was hasty and simplistic.

I would compare talent to being knowledgeable. We look at the accomplishments of great people and judge their talent putting it into historical context such as who were the greatest composers of all time. Nobody adjusts Bach. We accept his talent. Who adjusts Lady Gaga to Schubert for example?

Yet we have this board representing hockey using simplistic math to bring all kinds of players to Gretzky's level. No credit is given for talent.

My remark about all of us smarter than Einstein is to illustrate this point displayed by those who think any journeyman player today could simply travel to Gretzky's era and be a star. Would they even understand how the game was played then? Rigid systemic play based on what came after against the free flowing talent driven hockey of the day may result in them failing to even make a team. Just being fit may only earn a tryout. Lot's of fit, fast skaters don't make teams I'm sure.

Archimedes makes the list of best mathematicians of all time based on his accomplishments which reveal his talent. Is he adjusted downward because he lived about 2000 years ago in simpler times with less head to head competition?

Who's to say really ( for example) that the guy who scored 44 goals in 22 games isn't the most talented goal scorer of all time? That he wouldn't outscore everyone today? Maybe break Gretzky's records as an example. Talent is not adjusted according to era or context. It is what it is.

92 goals is 92 goals. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica is Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Some say the greatest book ever written. 92 goals is the most ever scored. Some say the greatest hockey performance ever. Comparing this to 60 goals just because it's 2012 is like comparing my paper on the influence of math on Greek cosmology to Newton's work just because mine was written in the twentieth century. I am being respectful not going too far.

It's long due that this adjustment idea received more serious consideration.

I'm no fan of stats and probability as a personal endeavour but as many have stated on this board if you're inclined to use them use them properly. This simplistic goals per game analysis so obviously fails on so many levels not the least being measuring talent.

If you haven't discovered this site it may interest you or other readers.

www.edge.com
Dalton, I think that you're confused about what the adjusted goals statistic represents. All it does is measure the level of overall goalscoring in a given year and adjust that to the overall league average over time. It's meant to account for, or "normalize", fluctuations in league scoring. It makes no qualitative claims whatsoever (i.e. claims about talent), and anyone that infers a qualitative claim from it isn't interpreting its value as a statistic correctly.

Also, I have no idea where you're pulling the "adjusted IQ" card from to say that high schoolers are smarter than Einstein by virtue of an "internet connection". I've never heard of any sort of adjusted IQ stat and, to be frank, it doesn't even seem to make sense. IQ is a measure of intelligence, not knowledge or know-how. Can you point me to any sort of adjusted IQ stat anywhere that shows anything to support your claim?

Quote:
Comparing this to 60 goals just because it's 2012 is like comparing my paper on the influence of math on Greek cosmology to Newton's work just because mine was written in the twentieth century. I am being respectful not going too far.
This is a perfect example of how you're not grasping the concept of adjusted goals. If I understand your position correctly, you're saying that your paper has already built off of previous work and, as such, cannot be compared in a vacuum to work that was created hundreds of years earlier, because your own work has built upon the many works that have preceded it. But adjusted goals doesn't work in this way at all.

Rather, adjusted goals is like adjusting for inflation (or deflation) when comparing prices in different years. It wouldn't make sense to directly compare $1.00 in 1950 to $1.00 today, because prices in 1950 was incredibly different. Instead, we need to adjust $1.00 in 1950 to some base price level if we want to talk about it in a way that makes sense. In the same way, a goalscoring season in 1984 is much different than one in 1998 because the scoring level was very different. There is no claim about X amount of goals being "better" in year Y than in year Z, but there is a claim about X amount of goals being more, less or equal in year Y than in Z after you adjust for the overall level of scoring in those years.

Furthermore, there is no basis for making a quantitative comparison between your paper and Newton. Adjusted goals are, by their very nature, quantitatively calculated.

Please see the following post on hockey-reference about adjusted statistics: http://www.hockey-reference.com/abou...ted_stats.html. As someone who works in the mathematics field, I trust that you should be able to comprehend their purpose.

FDBluth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 01:18 PM
  #47
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Malone obviously if we're going to use math.

If not then until somebody scores 93 it's Gretzky's 92.

Adjusted goals has no credibility whatsoever. It's like adjusted IQ. We're all smarter than Einstein today. Any high school drop out born today is smarter than Einstein. Just because we have the internet.

Talent is what it is. Poor math doesn't change that. Einstein failed math and could still comprehend the connection between his ideas and the Lorentz transformations. Can anyone on this board espousing adjustment understand the connection between branes and gravity? Gretzky scored 92 goals. A grade 4 level of math technique (in this country I work and teach math) cannot change that.

ot92s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 01:24 PM
  #48
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,145
vCash: 500
Gretzky, Mario, both Hull's, Ovechkin all have a case for best goalscoring season ever IMO. If you want to go back to the beginning of the NHL Joe Malone has a case for best goalscoring season ever.

Fred Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 01:57 PM
  #49
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,508
vCash: 500
When Joe Malone scored 44 goals in 20 games, Cy Denneny scored 36 and Reg Noble scored 30.

Kind of takes the luster off of it.

When players played all 60 minutes, scoring more than a goal per game for the best scorers was the norm.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 02:08 PM
  #50
Zombie Mike Murphy
Registered User
 
Zombie Mike Murphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Bobby Orr, 1969-1970.

Completly changed what people thought a defenseman could do.

Won the Norris, the Conn, the Hart, AND THE ART ROSS.

No other defenseman has ever won the Art Ross - Orr did it twice.

From 1969-70 to 75-76 he was a 1.5+ PPG. Again, AS A DEFENSEMAN, with point totals of 120, 139, 117, 101, 122, and 135, and then 18 in the 10 games he played the 75-76 season.

Those would be godlike numbers for a forward, even.

Imagine if he had managed to stay healthy... only 657 career games and still almost 1000 pts.

Zombie Mike Murphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.