Obviously, 164 points in an 82-game NHL season would be incredible, but I went with the literal point-per-game. I'd find it more impressive simply because it's never happened before.
I don't care if it is only 82 points. If a player were to get a point in every game in an 82 game season it would the be greatest accomplishment in NHL history.
People obviously don't understand how impossible that is, unlike choice A which has been done before many times. Albeit by hockey gods, yes, but those same gods didn't even come close to getting a point in every game.
Yep, exactly one has been done before and the other most likely will never be accomplished. I'd prefer the 164 point guy on my team, but the 82 point streak guy would make the far greater accomplishment.
164 points has been hit 10 times. 2 points per game over a full season has been done 16 times.
Nobody has even come remotely close to an 82 game point streak. In fact, only twice has somebody even gotten halfway there.
Everything listed above is Gretzky and Lemieux btw. All of it.
More rare does not mean more impressive.
Getting a point per game really just comes down to luck, getting 2 points per game means you're a generational talent. I mean obviously it takes talent to score a point every single game, but the reason that the Gretzkys and Lemieuxs of the World haven't done it isn't because they didn't have the necessary talent, it's because they just that eventually over the course of an 82 game season they got unlucky and didn't score.
Getting a point per game really just comes down to luck, getting 2 points per game means you're a generational talent. I mean obviously it takes talent to score a point every single game, but the reason that the Gretzkys and Lemieuxs of the World haven't done it isn't because they didn't have the necessary talent, it's because they just that eventually over the course of an 82 game season they got unlucky and didn't score.
Not scoring every night isn't a matter of being unlucky. It's a matter of the feat being impossible. We're talking about something impossible vs something that's been done multiple times. I should think doing the impossible is more impressive.
If Gretzky had scored in 80 different games one year, then we could talk about luck. His career high points streak is 51 that doesn't even approach a range where luck could come into play.
I'm not even sure there's ever been a team that's scored every game, let alone a player.
Not scoring every night isn't a matter of being unlucky. It's a matter of the feat being impossible. We're talking about something impossible vs something that's been done multiple times. I should think doing the impossible is more impressive.
If Gretzky had scored in 80 different games one year, then we could talk about luck. His career high points streak is 51 that doesn't even approach a range where luck could come into play.
I'm not even sure there's ever been a team that's scored every game, let alone a player.
To add to your point, Gretzky's point streak would be the equivalent of a player hitting in approximately 92 games in a row in an regular 162 MLB season which is impossible. It's not the most comparable, but a good measuring stick. A streak of 82 games in a row would mark the most consistent a player has ever played. Not to mention, by the very definition of it, it would mean that you team was guaranteed one goal a game, every game of the season. Your winning percentage would be so inflated.
Scoring twice as many points is more impressive and I don't even think it's close.
Streaks are neat and all, but often times things have to perfectly fall into place for them to happen.
If a baseball player went on a 162 game hitting streak and hit .300 it would be nuts. With that being said, I'd still be more impressed by somebody hitting .600 over the course of a season.
Scoring twice as many points is more impressive and I don't even think it's close.
Streaks are neat and all, but often times things have to perfectly fall into place for them to happen.
If a baseball player went on a 162 game hitting streak and hit .300 it would be nuts. With that being said, I'd still be more impressed by somebody hitting .600 over the course of a season.
That's not comparable at all. 164 points has been reached before. It would be more like hitting .400. Is 164 points possible in today's NHL?? Technically yes. There is no way anyone could ever hit 162 games in a row. And there will never be anyone who has a point a game for 82 games.
Not scoring every night isn't a matter of being unlucky. It's a matter of the feat being impossible. We're talking about something impossible vs something that's been done multiple times. I should think doing the impossible is more impressive.
If Gretzky had scored in 80 different games one year, then we could talk about luck. His career high points streak is 51 that doesn't even approach a range where luck could come into play.
I'm not even sure there's ever been a team that's scored every game, let alone a player.
Just because Gretzky had a 51 game scoring streak does not mean he only scored in 51 games. If he were to score in 41 straight games, miss a game and then score 40 straight again, that's just as close to scoring a point per game as going 81 straight games. So just looking at the longest point streak is not really the way to deduce how based on luck it is.
In 1985-1986 Gretzky scores 215 points, he had points on just over half of his team's goals. Now, I'm not going to take the time to go through the box score of each and every game that year, but just going by averages, his team failed to score 2 goals only twice in the season. Going by the premise that Gretzky registered a point for every 2nd Edmonton goal, Gretzky would have registered a point in all but two games that season. Now, obviously that's far from scientific, but I think you get the point. It really is just a matter of luck, it's not impossible, just extremely unlikely because it's based on luck and not pure talent. It's fallacious to say it's impossible just because it hasn't happened.
Point streaks are based on luck more than they are talent, which is why if you look at the highest scoring seasons of all time it's much more of a who's-who of the league's historic offensive elites than the league's all time point streak leaders. Why do you think Mats Sundin has a better points streak than Bobby Orr or Gordie Howe? Because he got lucky for a stretch, and they didn't.
B, quite obviously. 164 points have been scored in a season several times, while at 82 game point streak has never even come close to happening. How can 164 points be more impressive if it's happened before while an 82 game point streak has not? Even post lockout, players have come closer to 164 points (didn't Thornton get 125?) than they have come to an 82 game point streak. I don't know how anyone could vote for A, unless they didn't really think it out all that much
Just because Gretzky had a 51 game scoring streak does not mean he only scored in 51 games. If he were to score in 41 straight games, miss a game and then score 40 straight again, that's just as close to scoring a point per game as going 81 straight games. So just looking at the longest point streak is not really the way to deduce how based on luck it is.
In 1985-1986 Gretzky scores 215 points, he had points on just over half of his team's goals. Now, I'm not going to take the time to go through the box score of each and every game that year, but just going by averages, his team failed to score 2 goals only twice in the season. Going by the premise that Gretzky registered a point for every 2nd Edmonton goal, Gretzky would have registered a point in all but two games that season. Now, obviously that's far from scientific, but I think you get the point. It really is just a matter of luck, it's not impossible, just extremely unlikely because it's based on luck and not pure talent. It's fallacious to say it's impossible just because it hasn't happened.
Point streaks are based on luck more than they are talent, which is why if you look at the highest scoring seasons of all time it's much more of a who's-who of the league's historic offensive elites than the league's all time point streak leaders. Why do you think Mats Sundin has a better points streak than Bobby Orr or Gordie Howe? Because he got lucky for a stretch, and they didn't.
Any player that scores a point every game for 82 straight games has way more than luck going for him. Sure there is luck involved, but there is also luck involved in scoring 164 points in a season. It's not like 100% of those points were pure skill. And the statistical likelihood of a player scoring a point every game for 82 straight is so small, it can't be anything but more impressive. At a certain point it wouldn't be luck anymore, it would just be skill and talent. Every team would be focusing their defensive attack on this theoretical player, but somehow he would still hypothetically maintain this streak? It would be incredible, and would blow the next longest points streak of all time out of the water. I don't think there are many records out there that would be soo far above second place...
