HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

More impressive feat?

View Poll Results: More impressive accomplishment?
2 PPG 117 68.82%
literal PPG 53 31.18%
Voters: 170. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-09-2013, 12:24 AM
  #51
McTankel
HFBoards Sponsor
 
McTankel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
B, by far.

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.
B...Obviously if you choose A you did not understand the question because this guys stats prove B is more difficult...

McTankel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:31 AM
  #52
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 7,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
Yet he wouldn't even be an MVP candidate hitting .200, especially when Joe Schmo just hit .400.
The poll isn't would this or that player be the MVP but what is the more impressive feat which in that theoretical situation would still be the 100 game hit streak. And for a player to hit in one hundred games in a row and bat .200 goes into a realm of obscurity immeasurable.

Cory Trevor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:39 AM
  #53
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,296
vCash: 500
82 game point streak is insanity. That more than double Gretzky's record if I'm not mistaken?

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:07 AM
  #54
WingsMike
Registered Man
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillmike View Post
Weird poll. So 162pt's vs 82pt's? Voted 162.
Do you really think anybody would ask that stupid of a question? And it would be 164.

Went with answer B, and I'm surprised the poll isn't very close. For some reason it seems people misunderstood the question, but I think it is worded very simply.

Very good poll.

WingsMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:12 AM
  #55
roflstomper
I don't row.
 
roflstomper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
To get at least a point in 82 straight games, come on people.

roflstomper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:40 AM
  #56
UnrefinedCrude
Registered User
 
UnrefinedCrude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 833
82 game streak would easily be the more impressive accomplishment.

164 pt season would only be the 11th time that number was hit or surpassed.

82 game scoring streak would be unique. It would be ridiculously consistent. It would buck any kind of bad luck.

Both would be incredible (those of us who got to see 99 and 66 in their primes were very lucky.) But if we saw an 82 game streak, it would be one of the very few things left for us to see for the first time.

UnrefinedCrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:50 AM
  #57
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 11,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanZ View Post
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
Well, for the be fair Thornton was still 39 points behind. Not too close at all. Only Lemieux and Gretzky has managed to pull of 164 points. So it basically means that you are top-4 forward all-time by abilities after hitting 164.

Now I am not sure how to look at this question. I know that 82 games scoring streak has never been done before and will most likely never be done. I just don't find it too impressive since there is a LOT of luck involved in it. Just cause nobody has ever done it, does not make it impressive. It is just an arbitrary number set out by the OP.

Would you rather have 35 goals and shoot at 50% for one season or would you rather score 70 with an average shooting%?

I just don't find 82 games scoring streak impressive just cause nobody has never done it. (Of course it would be great to see someone pulling that off, same as someone with absurd shootin%)

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:57 AM
  #58
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 11,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
LOL. 82 points at the NHL level in any capacity isn't luck, even without the streak scenario. Nobody gets lucky for 6 months. The luck argument is totally ridiculous.



I was wrong on that point. I give you credit for doing the research.

I still don't see it ever being done. First of all you have to be perfect. 79 games is close, but in a way it's still so far. You can't even miss once. He missed three times. To say "well if he just got a bounce those three games" is easier said than done.

Secondly, let's not forget that this is Gretzky and this is a 215 point season. There will never be another Gretzky and 215 points in itself will probably never be seen again.

Gretzky at his absolute peak couldn't do it, which was sort of my point. Although he did come alot closer than I thought.
Well Gretzky came close enough to show that with a bit luck he would have done it. Also, if nobody NEVER talks about scoring streak that lasts whole season, isn't that a bit telling?

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:02 AM
  #59
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,700
vCash: 500
Some people are massively over-thinking this. The answer is A and it's not close.

A feat being rare is irrelevant. Unless player A is getting all his points Gagner style, he is without a doubt the better, more valuable player.

Say player B scores early in a high scoring game. He would be useless for the rest of the match because your ringer has already packed it in.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:03 AM
  #60
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,067
vCash: 500
Agreed with TAnnala.

At first, the 82-game streak seems more impressive, but it's way less impactful than 164 points.

164 points has been done before, but it would seem a lot better when it's like 90% higher than the Art Ross runner-up.

Don't be fooled by what would be a statistical anomaly of 82 points in 82. Demolishing the competition is what should impress.

tom_servo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 06:37 AM
  #61
BigMacJokinen
Registered User
 
BigMacJokinen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Because the word is more impressive, it's B. More impactful or who I rather have my team it's A but that is not the question so I'll answer B.

However A would be kinda close too because NHL is kinda low-scoring right now.

BigMacJokinen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 06:45 AM
  #62
rikker
fan since '75.
 
rikker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,484
vCash: 500
2 ppg for sure...

rikker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:06 AM
  #63
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 11,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacJokinen View Post
Because the word is more impressive, it's B. More impactful or who I rather have my team it's A but that is not the question so I'll answer B.

However A would be kinda close too because NHL is kinda low-scoring right now.
I get what you are going for with the word impressive, but I find the feat somewhat irrelevant. We can make up categories as much as we want and think of it as impressive. Like I said earlier, rarity does not equate impressive.

No-one has yet posted shooting% for season over 50, would that be so impressive that it would be considered better than say 20% percentage if the goal differential is what I said earlier?

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:15 AM
  #64
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,680
vCash: 500
You people are ridiculous, so what if 164 points has been done before? It hasn't been touched in this era of hockey, a 164 point season in today's game is much more then impressive, it would be down right legendary.

An 82 game point streak is cool and all, and it would be nice to know you scored a point in every single game, but the be all end all is you still only scored 82 points, how many people touch that on a yearly basis?

Being in the realm of Gretzky and Lemieux in todays game in terms of scoring is much more impressive.

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:20 AM
  #65
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingsMike View Post
Do you really think anybody would ask that stupid of a question? And it would be 164.

Went with answer B, and I'm surprised the poll isn't very close. For some reason it seems people misunderstood the question, but I think it is worded very simply.

Very good poll.
No, you're overrating "B", when you look back after the seasons done, yes he had an 82 point streak, output was still only 82 points.

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:08 PM
  #66
DanZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Well, for the be fair Thornton was still 39 points behind. Not too close at all. Only Lemieux and Gretzky has managed to pull of 164 points. So it basically means that you are top-4 forward all-time by abilities after hitting 164.

Now I am not sure how to look at this question. I know that 82 games scoring streak has never been done before and will most likely never be done. I just don't find it too impressive since there is a LOT of luck involved in it. Just cause nobody has ever done it, does not make it impressive. It is just an arbitrary number set out by the OP.

Would you rather have 35 goals and shoot at 50% for one season or would you rather score 70 with an average shooting%?

I just don't find 82 games scoring streak impressive just cause nobody has never done it. (Of course it would be great to see someone pulling that off, same as someone with absurd shootin%)
Well Thornton certainly came closer to 164 points than anyone else came to an 82 game point streak. I don't know if I worded that right, but that was my point regardless. 164 points is in the realm of realistic possibility, an 82 game point streak is not.

And why do people keep saying there is luck involved in an 82 game streak? Sure there's a measure of luck, as there is to anything in hockey, but at a certain point it's no longer luck, it's just skill and consistency. A player can get hot and lucky for a month or so, but no one, literally no one, gets lucky for an entire season.

DanZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:15 PM
  #67
DanZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Well Gretzky came close enough to show that with a bit luck he would have done it. Also, if nobody NEVER talks about scoring streak that lasts whole season, isn't that a bit telling?
Yes, the greatest offensive player the league has ever seen couldn't complete an 82 game point streak. That should tell you how incredibly difficult it would be. And I don't understand your last sentence. Nobody ever talks about a season long scoring streak because it's never happened...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
Some people are massively over-thinking this. The answer is A and it's not close.

A feat being rare is irrelevant. Unless player A is getting all his points Gagner style, he is without a doubt the better, more valuable player.

Say player B scores early in a high scoring game. He would be useless for the rest of the match because your ringer has already packed it in.
Except this isn't which player is more valuable, it's which feat is more impressive. Considering B has never happened, I consider it harder to accomplish, and thus, more impressive

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo View Post
Agreed with TAnnala.

At first, the 82-game streak seems more impressive, but it's way less impactful than 164 points.

164 points has been done before, but it would seem a lot better when it's like 90% higher than the Art Ross runner-up.

Don't be fooled by what would be a statistical anomaly of 82 points in 82. Demolishing the competition is what should impress.
Again, this isn't which feat is more impactful or which player is more valuable. It's which feat is more impressive. Considering an 82 game point streak is clearly harder to accomplish, since it's never once been done, that automatically makes it more impressive in my mind. If it's more difficult, how couldn't it be more impressive?

DanZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:16 PM
  #68
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 7,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky04 View Post
No, you're overrating "B", when you look back after the seasons done, yes he had an 82 point streak, output was still only 82 points.
No one's arguing that. We arguing in general which is more impressive. I think you are missing the point. The actual possibility of this happening is so small that there are more factors than luck and probability. Luck can only take you so far and to do this in 82 straight games would most likely indicate that the skill level of the person who was able to do this would be on a scale greater than Gretzky's.

For example, at his peak Gretzky couldn't do it. It's just an absurd number of games to go in a row without letting down once and giving up. So the real point isn't so much how impressive is 164 points, it's just the 82 games in a row without a point is as close to impossible in the NHL as you can get.

Cory Trevor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:09 PM
  #69
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 11,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanZ View Post
Well Thornton certainly came closer to 164 points than anyone else came to an 82 game point streak. I don't know if I worded that right, but that was my point regardless. 164 points is in the realm of realistic possibility, an 82 game point streak is not.

And why do people keep saying there is luck involved in an 82 game streak? Sure there's a measure of luck, as there is to anything in hockey, but at a certain point it's no longer luck, it's just skill and consistency. A player can get hot and lucky for a month or so, but no one, literally no one, gets lucky for an entire season.
You are right about the luck factor. If someone scores 82 points in a season it is not luck, be it consecutive games or not. I was off base there.

I get your point, but i don't think scoring in every game of the season is so impressive just because it is so rare. It would be an impressive feat, but 2PPG is more impressive for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanZ View Post
Yes, the greatest offensive player the league has ever seen couldn't complete an 82 game point streak. That should tell you how incredibly difficult it would be. And I don't understand your last sentence. Nobody ever talks about a season long scoring streak because it's never happened...
I don't think scoring in every game reguires you to be the greatest offensive player ever. Scoring 1 point in every game does not reguire you to be anything more than capable 1st liner, in theory. My last sentence was about the fact that people don't usually think about somebody scoring in every game of the season since it is not that impressive idea.

To put it this way, the year Gretzky scored in all but 3 games for the season he scored 215 points? (tazzy could help me on this one if i get it wrong)
Hypotethically, lets take away his points to 82 and add one point to every game he missed that season. Which one would you consider the greater?

For me it would be +200 easily.

Edit.

Scoring 164 in todays game would be a bit over 180 points in adjusted stats. For what it is worth, best adjsuted stat season from Gretzky is 170. Someone scoring 164 today could arguably be the greatest offensive season all-time.

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:51 PM
  #70
Machinehead
Moderator
Hank, pls
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 36,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Well Gretzky came close enough to show that with a bit luck he would have done it. Also, if nobody NEVER talks about scoring streak that lasts whole season, isn't that a bit telling?
It's telling that it will never happen, yes.

Machinehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:59 PM
  #71
FrozenJagrt
Registered User
 
FrozenJagrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,614
vCash: 500
The 82 game point streak for sure. Unless the player that did it was Crosby, while the player that got 164 points was Mike Brown. If Mike Brown did that, it would be the greatest thing I've ever seen in the history of my life. Ever. Not just in sports. Absolutely the most awesome thing ever.

Moreso if he didn't shave for the entire season.

FrozenJagrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:00 PM
  #72
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 11,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
It's telling that it will never happen, yes.
Well, people still play with thoughts about someone breaking Gretzky's point records or about other stuff that is clearly out of reach for players. Not many think of scoring in every game as a remarkable feat.

I am not sure is it cause it is insanely hard or is the feat itself not noteworthy enough?

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:05 PM
  #73
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
I'll take double the points even if it means a couple games of no production. This shouldn't be close. If you're soring 2ppg you are scoring in 90-95% of the games anyway. Getting 1 point a night is also not indicitive of a player who can take games over. If it was a 82 games scoring streak with 120 points i could see it being closer, but still 2ppg easily wins.

Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:12 PM
  #74
FrozenJagrt
Registered User
 
FrozenJagrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
I'll take double the points even if it means a couple games of no production. This shouldn't be close. If you're soring 2ppg you are scoring in 90-95% of the games anyway. Getting 1 point a night is also not indicitive of a player who can take games over. If it was a 82 games scoring streak with 120 points i could see it being closer, but still 2ppg easily wins.
Evidently it doesn't.

As has been mentioned, two of the greatest players in history have scored over two points per game. No player in history has ever approached an 82 game point streak over the course of a season. No one has even come close.

FrozenJagrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:15 PM
  #75
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
Here's a better question. Which player do you take for your team:

Player A: will score 1 point every game

Player B: will score 2 points per game average

I can't imagine anybody would take the guy with half the production. If you wouldn't take him for your team i think it's awfully easy to suggest he is the less impressive player. Or would some of you take the player who's half as productive?

Note: Assume all things other than production due to talent, and consistency due to talent are equal. Same minutes, defensive ability, size, position, ect...

Eskimo44 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 11:42 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.