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, 02:22 PM
  #76
darglor
Registered User
 
darglor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 934
vCash: 9337
Answer's is clearly B because the question is about which one is more impressive, not which one is more useful/talented/lucky/etc.

That level of consistency is unheard of and would be flabbergasting. That said, of course I'd rather have player A on my team if given the choice.

darglor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:23 PM
  #77
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by analog4ndy View Post
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.
Gretzky at his peak also couldn't score as many GWG's as Brad Richards in the playoffs...

You would not be on a greater scale then Gretzky, because no matter how long the streak is, what really matters is the output, that's what impacts games, so really a literal ppg is still only a ppg, and you can ONLY get 1 point a game,so there's going to be an insane amount of luck to do it. There's much more skill involved to get 164 points and it's not even close.

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:34 PM
  #78
Machinehead
Moderator
Hanta Yo
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 43,746
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Not many think of scoring in every game as a remarkable feat.
Anybody that doesn't see scoring in every game as a remarkable feat is in need of psychiatry.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:35 PM
  #79
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace14 View Post
Evidently it doesn't.
I don't get how anything is evident, i don't have to agree with what other people think for it not to be close in my opinion. Answer my question i just posted about who you would take for your team.

Quote:
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.
So who cares? Only two guys have ever got 2ppg and they are by far and away the greatest forwards of all time. Wayne Gretzky had 51 points straight in an 80 game season, and a large reason it ended was due to bad luck as Gretzky got banged up a week earlier. In fact after the streak ended he sat out the next 6 games. After returning from injury he scored points in 20 of the next 22 for an average of scoring in 96% of the games. That is close IMO, and should be in most everybody's. So in the 74 games he played he only didn't score in 3 of them, and one could argue at least one of the games he was shutout in was due to injury. Of course we can never know what would of happened in the 6 games he missed but i think it's pretty safe to assume a player who scored in 96% of the games he played in would have probably scored in everyone of those games, maybe missing a point in one.

So no i would argue Wayne Gretzky scoring a point in 96% of his games that year is awfully close to 1 point in every game, despite you saying nobody has come close to an 80/82 game point streak. The fact that he missed scoring in 3 of the games he played doesn't make someone scoring a point in 4% more games more impressive than another person accomplishing a feat only Lemieux and Gretzky have accomplished. Not to mention a ppg of 2.77 is ridiculous even if it came in a season where he only scored in 96% of his games. Another interesting side note is that he actually had a 10 game scoring streak from the season before so one could argue he scored in 61 straight regular season games (i do know that is a different parameters than what the question is asking, but still it's interesting).

Here's a nie writeup on his record streak:

http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com...s-51-game.html


Last edited by Eskimo44: 01-09-2013 at 02:45 PM.
Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:43 PM
  #80
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darglor View Post
Answer's is clearly B because the question is about which one is more impressive, not which one is more useful/talented/lucky/etc.

That level of consistency is unheard of and would be flabbergasting. That said, of course I'd rather have player A on my team if given the choice.
What makes a player impressive? His feats? And if one players feats are more impressive than anothers then is he not the more impressive player? How can one player be better but capable of less impressive feats? I don't think the rarity of something makes being an average star more impressive than putting up the greatest NHL scoring season not done by Lemieux or Gretzky. We have to place value on feats and the rarity of the feat is not the only consideration in determining value of such feats.

Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:50 PM
  #81
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,732
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.
Impressive:
capable of impressing, esp by size, magnificence, etc.; awe-inspiring; commanding

It seems to me impactful is in fact as, if not more, intrinsically related to the word impressive than rarity is. It's not even debatable that the impressiveness of 1 point every game is due to the rarity. So based on the definition of the word impressive i'm not sure i follow your logic.

Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:14 PM
  #82
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Anybody that doesn't see scoring in every game as a remarkable feat is in need of psychiatry.
and someone who doesn't understand the magnitude of 164 points doesn't?

It would take someone 20, 5 point nights to reach 100 points in a season, then you'd still have to go the rest of the season at ppg to reach 164 points. And in those 20 games you'd already eclipse the 82 point streaker.

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:16 PM
  #83
Zen Arcade
eat the record cover
 
Zen Arcade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 15,837
vCash: 500
Even though it's never been done, 82 points with a PPG is more of a cool little oddity than incredibly impressive compared to player scoring twice that.

I watched Lemieux hit 160 a couple of times, seeing someone do it now would be mind boggling.

The amount of a gap between a player and his peers that would allow that kind of production right now makes it far more impressive to me.

Zen Arcade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:25 PM
  #84
DanZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 10,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
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?
It's obviously because it's insanely hard and not even worth discussing because it will never happen. Nobody in history has even come close. That's quite obviously the reason no one ever discusses it.

And it doesn't matter that Gretzky scored in all but 3 games one season. His longest streak is still only 51 games, which blows away second place. Not to mention he's the greatest offensive player in history, so he's kind of an outlier to begin with.

DanZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:32 PM
  #85
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,582
vCash: 150
164 points means you're legendary.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 05:10 PM
  #86
Machinehead
Moderator
Hanta Yo
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 43,746
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky04 View Post
and someone who doesn't understand the magnitude of 164 points doesn't?

It would take someone 20, 5 point nights to reach 100 points in a season, then you'd still have to go the rest of the season at ppg to reach 164 points. And in those 20 games you'd already eclipse the 82 point streaker.
I don't see anyone here saying 164 points isn't a remarkable feat. I do however see people calling a point in every game pure luck and not really noteworthy. That's insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Hate Jay Feaster View Post
164 points means you're legendary.
So would scoring in every game.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 06:14 PM
  #87
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
So would scoring in every game.
Not really. I'd say "hey that's cool" then likely forget about it. It's a statistical anomaly with very little real world value. It's more like an answer to a trivia question.

It's similar to saying player X scored all his points on Tuesdays during only leap years. It's never been done so therefore it must be the most impressive thing ever.

82 points is still only 82 points. In games that go above 1 goal, this player would be useless. A detriment actually. Your team would lose a lot more games than the the guy who scores 2 points per game.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 06:23 PM
  #88
startainfection*
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 7,578
vCash: 500
does the literal ppg player have a multi point game every now and then or do they finish with exactly 82 points?

startainfection* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 06:37 PM
  #89
RANDOMH3RO
Registered User
 
RANDOMH3RO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
Getting literally one point per every game is a cool little trivia thing, but I'd rather see a guy hit 164 points.

RANDOMH3RO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 06:38 PM
  #90
Machinehead
Moderator
Hanta Yo
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 43,746
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
Not really. I'd say "hey that's cool" then likely forget about it. It's a statistical anomaly with very little real world value. It's more like an answer to a trivia question.

It's similar to saying player X scored all his points on Tuesdays during only leap years. It's never been done so therefore it must be the most impressive thing ever.
Not even close. Brutal analogy.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 07:08 PM
  #91
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Not even close. Brutal analogy.
If you're focusing on my analogy from my post then you are missing my point.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 07:17 PM
  #92
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by startainfection View Post
does the literal ppg player have a multi point game every now and then or do they finish with exactly 82 points?
No, just 1 point every single gamefor 82 games.

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 07:18 PM
  #93
Machinehead
Moderator
Hanta Yo
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 43,746
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
If you're focusing on my analogy from my post then you are missing my point.
Your point seems to be discrediting an 82 game point streak as trivial and an accomplishment which holds no value.

If that's supposed to make any sense, then yeah I guess I'm missing the point.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:07 PM
  #94
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Your point seems to be discrediting an 82 game point streak as trivial and an accomplishment which holds no value.

If that's supposed to make any sense, then yeah I guess I'm missing the point.
If you can't comprehend the other side of an argument, how are we supposed to take your side of the argument seriously? It shows me you're not thinking outside your comfort zone. Also, I didn't say it holds no value. A player like that would be quite valuable, just not nearly as valuable as the 2PPG guy.

Look at Mike Green's goal scoring streak a few years ago. He holds the longest running goal scoring streak for a defenseman. Does that make him legendary now? What good did that really do him besides make him an answer to a trivia question? He is not known to be one of the greatest dmen of all time now. He just happened to score a bunch of his goals in a row.

A player who only scores once per game would be useful, but at times, he would be a detriment to your team. Great players are able to carry their team on their back by taking over games. When your team is struggling, you need your stars to step up with multiple points to get your team out of a hole. Most of the time, that is more important than being just being consistently "ok" every game.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:18 PM
  #95
Machinehead
Moderator
Hanta Yo
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 43,746
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
If you can't comprehend the other side of an argument, how are we supposed to take your side of the argument seriously? It shows me you're not thinking outside your comfort zone. Also, I didn't say it holds no value. A player like that would be quite valuable, just not nearly as valuable as the 2PPG guy.

Look at Mike Green's goal scoring streak a few years ago. He holds the longest running goal scoring streak for a defenseman. Does that make him legendary now? What good did that really do him besides make him an answer to a trivia question? He is not known to be one of the greatest dmen of all time now. He just happened to score a bunch of his goals in a row.
But the accomplishment would be legendary. This isn't just any streak.

It would be more comparable to Green scoring 49+ goals and breaking Coffey's record.

We're not talking about just a streak, we're talking about a significant record that would stand for many years.

"Longest goal scoring streak by a defenseman" and "longest scoring streak ever" are very different. They even sound different.

If a player got a point in every game they would call it the perfect season. Its something that would go down in hockey history. Maybe it wouldn't make you a legendary player, but you'd go down as a legend just for that accomplishment.

Look at Rocket Richard. The guy was great but let's be honest here, he wasn't even a PPG player. And yet there's alot of people who to this day include him in top 10 all-time lists. Why? 50 in 50. This would be a similar accomplishment.


Quote:
player who only scores once per game would be useful, but at times, he would be a detriment to your team. Great players are able to carry their team on their back by taking over games. When your team is struggling, you need your stars to step up with multiple points to get your team out of a hole. Most of the time, that is more important than being just being consistently "ok" every game.
The poll isn't asking who's more valuable to the team.

And let's keep in mind that this is a very out there hypothetical. If someone were productive enough get a point in every game I'm willing to bet they'd have at least 164 points.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:27 PM
  #96
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
But the accomplishment would be legendary. This isn't just any streak.

It would be more comparable to Green scoring 49+ goals and breaking Coffey's record.

We're not talking about just a streak, we're talking about a significant record that would stand for many years.

"Longest goal scoring streak by a defenseman" and "longest scoring streak ever" are very different. They even sound different.

If a player got a point in every game they would call it the perfect season. Its something that would go down in hockey history. Maybe it wouldn't make you a legendary player, but you'd go down as a legend just for that accomplishment.

Look at Rocket Richard. The guy was great but let's be honest here, he wasn't even a PPG player. And yet there's alot of people who to this day include him in top 10 all-time lists. Why? 50 in 50. This would be a similar accomplishment.




The poll isn't asking who's more valuable to the team.

And let's keep in mind that this is a very out there hypothetical. If someone were productive enough get a point in every game I'm willing to bet they'd have at least 164 points.
Honestly I think the only difference between our arguments is semantics. To me, a feat being impressive and a feat being valuable to the real world are one in the same. If I can't see the direct implications the feat holds in the real world, I'm not impressed by it.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:31 PM
  #97
Machinehead
Moderator
Hanta Yo
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 43,746
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
Honestly I think the only difference between our arguments is semantics. To me, a feat being impressive and a feat being valuable to the real world are one in the same. If I can't see the direct implications the feat holds in the real world, I'm not impressed by it.
Well I guess that's it then

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:42 PM
  #98
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
If a player got a point in every game they would call it the perfect season. Its something that would go down in hockey history. Maybe it wouldn't make you a legendary player, but you'd go down as a legend just for that accomplishment.
So let me get this straight a point in every game is a perfect season but having the greatest non-Lemieux/Gretzky indivdual scoring season in NHL history isn't? Gretzky's 200+ seasons weren't perfect but scoring 82 points in a year is because he got a point in every game? This is so assinine i don't know where to begin. It would be a neat record but it's not anywhere near as impressive as putting up 2ppg for the reason i mentioned. Just because you got a point doesn't mean you had a good game let alone a perfect one, so how does that correlate to a perfect season? Perfection isn't scoring a point every game, just because you arbitrally decide that a player getting one point in every game his team plays that year is or would be called "perfection" doesn't make it so. Perfection is much deeper than accomplishing some unreal outlier, it's the accomplishment of an end goal? Do you think any player would choose the goal of getting a literal point in every game over 2ppg. Obviously not, so how is that perfection? How is reaching a less significant goal perfection? Having a neat statistical oddity in your name is far less impactful than scoring at a rate nearly unfathomable, even if the oddity itself is nearly unfathomable as well. This is because the value of a consistent and very good performance isn't worth as much as a truly generational performance, even if it isn't a record. This is like arguing it's worth more to have the world record for eating an Oreo everyday for 10 years then winning a bronze medal in the Olympics. Just because you were the best at something doesn't make you better than someone else who was only elite at what they did, after all we ought to judge them on the value of what they were doing not just how well they did it.

Quote:
Look at Rocket Richard. The guy was great but let's be honest here, he wasn't even a PPG player. And yet there's alot of people who to this day include him in top 10 all-time lists. Why? 50 in 50. This would be a similar accomplishment.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the era. Richard was the greatest goal scorer in the history of the game when he retired. And no a similar acomplishment would literally be getting a ppg, irrelevant of streak.

Quote:
The poll isn't asking who's more valuable to the team.
The more valuable player is the more impressive player. The more impressive player is the one with the more impressive feats. It's not rocket science, this is 2+2=4.

Quote:
And let's keep in mind that this is a very out there hypothetical. If someone were productive enough get a point in every game I'm willing to bet they'd have at least 164 points.
That wasn't the question lets remain within the paramaters of the debate, the op established them and it's not right for you to change them as you see fit. I understand that no more than 1 point in a game for a ppg player is a ludicrous idea but the very idea of somebody scoring 1 point in every game is as well, so it's not like plausability hasn't already been suspended for the purpose of this debate.


Last edited by Eskimo44: 01-09-2013 at 08:48 PM.
Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:46 PM
  #99
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
B) could be more stressfull at the end and impressive (maybe), but doing 164 points in today nhl would very very impressive too.

We must not state that something never been done (or very stat wise unlickely) is defacto more impressive.

Stat wise a player with more than 50 points with no goal nor first assist is probably a very big stats feat, never been done, will never be.

Henrik Sedins doing it this year will be a good trivia, impressive annomaly, but not were as impressive to watch than him having a 164 points seasons.

Also having a 164 points seasons tell us that he probably had points in 70 or more games anyway.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:53 PM
  #100
Machinehead
Moderator
Hanta Yo
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 43,746
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
So let me get this straight a point in every game is a perfect season but having the greatest non-Lemieux/Gretzky indivdual scoring season in NHL history isn't? Gretzky's 200+ seasons weren't perfect but scoring 82 points in a year is because he got a point in every game? This is so assinine i don't know where to begin. It would be a neat record but it's not anywhere near as impressive as putting up 2ppg for the reason i mentioned. Just because you got a point doesn't mean you had a good game let alone a perfect one, so how does that correlate to a perfect season? Perfection isn't scoring a point every game, just because you arbitrally decide that a player getting one point in every game his team plays that year is or would be called "perfection" doesn't make it so. Perfection is much deeper than accomplishing some unreal outlier, it's the accomplishment of an end goal? Do you think any player would choose the goal of getting a literal point in every game over 2ppg. Obviously not, so how is that perfection? How is reaching a less significant goal perfection? Having a neat statistical oddity in your name is far less impactful than scoring at a rate nearly unfathomable, even if the oddity itself is nearly unfathomable as well. This is because the value of a consistent and very good performance isn't worth as much as a truly generational performance, even if it isn't a record. This is like arguing it's worth more to have the world record for eating an Oreo everyday for 10 years then winning a bronze medal in the Olympics. Just because you were the best at something doesn't make you better than someone else who was only elite at what they did, after all we ought to judge them on the value of what they were doing not just how well they did it.
We're talking about status as a legend: remembrance, how the accomplishment will be remembered, how it will go down in NHL history. Perfection can't be wholly defined, but it can certainly be applied to 82 for 82 and I think that's how it would go down.



Quote:
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the era. Richard was the greatest goal scorer in the history of the game when he retired.
And yet he's still largely remembered for doing one thing.



Quote:
The more valuable player is the more impressive player. The more impressive player is the one with the more impressive feats. It's not rocket science, this is 2+2=4.
Like a previous poster alluded to, this is just semantics.

That's just your opinion what constitutes more impressive.

Quote:
That wasn't the question lets remain within the paramaters of the debate, the op established them and it's not right for you to change them as you see fit. I understand that no more than 1 point in a game for a ppg player is a ludicrous idea but the very idea of somebody scoring 1 point in every game is as well, so it's not like plausability hasn't already been suspended for the purpose of this debate.
The fact that we even have to suspend plausibility speaks to the status of the accomplishment in question.

Machinehead 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 06:27 AM.

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.