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, 08:57 PM
  #101
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
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.





And yet he's still largely remembered for doing one thing.





Like a previous poster alluded to, this is just semantics.

That's just your opinion what constitutes more impressive.



The fact that we even have to suspend plausibility speaks to the status of the accomplishment in question.
I doubt he would be largely remembered as anything but a neat accomplishment as opposed to the highest scorer since Lemieux and Gretzky.

As for your comment about the "perfect season", really? a 164 point season is MUCH more impactful for a team, doesn't matter how long the streak is, he's still only producing 82 points, there's a handful of those every year.

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:00 PM
  #102
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky04 View Post
I doubt he would be largely remembered as anything but a neat accomplishment as opposed to the highest scorer since Lemieux and Gretzky.

As for your comment about the "perfect season", really? a 164 point season is MUCH more impactful for a team, doesn't matter how long the streak is, he's still only producing 82 points, there's a handful of those every year.
Again, team impact is not the question.

And it would go down as alot more than "neat". When Crosby was approaching 30 straight games last year the hockey world was pissing itself with excitement.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:00 PM
  #103
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 500
If someone actually scored in 82 straight games, but finished with only 82 points would indeed be amazing. But it wouldn't be amazing because of the 82 game point streak. It would be amazing because a mediocre, point a game player scored in all 82 games! That would be FAR less likely than a player like Gretzky having, say, a 200 game point streak. During Gretzky's 51 game point streak, he had 153 points for exactly 3 PPG. For a point per game player to luck out to that degree (scoring in 82 straight games) would be absolutely ridiculous and asinine. A player who could be that consistent should be scoring 200 point seasons - like, you know, Gretzky, who did pretty much that already.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:09 PM
  #104
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,681
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.
Yes, I agree with you, it would be a near impossible feat - especially for a point a game player. If a close to 3 PPG player couldn't do it, how could a point per game player? Totally agree. God would have to be on the point per game player's side - every step of the way.

As for Gretzky not getting a point in only 3 games, it was actually during an 80 game season back then. So he really only scored in 77 games out of 80 to get those 215 points. Really not that impressive

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:13 PM
  #105
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
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.
Not really.

Impressive: Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable.

4foot 7 inch player punishing nhl heavyweigth on a regular basis playing 3-4 minutes a game could be more impressive than Josh Georges to some.

A 17 year old rooki scoring 50 goals could be more impressive than a 51 goal season by a 23 year old to others, whitout being more valuable players to their team at all.

Impressive is much more something emotional than rational.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:14 PM
  #106
bambamcam4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,210
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.
Assume the player who scored 164 got a point in every game but his last, an 81-game streak. Would that be still less impressive to you than the one who scored in every game but only finished with 82 points?

bambamcam4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:17 PM
  #107
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamcam4ever View Post
Assume the player who scored 164 got a point in every game but his last, an 81-game streak. Would that be still less impressive to you than the one who scored in every game but only finished with 82 points?
81 games streak would be very very impressive too to start with, would take the 164 point in 81 game streak with no point at the last game (if the game is the first with no value at all for the team it would even look kind of better to me )

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:27 PM
  #108
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Again, team impact is not the question.

And it would go down as alot more than "neat". When Crosby was approaching 30 straight games last year the hockey world was pissing itself with excitement.
Because his ppg was at 2.00 during that run... a 30 game point streak of that calibre is probably something you'd get from the 164 point player anyways.

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:27 PM
  #109
TrillMike
Registered User
 
TrillMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,164
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.
Yes, I do. I see stupid stuff like that all the time. I am a writer and editor for a decent-sized advertising agency. I get paid to read and re-read things every day. The OP did not "word" his thoughts correctly.

TrillMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:32 PM
  #110
MastuhNinks
Registered User
 
MastuhNinks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Iron Throne
Posts: 4,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Again, team impact is not the question.

And it would go down as alot more than "neat". When Crosby was approaching 30 straight games last year the hockey world was pissing itself with excitement.
Well I think people would be significantly less excited if he was just scoring a single point every game. However, he was scoring at 2 points per game which kinda makes it a tough example to use here.

MastuhNinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:36 PM
  #111
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastuhNinks View Post
Well I think people would be significantly less excited if he was just scoring a single point every game. However, he was scoring at 2 points per game which kinda makes it a tough example to use here.
A PPG Crosby would be kind of a let down (he was never near that), so even in a 82 game streak it would be a little a deception in a way.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:43 PM
  #112
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Except he never did that and never even came close. After 51 his next highest streak is 30. I'm willing to bet he never cracked 70 games with a point in one season.
Gretzky did, as mentioned above. As did Lemieux. And Steve Yzerman. Not sure on others. Jagr probably, Nicholls, Bossy maybe. Perhaps LaFontaine, Oates, etc. Would be interesting to see how many games Dennis Maruk scored in during his career year.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:48 PM
  #113
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,313
vCash: 3578
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
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
As useful as guaranteeing at least one goal production per game is, and perhaps in the possible wins that might translate into. There is still still a vast difference in the production between the two values.

Obviously the OP didn't say that the player was limited to only 82 points scored in a season, so we can assume that they scored more, but if we take modern production into account, we have to consider Thorton's numbers as a frame of reference.

Just because 164 has been reached many times in the past, doesn't mean it would not be a ridiculous achievement in today's NHL. Thornton getting 125 05-06 also isn't really a great sample. It occurred quite commonly in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, but since the new millenium just making it to 100-110 is seen as obscenely good, hell Crosby's max is only 120.

In comparison to a number like 164, that is an additional 44 goals of production. I am not really inclined to break open any of my statistics textbooks and try to make a calculation of this, but you have to think that that will impact the wins column considerably as well. That is like having an additional 40 goal scorer on your team.

The last time the number 164 was touched was during the 1988-89 season... In the modern NHL, this would be an astounding achievement. Thornton is the only name on this list, and just barely: http://www.sportscity.com/nhl/record...oints-leaders/

Edit - I am not arguing that A is the best choice, especially given that B has never been done before, but just commenting that it is not cut and dry, and that they are closer than they appear. Scoring 164 in today's era of defense and goaltending would be like a 200 point season in the days of old. There is only one player on the planet that has ever reached it, and he had a dynasty team behind him, which is near impossible to replicate in the salary cap era. You can't deny that level of achievement in the modern NHL.

Just because a feat has never been done before doesn't make it always the most astonishing. I would argue that if a player were to beat Gretzky's 50 goals in 39 games in the modern era, that would be a substantially greater achievement.

__________________

“Every good army needs a couple of criminals.” - Dean Lombardi

Last edited by Telos: 01-09-2013 at 10:03 PM.
Telos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:51 PM
  #114
MastuhNinks
Registered User
 
MastuhNinks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Iron Throne
Posts: 4,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
A PPG Crosby would be kind of a let down (he was never near that), so even in a 82 game streak it would be a little a deception in a way.
The point is that people weren't excited to see a number go up on his streak counter every game, people were excited because this generation's best player was playing the best hockey of his life.

MastuhNinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:54 PM
  #115
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastuhNinks View Post
The point is that people weren't excited to see a number go up on his streak counter every game, people were excited because this generation's best player was playing the best hockey of his life.
Yeah that was me feeling too (and the sense of my comment)

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 10:48 PM
  #116
Sky04
Registered User
 
Sky04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telos View Post
As useful as guaranteeing at least one goal production per game is, and perhaps in the possible wins that might translate into. There is still still a vast difference in the production between the two values.

Obviously the OP didn't say that the player was limited to only 82 points scored in a season, so we can assume that they scored more, but if we take modern production into account, we have to consider Thorton's numbers as a frame of reference.
Re-read. But I do agree with you for the most part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Staropramen View Post
Which of the feats below would you consider more impressive in this day and age?

a) Going 2 PPG over a whole 82 game NHL season

or

b) Going a literal PPG over a season, so scoring exactly one point in every of the 82 games

Sky04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:07 AM
  #117
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Not really.

Impressive: Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable.

4foot 7 inch player punishing nhl heavyweigth on a regular basis playing 3-4 minutes a game could be more impressive than Josh Georges to some.

A 17 year old rooki scoring 50 goals could be more impressive than a 51 goal season by a 23 year old to others, whitout being more valuable players to their team at all.

Impressive is much more something emotional than rational.
Nice try but the subjetivity is realted to the context of the debate only, scoring and the way it was done. The assumption has to be all things are equal and the players are being judged only on the paramaters of production set forth by the op. The scenarios you are suggesting has nothing to do with this debate. They are poor examples because the comparison will intrinsically involve bias due to the value each person prescribes to a particular talent/trait. The op set forth a debate that saw only one manipulating variable so subjetivity does not come into play in terms of talent/trait, only in acheivment in scoring, as the players are assumed to be the same person. Therefore the use of the word impressive can be rationalized to relate to one particular thing as i claimed. This is not a real world scenario where we have a understanding of anything other than their scoring totals. It's the sceintific process and it ought to be applied to a reasonable debate when possible (as it is in this case due to the fictitous nature of the comparison), in order to remove the emotional. So if all things are equal nobody could claim the more impressive feat is the 82 game scoring streak without also claiming that they are the more remarkable talent.

Also one ought to consider what another finds impressive is not always going to be rational in comparison to other feats, even in scenarios without an isolated variable and they ought to be criticized for it. Look at the example i gave with the Oreo eater and the Olympic medalist, it's not reasonable to suggest that the oreo eating is the more impressive feat. Just because one can rationalize a position it doesn't make it right. We may have our own sets of values but it's imparative to the human condition of coexisting to weigh them against the existing ideals of others. The weighing of ideals is the purpose of debate, it's the practice of consideration. Consideration is how we learn. Impressive is just a connotation of value, and values should be questioned. A person is free to believe whatever they may but it doesn't make it logical and unsubject to criticism.


Last edited by Eskimo44: 01-10-2013 at 12:31 AM.
Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:12 AM
  #118
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
WarriorOfGandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,738
vCash: 142
variance dictates choice B.

WarriorOfGandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:32 AM
  #119
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 10,188
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanZ View Post
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.
Fair enough. I think we just read this differently. Is someone scores in every but 3 games for a season it is remarkably close for me.

But nevertheless, I think someone posting a point in every game for the season is not impressive just cause it is so rare. It would be a impressive thing to see, but posting 2PPG in today's game would arguably be the greatest offensive season ever.

Posting literal PPG would be just a fun thing to own in your record list. These two are not in the same ballpark for me.

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:34 AM
  #120
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 10,188
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
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.



So would scoring in every game.
I said botht would be impressive and I took back my words on luck. Scoring in every game for season is NOT luck. I was off base there.

But scoring in every game would not make someone a legend. Not if that would be the greatest feat the payer achieves. It would be a nice mark in your history, but not in the same league as 2PPG.



Let's say, next full season there is a player that scores in every game. Ending up with 1PPG. The scoring leader for that year is Giroux with 111 points in 81 games.

Do you think the player X takes home Hart/Pearson award? Is he going to be the topic of discussion in summer? Does HFboards lift him up with the greats like Lemieux? Is he the most impressive player ever? Or does people think his scoring streak, as impressive it was, is just a statistical anomaly?

Let's say next full season there is a player that scores 2PPG for 164 points. He takes the scoring title with 53 point difference for Giroux.

Does he take home Hart/Pearson award? Is he going to be the topic of discussion in summer? Does HFboards lift him up with the greats like Lemieux? Is he the most impressive player ever? Or does people think his scoring finish, as impressive it was, is just a hot streak and many good bounces?


Last edited by TAnnala: 01-10-2013 at 01:06 AM.
TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 12:41 AM
  #121
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 10,188
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
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.
Well, that Maurice Richard thing is just plain ridiculous. Just plain ridiculous.

For the bolded part, you have called everyone here on the fact that they don't focus on the idea of the thread. That goes right to the same category.
Also, there is nothing that suggests player with 82 points season to be able to put up twice as many points. I would call that BS.

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:40 AM
  #122
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
So if all things are equal nobody could claim the more impressive feat is the 82 game scoring streak without also claiming that they are the more remarkable talent.
Yet you agree with me:

The statement was:
The more valuable player is the more impressive player.

I was not agreeing with it and you too, because you said:
So if all things are equal nobody could claim the more impressive feat is the 82 game scoring streak without also claiming that they are the more remarkable talent.

Yeah remarkable talent could be the more impressive I agree with you, (remarkable talent is far from more valuable) and fit my example, 4foot7 nhl goon or 50 goal teanager are more remarkable talent than individual in the "norm" doing it, but not more valuable, do you not agree ?

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:43 AM
  #123
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 500
Bigger story: 82 game point streak.

More impressive feat: 164 points.

The end.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 08:55 AM
  #124
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
Bigger story: 82 game point streak.

More impressive feat: 164 points.

The end.
Depends on who do it too.

Hall Gill making 164 points could make a bigger story in hockey history than him having a 82 game point streak (that would also be a big story).

Not sure if we can be sure about that as you did (imagine 164 points made in a 80 game point streak for an example, bigger story imo).

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:00 AM
  #125
tony d
The franchise
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,239
vCash: 500
Option B. Scoring a point in every game is something that's never been done before.

__________________
tony d 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 01:09 AM.

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.