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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Points per game averages!! Best to worse!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-30-2005, 05:31 PM
  #1
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Points per game averages!! Best to worse!!

Ok here are the points per game averages of the players who have at least 1000 points. I did not include Jaromir Jagr because the guy is still playing and in his prime. Anyhow without further ado here it is.

1-Gretzky: 1487 GP, 2857 points- 1.92
2-Lemieux: 889 GP, 1701 points- 1.91
3-Bossy: 752 GP, 1126 points- 1.49
4-Dionne: 1348 GP, 1771 points- 1.31
5-Stastny: 977 GP, 1239 points- 1.27
6-Esposito: 1282 GP, 1590 Points- 1.24
7-Lafleur: 1126 GP, 1353 points- 1.22
8-Sakic: 1155 GP, 1402 points- 1.21
9-Yzerman: 1453 GP, 1721 points- 1.18
10-Hawerchuk: 1188 GP, 1409 points- 1.18
11-Lafontaine: 885 GP, 1013 points- 1.14
12-Federko: 1000 GP, 1130 points- 1.13
13-Denis Savard: 1196 GP, 1338 points- 1.12
14-Kurri: 1251 GP, 1398 points- 1.12
15-Trottier: 1279 GP, 1425 points- 1.11
16-Perreault: 1191 GP, 1326 points- 1.11
17-Hull: 1063 GP, 1170 points- 1.10
18-Coffey: 1409 GP, 1531 points- 1.09
19-Hull: 1264 GP, 1390 points- 1.09
20-Beliveau: 1125 GP, 1219 points- 1.08
21-Messier: 1756 gp, 1887 points- 1.07
22-Nicholls: 1127 GP, 1209 points- 1.07
23-Oates: 1337 GP, 1420 points- 1.06
24-Goulet: 1089 GP, 1152 points- 1.06
25-Clarke: 1144 GP, 1210 points- 1.05
26-Mikita: 1394 GP, 1467 points- 1.05
27-Mogilny: 956 GP, 1007 points- 1.05
28-Howe: 1767 GP, 1850 points- 1.04
29-Francis: 1731 GP, 1798 points- 1.04
30-Turgeon: 1215 GP, 1274 points- 1.04
31-Fedorov: 988 GP, 1019 points- 1.03
32-Recchi: 1173 GP, 1201 points- 1.02
33-Robitaille: 1366 GP, 1370 points- 1.00
34-Roenick: 1124 GP, 1120 points- 1.00
35-Modano: 1101 GP, 1106 points- 1.00
36-Sundin: 1086 GP, 1089 points- 1.00
37-Fleury: 1084 GP, 1084 points- 1.00
38-Mullen: 1063 GP, 1064 points- 1.00
39-Larmer: 1006 GP, 1012 points- 1.00
40-Ratelle: 1281 GP, 1267 points- 0.99
41-Propp: 1016 GP, 1004 points- 0.99
42-Potvin: 1060 GP, 1052 points- 0.99
43-Bourque: 1612 GP, 1579 points- 0.98
44-Cicarelli: 1232 GP, 1200 points- 0.97
45-Sittler: 1096 GP, 1126 points- 0.97
46-Anderson: 1129 GP, 1099 points- 0.97
47-Taylor: 1111 GP, 1069 points- 0.96
48-Smith: 1077 GP, 1036 points- 0.96
49-Gilbert: 1065 GP, 1021 points- 0.96
50-Gilmour: 1474 GP, 1414 points- 0.95
51-Gartner: 1432 GP, 1335 points- 0.93
52-Mahovlich: 1181 GP, 1103 points- 0.93
53-Shanahan: 1268 GP, 1151 points- 0.90
54-Mcdonald: 1111 GP, 1006 points- 0.90
55-Nieuwendyk: 1177 GP, 1062 points- 0.90
56-MaCcinis: 1419 GP, 1274 points- 0.89
57-Bucyk: 1540 GP, 1369 points- 0.88
58-Ullman: 1410 GP, 1229 points- 0.87
59-Damphousse: 1378 GP, 1205 points- 0.87
60-Bellows: 1188 GP- 1022 points- 0.86
61-Richard: 1256 GP, 1046 points- 0.83
62-Andreychuk: 1597 GP, 1320 points- 0.82
63-Delvecchio: 1549 GP, 1281 points- 0.82
64-Housley: 1495 GP, 1232 points- 0.82
65-Murphy: 1615 GP, 1216 points- 0.75
66-Verbeek: 1424 GP, 1063 points- 0.74
67-Hunter: 1407 GP, 1020 points- 0.72

I'm surprised to see Esposito in the top 10. Wow Bobby Orr must've been one hell of a playmaker. Thoughts? Anyhting that comes to your mind about the players in this list, the stats, ppg, anything feel free to write it down!

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 05:37 PM
  #2
Thornton97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Yep, 'cause Phil Esposito must have been a scrub by himself.


Other than that, some good stats there. Just didn't like that last comment.

Thornton97 is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 05:39 PM
  #3
Douggy
Registered User
 
Douggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton97
Yep, 'cause Phil Esposito must have been a scrub by himself.


Other than that, some good stats there. Just didn't like that last comment.
I dont think he had anything against Espo. He's just not one of those guys that pops into your mind when you think of the top offensive players of all time.

Douggy is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 05:43 PM
  #4
Thornton97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douggy
I dont think he had anything against Espo. He's just not one of those guys that pops into your mind when you think of the top offensive players of all time.

He certainly is with me. Pre-Gretzky, one of the best scorers ever. Ever.

Thornton97 is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 05:47 PM
  #5
Took a pill in Sbisa
2showToffoliIwascool
 
Took a pill in Sbisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,063
vCash: 1323
Geez, Federko's pretty high up there at 12th... Why isn't he talked about more?

Took a pill in Sbisa is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 05:58 PM
  #6
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Oh no I really didn't mean it as an insult to Esposito.. he was a damn good goal scorer that's for sure but 6th all time would've been in his dreams if not for Bobby Orr. I mean if I was a Bruins' fan I would be proud to have had those two players but would also admit that the greatest player ever (IMO) Bobby Orr really helped Esposito's goal scoring numbers. Espo was scoring 50-60-70 hell 76 goals per year and when Bobby retired he couldnt even get 45!

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 06:22 PM
  #7
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Geez, Federko's pretty high up there at 12th... Why isn't he talked about more?
Not only that, but it seems like the only time when people DO talk about him is when they're questioning his inclusion in the hall of fame. 12th best PPG of all-time (among 1000 pointers), I actually didn't expect him to be so high up there.

And his playoff PPG is just as good as his regular season PPG... and BETTER than Guy Lafleur, Pat Lafontaine, Dale Hawerchuk, Marcel Dionne and Phil Esposito!


Last edited by revolverjgw: 03-30-2005 at 06:31 PM.
revolverjgw is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 06:32 PM
  #8
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
What about Peter Stastny at number 5!!

And for all those people who tell me enough with Lafleur already look at how high up there he is! And if he hadnt come out of retirement he would've been 4th!

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 06:33 PM
  #9
Masao
Registered User
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton97
He certainly is with me. Pre-Gretzky, one of the best scorers ever. Ever.
No kidding. Who's record did Gretzky break when he got 77 goals? Or 153 points?

Masao is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 06:42 PM
  #10
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 11,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw
Not only that, but it seems like the only time when people DO talk about him is when they're questioning his inclusion in the hall of fame. 12th best PPG of all-time (among 1000 pointers), I actually didn't expect him to be so high up there.

And his playoff PPG is just as good as his regular season PPG... and BETTER than Guy Lafleur, Pat Lafontaine, Dale Hawerchuk, Marcel Dionne and Phil Esposito!
Sad but true. When you consider that he never had other elite players around him its even more impressive. IMO he deserves every bit of his Hall nomination. Great player and I think that he was the first to have 10 consecutive 50 assist seasons.

#66 is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 07:03 PM
  #11
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,483
vCash: 500
Numbers aren't everything, but the fact that his playoff numbers are quite a bit better than a lot of the much more lauded players ahead and around him on the regular season list must mean something of substance, that's elite production on unspectacular teams. I guess that's why casual fans don't vote in players to the HHOF. Too bad I didn't see him in his prime... plus I've only seen him a couple of times via classic games, nobody ever shows STL!

revolverjgw is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 07:13 PM
  #12
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
It's an unfortunate fact that Lindros was number five starting 2002-2003 - now he's not even on the list. Damn Rangers, damn Scott Stevens and damn concussions!

BigE is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 07:27 PM
  #13
Thornton97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
He left Jagr out intentionally as he is still in his "prime" - I agree with that. It is a great list with lots of effort. Sad to see Lemieux dip below Gretzky. IIRC, it was just a season or two ago when he was still ahead of time--one of the only statistical categories Lemieux led the Great One. I could be wrong on that fact, so if I am, please correct.

Edit: hmmm, the Jagr post seems to have been deleted. Disregard.

Thornton97 is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 07:42 PM
  #14
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,071
vCash: 500
Interesting stats..

Good work

kmad is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 08:07 PM
  #15
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton97
He left Jagr out intentionally as he is still in his "prime" - I agree with that. It is a great list with lots of effort. Sad to see Lemieux dip below Gretzky. IIRC, it was just a season or two ago when he was still ahead of time--one of the only statistical categories Lemieux led the Great One. I could be wrong on that fact, so if I am, please correct.

Edit: hmmm, the Jagr post seems to have been deleted. Disregard.
Well Lemieux still owns Gretzky in goals per game... Lemieux's is 0.77 and Gretzky's is 0.60.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 08:24 PM
  #16
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Federko and a few others really benefitted from playing in the early 80's. Bernie was good but shouldnt be mentioned in the same breath as an elite player.

What I note its that you get to #17 and #20 before seeing players who played primarily in the 60's or earlier. Stats are not that meaningful (but fun to compare so thanks kovvy10)!!

chooch* is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 08:38 PM
  #17
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,111
vCash: 500
Adjusted-for-era points per game, minimum 500 games:

Mario Lemieux -- 1.73
Wayne Gretzky -- 1.61
Peter Forsberg -- 1.39
Jaromir Jagr -- 1.35
Eric Lindros -- 1.29
Bobby Orr -- 1.25
Joe Sakic -- 1.23
Mike Bossy -- 1.20
Paul Kariya -- 1.17
Pavel Bure -- 1.16
Teemu Selanne -- 1.15
Zigmund Palffy -- 1.15
Phil Esposito -- 1.11
Duke Keats -- 1.11
Steve Yzerman -- 1.10
Brett Hull -- 1.10
Bobby Hull -- 1.09
Marcel Dionne -- 1.09
Howie Morenz -- 1.07
Alexander Mogilny -- 1.07
Sergei Fedorov -- 1.07
Pavol Demitra -- 1.06
Jean Beliveau -- 1.06
Keith Tkachuk -- 1.06
Mats Sundin -- 1.05
Pat LaFontaine -- 1.04
Mark Recchi -- 1.04
Real Cloutier -- 1.04
Mike Modano -- 1.03
Alexei Yashin -- 1.03
Pierre Turgeon -- 1.03
Gordie Howe -- 1.03
Adam Oates -- 1.03
Joe Primeau -- 1.02
Peter Stastny -- 1.02
Theo Fleury -- 1.02
Bill Cook -- 1.02
Daniel Alfredsson -- 1.01
Jeremy Roenick -- 1.01
Guy Lafleur -- 1.01
Dale Hawerchuk -- 0.99
Kent Nilsson -- 0.99
Alexei Zhamnov -- 0.98
Ron Francis -- 0.98
Luc Robitaille -- 0.97
Frank Boucher -- 0.97
Stan Mikita -- 0.96
Syl Apps Sr. -- 0.96
Doug Weight -- 0.96
Mark Messier -- 0.96

80's players aren't quite as dominant on this list, and Forsberg's 3rd place finish is extremely impressive.

There are lots of younger players like Palffy, Selanne, etc near the top of this list. As they get older and their performance drops, their points per game will fall as well.

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 08:46 PM
  #18
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
Adjusted-for-era points per game, minimum 500 games:

Mario Lemieux -- 1.73
Wayne Gretzky -- 1.61
Peter Forsberg -- 1.39
Jaromir Jagr -- 1.35
Eric Lindros -- 1.29
Bobby Orr -- 1.25
Joe Sakic -- 1.23
Mike Bossy -- 1.20
Paul Kariya -- 1.17
Pavel Bure -- 1.16
Teemu Selanne -- 1.15
Zigmund Palffy -- 1.15
Phil Esposito -- 1.11
Duke Keats -- 1.11
Steve Yzerman -- 1.10
Brett Hull -- 1.10
Bobby Hull -- 1.09
Marcel Dionne -- 1.09
Howie Morenz -- 1.07
Alexander Mogilny -- 1.07
Sergei Fedorov -- 1.07
Pavol Demitra -- 1.06
Jean Beliveau -- 1.06
Keith Tkachuk -- 1.06
Mats Sundin -- 1.05
Pat LaFontaine -- 1.04
Mark Recchi -- 1.04
Real Cloutier -- 1.04
Mike Modano -- 1.03
Alexei Yashin -- 1.03
Pierre Turgeon -- 1.03
Gordie Howe -- 1.03
Adam Oates -- 1.03
Joe Primeau -- 1.02
Peter Stastny -- 1.02
Theo Fleury -- 1.02
Bill Cook -- 1.02
Daniel Alfredsson -- 1.01
Jeremy Roenick -- 1.01
Guy Lafleur -- 1.01
Dale Hawerchuk -- 0.99
Kent Nilsson -- 0.99
Alexei Zhamnov -- 0.98
Ron Francis -- 0.98
Luc Robitaille -- 0.97
Frank Boucher -- 0.97
Stan Mikita -- 0.96
Syl Apps Sr. -- 0.96
Doug Weight -- 0.96
Mark Messier -- 0.96

80's players aren't quite as dominant on this list, and Forsberg's 3rd place finish is extremely impressive.

There are lots of younger players like Palffy, Selanne, etc near the top of this list. As they get older and their performance drops, their points per game will fall as well.
Nice list pal.. may I ask you how you adjust stats?

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 08:59 PM
  #19
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,111
vCash: 500
Thanks... I adjust stats so that everybody plays in a season with:
- an 82 game schedule
- teams score 6.4 goals per game (the all-time average)
- there are 1.55 assists per goal (the all-time average)
- modern roster sizes

You can read about it in detail here: http://www.geocities.com/thehockeyou...ealScoring.pdf. It's extremely boring though, but I think it's important to explain this stuff in detail.

PM me or e-mail me if you (or anybody) wants a copy.

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 09:22 PM
  #20
Masao
Registered User
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,859
vCash: 500
This topic is very interesting and there's some nice research... but I've just gotta say something:

It's very misleading to judge a player on stats. Some guy who dekes past an entire team and turns the goalie inside out to score gets a goal.

Some guy who can't skate and sees a shot from a teammate hit his butt and bounce in the net gets a goal.

On a stat sheet, you see no difference.

What about the divisions the guys played in? Playing most of your games against Toronto/Ottawa/Boston/Montreal is a lot harder than for example in the southeast division a couple of years back when Washington won back to back division titles.

It's not because the average goals per game in the league is 3.05 that scoring 80 points in a season is definitively easier than if the average was 3.20.

What if you've got an extremely talented center, but who has to play on a defensive line with less ice time because he has a guy like Gretzky or Lemieux on his team centering the first line?

There are SO MANY factors to take into consideration that it's impossible to evaluate a player based on stats.

I mean, just look at one player by himself. Lemieux's stats in 1989-90 and 1990-91 for example were far from what he got in 1988-89. Does that mean that all of a sudden he was less talented? Factors change. Health plays a role, teammates, teams you play against, division, conference, heck - even the type of coach you have makes a difference. Man, even the goalie changes a lot of things - if the team has a weak goalie the players might be more careful and play tighter defensively and thus get less scoring chances... doesn't mean they're any less talented.

Hockey isn't math. You can't just say that scoring x number of points when the league average per game is x and the team average is x and say that it is the equivalent of scoring x points with x team on x year.

Apples and oragnes, fellas.

Masao is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 09:29 PM
  #21
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,111
vCash: 500
I agree with most of the things you said. Stats do have a role in telling you how good a player is, but you also have to look at qualitative stuff that you mentioned. Out of the factors you mentioned, teammates are probably the most important.

With that said, it's important to improve the quality of the data as much as possible. I'm not saying that a player who scored 50 points this year will score exactly 62 in a "normal" year... but their stats are too low because they were unlucky enough to play in a low-scoring era. So I correct for that as best I can. I think the adjusted for era numbers (whether you use mine, or the ones by Daryl Shilling or Dan Diamond or Klein and Reif) are a big improvement over unadjusted numbers and will give you more accurate information.

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 09:33 PM
  #22
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
I agree with most of the things you said. Stats do have a role in telling you how good a player is, but you also have to look at qualitative stuff that you mentioned. Out of the factors you mentioned, teammates are probably the most important.

With that said, it's important to improve the quality of the data as much as possible. I'm not saying that a player who scored 50 points this year will score exactly 62 in a "normal" year... but their stats are too low because they were unlucky enough to play in a low-scoring era. So I correct for that as best I can. I think the adjusted for era numbers (whether you use mine, or the ones by Daryl Shilling or Dan Diamond or Klein and Reif) are a big improvement over unadjusted numbers and will give you more accurate information.
I am sure you know this but The National Post today said that total ave goals per game was 8.3 goals a game in 81-82; 7.3 in 91-92 and 5.3 last year.

Anyone know about lets say 1975? 65? 55? 45?

chooch* is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 09:39 PM
  #23
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,111
vCash: 500
I didn't get a copy of the Post today, but it seems like their numbers are a bit off (I checked this in The Hockey Compendium also).

Here are the NHL stats (season, goals, total games player, goals per game):

1918 -- 342 -- 44 -- 7.77
1919 -- 223 -- 27 -- 8.26
1920 -- 460 -- 48 -- 9.58
1921 -- 406 -- 48 -- 8.46
1922 -- 380 -- 48 -- 7.92
1923 -- 313 -- 48 -- 6.52
1924 -- 255 -- 48 -- 5.31
1925 -- 450 -- 90 -- 5.00
1926 -- 581 -- 126 -- 4.61
1927 -- 879 -- 220 -- 4.00
1928 -- 836 -- 220 -- 3.80
1929 -- 642 -- 220 -- 2.92
1930 -- 1,301 -- 220 -- 5.91
1931 -- 1,056 -- 220 -- 4.80
1932 -- 957 -- 192 -- 4.98
1933 -- 983 -- 216 -- 4.55
1934 -- 1,041 -- 216 -- 4.82
1935 -- 1,087 -- 216 -- 5.03
1936 -- 831 -- 192 -- 4.33
1937 -- 946 -- 192 -- 4.93
1938 -- 972 -- 192 -- 5.06
1939 -- 851 -- 168 -- 5.07
1940 -- 838 -- 168 -- 4.99
1941 -- 900 -- 168 -- 5.36
1942 -- 1,047 -- 168 -- 6.23
1943 -- 1,083 -- 150 -- 7.22
1944 -- 1,225 -- 150 -- 8.17
1945 -- 1,103 -- 150 -- 7.35
1946 -- 1,003 -- 150 -- 6.69
1947 -- 1,138 -- 180 -- 6.32
1948 -- 1,054 -- 180 -- 5.86
1949 -- 978 -- 180 -- 5.43
1950 -- 1,148 -- 210 -- 5.47
1951 -- 1,139 -- 210 -- 5.42
1952 -- 1,090 -- 210 -- 5.19
1953 -- 1,006 -- 210 -- 4.79
1954 -- 1,011 -- 210 -- 4.81
1955 -- 1,059 -- 210 -- 5.04
1956 -- 1,064 -- 210 -- 5.07
1957 -- 1,130 -- 210 -- 5.38
1958 -- 1,175 -- 210 -- 5.60
1959 -- 1,217 -- 210 -- 5.80
1960 -- 1,238 -- 210 -- 5.90
1961 -- 1,261 -- 210 -- 6.00
1962 -- 1,264 -- 210 -- 6.02
1963 -- 1,249 -- 210 -- 5.95
1964 -- 1,166 -- 210 -- 5.55
1965 -- 1,208 -- 210 -- 5.75
1966 -- 1,277 -- 210 -- 6.08
1967 -- 1,252 -- 210 -- 5.96
1968 -- 2,476 -- 456 -- 5.43
1969 -- 2,718 -- 456 -- 5.96
1970 -- 2,649 -- 456 -- 5.81
1971 -- 3,409 -- 546 -- 6.24
1972 -- 3,348 -- 546 -- 6.13
1973 -- 4,088 -- 624 -- 6.55
1974 -- 3,989 -- 624 -- 6.39
1975 -- 4,932 -- 720 -- 6.85
1976 -- 4,913 -- 720 -- 6.82
1977 -- 4,783 -- 720 -- 6.64
1978 -- 4,747 -- 720 -- 6.59
1979 -- 4,756 -- 680 -- 6.99
1980 -- 5,901 -- 840 -- 7.03
1981 -- 6,457 -- 840 -- 7.69
1982 -- 6,745 -- 840 -- 8.03
1983 -- 6,490 -- 840 -- 7.73
1984 -- 6,627 -- 840 -- 7.89
1985 -- 6,532 -- 840 -- 7.78
1986 -- 6,667 -- 840 -- 7.94
1987 -- 6,165 -- 840 -- 7.34
1988 -- 6,239 -- 840 -- 7.43
1989 -- 6,286 -- 840 -- 7.48
1990 -- 6,189 -- 840 -- 7.37
1991 -- 5,805 -- 840 -- 6.91
1992 -- 6,123 -- 880 -- 6.96
1993 -- 7,311 -- 1,008 -- 7.25
1994 -- 7,081 -- 1,092 -- 6.48
1995 -- 3,727 -- 624 -- 5.97
1996 -- 6,700 -- 1,066 -- 6.29
1997 -- 6,216 -- 1,066 -- 5.83
1998 -- 5,624 -- 1,066 -- 5.28
1999 -- 5,829 -- 1,107 -- 5.27
2000 -- 6,305 -- 1,148 -- 5.49
2001 -- 6,781 -- 1,230 -- 5.51
2002 -- 6,441 -- 1,230 -- 5.24
2003 -- 6,530 -- 1,230 -- 5.31
2004 -- 6,317 -- 1,230 -- 5.14

Hope that helps.

You think the 80's are high-scoring? Look at the early 1920's!
You think today's low-scoring? Look at the late 1920's!

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 10:06 PM
  #24
WVP
Registered User
 
WVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton97
Sad to see Lemieux dip below Gretzky. IIRC, it was just a season or two ago when he was still ahead of time--one of the only statistical categories Lemieux led the Great One. I could be wrong on that fact, so if I am, please correct.
You are right. It was in the back of my mind when he made his comebacks. No man in his late 30's could put up 2 points a game in the way the game is now. That was my favorite Lemieux record; it's a shame he lost it by just returning to the game in its' current state.

WVP is offline  
Old
03-30-2005, 10:12 PM
  #25
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton97
He left Jagr out intentionally as he is still in his "prime" - I agree with that. It is a great list with lots of effort. Sad to see Lemieux dip below Gretzky. IIRC, it was just a season or two ago when he was still ahead of time--one of the only statistical categories Lemieux led the Great One. I could be wrong on that fact, so if I am, please correct.

Edit: hmmm, the Jagr post seems to have been deleted. Disregard.
It is worth noting that Mario took the lead while retired as well. It wasn't until roughly mid-way through Gretky's last season that Mario ever had the lead.

JCD is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.