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.

199 points on 347 goals= 57%...untouchable

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-01-2006, 12:14 AM
  #26
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 14,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Also, there are as many as 3 points on every goal, Lemieux did not contribute 57% of goals. It was 23.7% of the team's points scored.
way to bring up a point as support of your argument even though it contradicts your point...

the original poster is right.... mario contributed towards 57% of the goals scored that season by his team

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:19 AM
  #27
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylez19 View Post
way to bring up a point as support of your argument even though it contradicts your point...

the original poster is right.... mario contributed towards 57% of the goals scored that season by his team
Mario was on the ice for 254 of the 347 goals they scored. So when he wasn't on the ice they scored 93 goals and when he was they scored 254. And he played roughly half the game or a tiny bit less. That is truly amazing.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:38 AM
  #28
El_Loco_Avs
Registered User
 
El_Loco_Avs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 8,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
Mario was on the ice for 254 of the 347 goals they scored. So when he wasn't on the ice they scored 93 goals and when he was they scored 254. And he played roughly half the game or a tiny bit less. That is truly amazing.
now *that's* impressive

I guess they wanted some secondary scoring after that.

El_Loco_Avs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 03:42 AM
  #29
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Jagr had points on 127 of Pens' 242 goals in '99 (52.5%), might be good for third.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 07:31 AM
  #30
Pens75
Pens Fan Since 1975
 
Pens75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Duquesne Gardens
Country: United States
Posts: 2,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
Mario was on the ice for 254 of the 347 goals they scored. So when he wasn't on the ice they scored 93 goals and when he was they scored 254. And he played roughly half the game or a tiny bit less. That is truly amazing.
Yes it is...

I watched almost every game, the guy was unstoppable.

One of the best ever.

Pens75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:40 AM
  #31
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
This is clearly a huge and meaningful stat. Ogopogo why do you completely dismiss stats for goalies being in any way meaningful and continue to talk about forwards and defencemen like their greatness (dominance) can be determined by your limited statistical formula. .
I don't believe you know how my formula works. There is more to it than just statistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
I respect your work and all but you dismiss this as irrelevant statisitcally. You dismiss goalies being able to be measured statistically but you think Cy Denney can be compared to Mike Bossy or Wayne Gretzky.

You say we don't know how many minutes Mario was on ice during the season. But your statisical system does not account for Time on Ice..
My system is designed in a way that time on ice is largely irrelevant to my ratings. Variables like that can skew things (players in the 20s played more than 30 minutes per game) so, I eliminate them as a factor.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:42 AM
  #32
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bletchley View Post
Don't be sour that Mario was better than Gretz.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:46 AM
  #33
ACC1224
Hate the Patriots
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
I don't believe you know how my formula works. There is more to it than just statistics.



My system is designed in a way that time on ice is largely irrelevant to my ratings. Variables like that can skew things (players in the 20s played more than 30 minutes per game) so, I eliminate them as a factor.
Go figure that in hockey, time on the ice is irrelevent. Now I finally understand how you came up with Jim Carrey having a better career than Cujo.

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:48 AM
  #34
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Go figure that in hockey, time on the ice is irrelevent. Now I finally understand how you came up with Jim Carrey having a better career than Cujo.
Ever hear of "thinking outside the box".

There are many ways to do things, perhaps you haven't thought of them all?

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:53 AM
  #35
ACC1224
Hate the Patriots
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Ever hear of "thinking outside the box".

There are many ways to do things, perhaps you haven't thought of them all?
I have, it's a convenient catch phrase for those who don't understand how things really work.

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:02 AM
  #36
gimzo23
Registered User
 
gimzo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortier View Post
1988-89

Mario Lemieux did 199 points on 347 goals of his team: IT MEANS THAT HE CONTRIBUTE OF 57% OF THE GOALs

Nhl record

Just an idea on how he was alone:

OVECHKIN this year contribute to 45 % of the goals of the Washington Capitals....and we can say that......he was alone hey


Second best of all time: Lemieux WITH 53 % in 86-87 on 319 goals

Third Best: Gretzky : 52% with the oilers

so on 10 goals that the Pittsburgh Penguins did , Lemieux was on the scoresheet for almost 6 goals.


This record is untouchable ans nobody will ever approach this

This is really the real definition of a hart trophy winner.
I think it even was a 60% contribution to the Pens' goals that season. You have to take into account that Lemieux missed 4 games in the 88/89 season, (just checked, it was a 80-game schedule), so he contributed his 199 points on less than the 347 goals scored by the Penguins that season. I don't know how many goals the Penguins scored in the games that Lemieux missed, but you get pretty much exactly to 60% if you make the subtracting calculation with an average of 4 goals scored per game by the Pens. The Penguins may not have been as good without Mario than they were with him, but I think it's highly unlikely they didn't score a single goal in the 4 games without him.

gimzo23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:03 AM
  #37
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
I have, it's a convenient catch phrase for those who don't understand how things really work.
I aplogize, I didn't realize that I was conversing with such brilliance. Perhaps you should share your wisdom so that all of us dumbasses can become intelligent.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:04 AM
  #38
muffin with tentacle
Registered User
 
muffin with tentacle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo View Post
This was also the year Lemieux scored his famous five goals, five different ways.


Huh? Wazzat?

muffin with tentacle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:06 AM
  #39
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
And for those of you wondering why Dan Quinn, despite having all the skill in the world (and I mean it, the guy was gifted offensively), couldn't hold a consistent NHL job, you have your answer. Well, that and he was never the best locker room guy. And that little incident in a Minnesota hotel room in 1992.
And furthermore, for those of you wondering why Rob Brown faded so fast after his few really impressive seasons despite being a gifted offensive player, injuries...

KariyaIsGod* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:06 AM
  #40
GuloGulo
Registered User
 
GuloGulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: trunkofacamaro
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 3,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Schaefer View Post
Huh? Wazzat?
Even strength, short handed, power play, penalty shot and ... own goal or homo goal?

GuloGulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:12 AM
  #41
muffin with tentacle
Registered User
 
muffin with tentacle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuloGulo View Post
Even strength, short handed, power play, penalty shot and ... own goal or homo goal?
Homo goal?

muffin with tentacle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:18 AM
  #42
ACC1224
Hate the Patriots
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
I aplogize, I didn't realize that I was conversing with such brilliance. Perhaps you should share your wisdom so that all of us dumbasses can become intelligent.
You're on your own, I don't want to make a career out of this.

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:20 AM
  #43
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuloGulo View Post
Even strength, short handed, power play, penalty shot and ... own goal or homo goal?
Empty netter.

jamiebez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:34 AM
  #44
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
I don't believe you know how my formula works. There is more to it than just statistics.



My system is designed in a way that time on ice is largely irrelevant to my ratings. Variables like that can skew things (players in the 20s played more than 30 minutes per game) so, I eliminate them as a factor.
I have a very good idea of your formula and I think it has value.

I just question why you dismiss goalie stats as irrelevant and think that being in on 57% of a team's goals is irrelevant.

To add something ot this debate.... Secondary assists were not as common in the past and in the teens, 20's, 30's maybe a bit longer even less primary assists were scored. It is likely that in the 20's and 30's some players if second assists were counted would have been in on more than 57% of a teams goals. It is almost certain this is the case. Of course it was a different game then.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:42 AM
  #45
GuloGulo
Registered User
 
GuloGulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: trunkofacamaro
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 3,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Schaefer View Post
Homo goal?
Ask Al Iafrate

GuloGulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:52 AM
  #46
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
I have a very good idea of your formula and I think it has value.

I just question why you dismiss goalie stats as irrelevant and think that being in on 57% of a team's goals is irrelevant.

To add something ot this debate.... Secondary assists were not as common in the past and in the teens, 20's, 30's maybe a bit longer even less primary assists were scored. It is likely that in the 20's and 30's some players if second assists were counted would have been in on more than 57% of a teams goals. It is almost certain this is the case. Of course it was a different game then.
You have put forth some very good reasons to deem the 57% and unimportant. Historically, a number like is very different for the different eras - things like ice time, second assists etc.

As I have said before, the team in front of the goalie makes a SIGNIFICANT impact of the statistics of the goaltender. The only "pure" goalie stat is a new one - SO saves/shots. The team in front of the goaltender cannot influence that statistic. Watching a goaltender play is the only real way to determine how good he is.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 10:11 AM
  #47
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortier View Post
1988-89

Mario Lemieux did 199 points on 347 goals of his team: IT MEANS THAT HE CONTRIBUTE OF 57% OF THE GOALs

Nhl record

Just an idea on how he was alone:

OVECHKIN this year contribute to 45 % of the goals of the Washington Capitals....and we can say that......he was alone hey


Second best of all time: Lemieux WITH 53 % in 86-87 on 319 goals

Third Best: Gretzky : 52% with the oilers

so on 10 goals that the Pittsburgh Penguins did , Lemieux was on the scoresheet for almost 6 goals.



This record is untouchable ans nobody will ever approach this

This is really the real definition of a hart trophy winner.


Look the roster of the 1986-87.........................can i tell you that they were not close of the playoffs:

# Player Name GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Mario Lemieux................................. 77 70 98 168 92 -- -- -- -- --
Dan Quinn..................................... 70 40 39 79 50 -- -- -- -- --
Randy Cunneyworth............................. 71 35 39 74 141 -- -- -- -- --
Paul Coffey................................... 46 15 52 67 93 -- -- -- -- --
Doug Bodger................................... 69 14 31 45 103 -- -- -- -- --
Rob Brown..................................... 51 24 20 44 56 -- -- -- -- --
Dave Hunter, Edmonton......................... 21 3 3 6 6 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh....................... 59 11 18 29 77 -- -- -- -- --
Totals........................... 80 14 21 35 83 -- -- -- -- --
Charlie Simmer................................ 50 11 17 28 24 -- -- -- -- --
Jock Callander................................ 41 11 16 27 45 -- -- -- -- --
* Craig Simpson................................. 21 13 13 26 34 -- -- -- -- --
Bryan Erickson, Los Angeles................... 42 6 15 21 20 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh.................... 11 1 4 5 0 -- -- -- -- --
Totals........................ 53 7 19 26 20 -- -- -- -- --
Ville Siren................................... 58 1 20 21 62 -- -- -- -- --
Dave McLlwain................................. 66 11 8 19 40 -- -- -- -- --
Troy Loney.................................... 65 5 13 18 151 -- -- -- -- --
Phil Bourque.................................. 21 4 12 16 20 -- -- -- -- --
Dan Frawley................................... 47 6 8 14 152 -- -- -- -- --
Jim Johnson................................... 55 1 12 13 87 -- -- -- -- --
Randy Hillier................................. 55 1 12 13 144 -- -- -- -- --
Rod Buskas.................................... 76 4 8 12 206 -- -- -- -- --
Steve Gotaas.................................. 36 5 6 11 45 -- -- -- -- --
Zarley Zalapski............................... 15 3 8 11 7 -- -- -- -- --
* Moe Mantha.................................... 21 2 8 10 23 -- -- -- -- --
Bob Errey..................................... 17 3 6 9 18 -- -- -- -- --
Chris Dahlquist............................... 44 3 6 9 69 -- -- -- -- --
Mark Kachowski................................ 38 5 3 8 126 -- -- -- -- --
Perry Ganchar, Mtl. Canadiens................. 1 1 0 1 0 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh..................... 30 2 5 7 36 -- -- -- -- --
Totals......................... 31 3 5 8 36 -- -- -- -- --
Wilf Paiement................................. 23 2 6 8 39 -- -- -- -- --
* Chris Kontos.................................. 36 1 7 8 12 -- -- -- -- --
Kevin Stevens................................. 16 5 2 7 8 -- -- -- -- --
* Dave Hannan................................... 21 4 3 7 23 -- -- -- -- --
Dwight Mathiasen.............................. 23 0 6 6 14 -- -- -- -- --
Wayne Van Dorp................................ 25 1 3 4 75 -- -- -- -- --
* Chris Joseph.................................. 17 0 4 4 12 -- -- -- -- --
Norm Schmidt.................................. 5 1 2 3 0 -- -- -- -- --
Todd Charlesworth............................. 6 2 0 2 2 -- -- -- -- --
Brad Aitken................................... 5 1 1 2 0 -- -- -- -- --
Lee Giffin.................................... 19 0 2 2 9 -- -- -- -- --
Frank Pietrangelo (G)......................... 21 0 2 2 2 -- -- -- -- --
Scott Gruhl................................... 6 1 0 1 0 -- -- -- -- --
Pat Mayer..................................... 1 0 0 0 4 -- -- -- -- --
Dave Goertz................................... 2 0 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- --
Warren Young.................................. 7 0 0 0 15 -- -- -- -- --
Jimmy Mann.................................... 9 0 0 0 53 -- -- -- -- --
Steve Guenette (G)............................ 19 0 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- --
Pat Riggin (G)................................ 22 0 0 0 12 -- -- -- -- --
Gilles Meloche (G)............................ 27 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --
Bench 80 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Totals 319 520 839 2211
Just one more point to illustrate why I question this stat for historical comparison:

Joe Malone scored 38.3% of the goals for the Montreal Canadiens in the 1917-1918 season. Lemieux only scored 24.5% of the Penguins' goals in 88-89.

Does that mean Joe Malone blows away Lemieux and is clearly more dominant?

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 10:12 AM
  #48
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuloGulo View Post
Ask Al Iafrate
Start quote "Empty net goals are for homo's" End quote

joepeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 10:37 AM
  #49
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
You have put forth some very good reasons to deem the 57% and unimportant. Historically, a number like is very different for the different eras - things like ice time, second assists etc.

As I have said before, the team in front of the goalie makes a SIGNIFICANT impact of the statistics of the goaltender. The only "pure" goalie stat is a new one - SO saves/shots. The team in front of the goaltender cannot influence that statistic. Watching a goaltender play is the only real way to determine how good he is.
But Mario played in an era where the idea he could be in on 57% of the goals is even less likely. His era actually strengthens the greatness of the accomplishment. The fact the Pens scored 93 goals when he was not on the ice out of 347 is insane.

The team any player plays on has a significant impact on his scoring stats, if not directly then through ice time and the situations he is used in.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 10:39 AM
  #50
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Just one more point to illustrate why I question this stat for historical comparison:

Joe Malone scored 38.3% of the goals for the Montreal Canadiens in the 1917-1918 season. Lemieux only scored 24.5% of the Penguins' goals in 88-89.

Does that mean Joe Malone blows away Lemieux and is clearly more dominant?
I don't know about that but it made many in this thread aware of Malone's accomplishments which is a good use for stats. Making others aware of greatness hidden by time or circumstances.

Sens Rule 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 11:39 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.