I'd say nowadays 20 goals is kind of like hitting .285. Back in the '80's, scoring 20 goals was kind of routine for anyone playing on the top 2 lines by about January, and many 3rd liners popped in 20 reguarly.
I'd have to say the .300 equivalent these days is around 27-28 goals, depending how many assists the player may have.
20 goals = .300? Nope. I'd say 30 is more like it. Last season in MLB there were 23 guys who hit above .300. Last season in the NHL there were 24 guys who scored 30 or more goals. Stan having a job is only out of respect at this point.
Fischler's an idiot. There are about 100 20-goal scorers in the league each season. In baseball, there are around 30 players that end up hitting .300 or higher by year's end. A .300 hitter is more comparable to a 30-goal scorer than a 20-goal scorer.
I think it's stupid to compare goals to avg. There's leadoff hitters that will hit well over .300 and they'll be lucky to drive in 30 runs. To me, goals are more like RBIs. I'd say 20 is like 75-80. 20 is a solid year, just like 75-80 is a solid year. The rest imo is like this;
30=100: Two earmarks which seperate good years, and very good years.
40=120: Two numbers which are a great scoring year. Offesive forces like Teixeira and Gaborik.
50=135:Two numbers which signal an amazing offensive season.
60=150: Both nubmers are ridiculous and gaudy, yet attainable for true superstars.
It's should be RBIs not average, because goals go on the board. Average doesn't, but RBIs do.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, forget RBIs, homers are even better. They're almost equal all the way down the line. 20 goals is 20 homers, 30 goals is 30 homers, etc. Callahan hit 20 homeruns.
Hit 300 for say a 15 - 20 yr career your probably looking at potential hall of fame in BB. score 20 a year for 15 years that's pretty solid numbers especially if you do it every year . But otherwise a pretty lame comparison by the maven ... What a tool