Around the League Thread | The one where Florida blows it…?

[tantalum]

I'm going to start this by first saying McDavid is a hell of a talent. He is generational in his abilities.

HOWEVER, it annoys me when context isn't provided when you start to hear the Gretzky comparisons like he could beat 47 point playoff campaign. It would of course be a hell of an accomplishment but Gretz did that in 18 games! 2.6 points per game! That is plain stupid....no matter the era. The same PPG as his 215 point regular season.

And speaking of eras, it's certainly true Gretzky played at a time it was easier to score but by the same token there weren't nearly the same training and equipment advantages back then (note average goals per game in the early 80's was about 3.9 compared to 3.1 today). If he was a modern player his skill and drive would still make him the best ever in all likelihood. People can argue with that but if you compare him to his peers from the 81-82 season to 86-87 where he won 6 straight scoring championships he bested SECOND place by an average multiple of 1.57! The dominance relative to his peers remains second to none.

Most fans nowadays don't have recollections of Gretzky and many that do don't remember just how stupid dominant he was until Mario came along.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I'm going to start this by first saying McDavid is a hell of a talent. He is generational in his abilities.

HOWEVER, it annoys me when context isn't provided when you start to hear the Gretzky comparisons like he could beat 47 point playoff campaign. It would of course be a hell of an accomplishment but Gretz did that in 18 games! 2.6 points per game! That is plain stupid....no matter the era. The same PPG as his 215 point regular season.

And speaking of eras, it's certainly true Gretzky played at a time it was easier to score but by the same token there weren't nearly the same training and equipment advantages back then (note average goals per game in the early 80's was about 3.9 compared to 3.1 today). If he was a modern player his skill and drive would still make him the best ever in all likelihood. People can argue with that but if you compare him to his peers from the 81-82 season to 86-87 where he won 6 straight scoring championships he bested SECOND place by an average multiple of 1.57! The dominance relative to his peers remains second to none.

Those ones seem pretty easy to separate into total points vs. points per game.

The one that bothers the shit out of me is "era adjusted points". It's like Batman fans arguing "well if Batman has this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, he could beat Superman in a fight". Either he holds a record or he doesn't.

(one of my hockey pet peeves)

 

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1805293065696858184

It’s either a guaranteed loss or win can’t figure which one.

 

[tantalum]

Those ones seem pretty easy to separate into total points vs. points per game.

The one that bothers the shit out of me is "era adjusted points". It's like Batman fans arguing "well if Batman has this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, he could beat Superman in a fight". Either he holds a record or he doesn't.

(one of my hockey pet peeves)

I agree and sort of what I was trying to get to. People want to do adjusted points for era (which Gretzky still comes out on top by a fair margin) but fail to take into account that those earlier era players didn't have the massive training advantages current players do (i.e it isn't just goaltenders that have better training). You can't just ignore that but that is exactly what gets ignored when you do that adjusted scoring stuff. It's not perfect but I like relative to peers to show the dominance that was Gretzky for 7 or 8 years. It really was Gretzky and then everyone else being dramatically less than that.

Currently, you have a number of players always at the top that can be called the best in any given year (Kucherov, MacKInnon, McDavid, Draisatl....). It's sort of like the Wayne+Mario era on steroids.

 

[Jovofan]

If Florida wins tonight I will officially never complain once about the OEL trade and buyout penalty for as long as it's on the books. Go Panthers Go!

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Low key feel sorry for Buffalo fans.

Missed out on McDavid but got Eichel.

Eichel almost immediately wins a cup the moment he is traded.

McDavid is 3 periods away from lifting a cup now...

 

[vanarchy]

My predictions have been shit so I'm just gonna shut up and watch this one.

 

[EpochLink]

Gina about to serve Roberto divorce papers if the Panthers lose tonight

 

[mathonwy]

Boeser and Miller gave it their all. I get Pettersson had a minor knee injury but I will still never forgive him for letting this opportunity slip through his fingers.

They lost as a team.

Quinn Hughes was a shell of his former self for game 6 and 7. Joshua was MIA. Hronek was mostly MIA. Myk was shanking glorious scoring chances like it was going out of style.

Petey, like Hronek, had been playing worsening hockey since mid-season. He was on a scoring streak and then it stopped (round the time that Kuzmenko got traded) and never came back. That's not exactly gonna change because of the playoffs.

I find it weird fans continue to feel inclined to attack Petey's character / motivation.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

They lost as a team.

Quinn Hughes was a shell of his former self for game 6 and 7. Joshua was MIA. Hronek was mostly MIA. Myk was shanking glorious scoring chances like it was going out of style.

Petey, like Hronek, had been playing worsening hockey since mid-season. He was on a scoring streak and then it stopped and never came back. That's not exactly gonna change because of the playoffs.

I find it weird fans continue to feel inclined to attack Petey's character / motivation.

Hughes was thoroughly outplayed by both Bouchard and Ekholm. It was pretty brutal.

 

[tradervik]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1805293065696858184

It’s either a guaranteed loss or win can’t figure which one.

If it’s a win, 7uongo could take on a new meaning.

 

[Hodgy]

Those ones seem pretty easy to separate into total points vs. points per game.

The one that bothers the shit out of me is "era adjusted points". It's like Batman fans arguing "well if Batman has this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, he could beat Superman in a fight". Either he holds a record or he doesn't.

(one of my hockey pet peeves)

I agree and sort of what I was trying to get to. People want to do adjusted points for era (which Gretzky still comes out on top by a fair margin) but fail to take into account that those earlier era players didn't have the massive training advantages current players do (i.e it isn't just goaltenders that have better training). You can't just ignore that but that is exactly what gets ignored when you do that adjusted scoring stuff. It's not perfect but I like relative to peers to show the dominance that was Gretzky for 7 or 8 years. It really was Gretzky and then everyone else being dramatically less than that.

Currently, you have a number of players always at the top that can be called the best in any given year (Kucherov, MacKInnon, McDavid, Draisatl....). It's sort of like the Wayne+Mario era on steroids.

Isn't era adjusted points just adjusting for inflation/deflation in total league scoring? For example, if you are comparing points scored by a player, you look at the points scored by each player relative to the total number of points scored for the whole applicable season.

To me, adjusting for inflation/deflation and essentially just measuring a player's percentage of the total points/goals scored for a particular league year is the obvious way to judge players from different eras.

 

[tantalum]

Isn't era adjusted points just adjusting for inflation/deflation in total league scoring? For example, if you are comparing points scored by a player, you look at the points scored by each player relative to the total number of points scored for the whole applicable season.

To me, adjusting for inflation/deflation and essentially just measuring a player's percentage of the total points/goals scored for a particular league year is the obvious way to judge players from different eras.

But it completely misses nuance on how dominant a player was relative to his peers when those things are typically done. Adjust Gretzky's and they will still be best in history but unless you also adjust second place in scoring you completely lose how much better Gretzky was than anybody else for darn near a decade before Mario came around. I can't stress this enough...no one was even remotely in the same stratosphere as him. If missed half a season he still would have had a shot of winning scoring titles.

edit: a rough estimate currently puts Gretzky up by 150 points per every 1000 games if you were to bring McDavid's numbers to Gretzky era...or 120 pts/1000 games bringing Gretzky to McDavid career timeframe thus far. But again you lose the nuance on how absolutely dominant Gretzky was his first decade of play relative to every single other player in the league.

 

[Hodgy]

But it completely misses nuance on how dominant a player was relative to his peers when those things are typically done. Adjust Gretzky's and they will still be best in history but unless you also adjust second place in scoring you completely lose how much better Gretzky was than anybody else for darn near a decade before Mario came around. I can't stress this enough...no one was even remotely in the same stratosphere as him. If missed half a season he still would have had a shot of winning scoring titles.

I am not saying to ignore other statistics - but adjusted stats for inflation/deflation in NHL scoring seem to me to be the best stats for comparing players across different eras. Again, that doesn't mean you should use other stats.

 

[JT Milker]

2.6ppg against dmen hucking darts and chugging beers between periods and goalies that couldn’t stop shots along the ice is not as impressive as 2ppg in 2024. McDouche would be scoring 10ppg in that era.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Prediction
Joesph Woll will fail to hit 40 games again due to injury

The new extension will end up looking like shit

 

[StreetHawk]

2.6ppg against dmen hucking darts and chugging beers between periods and goalies that couldn’t stop shots along the ice is not as impressive as 2ppg in 2024. McDouche would be scoring 10ppg in that era.

Different training and nutrition.

 

[tantalum]

2.6ppg against dmen hucking darts and chugging beers between periods and goalies that couldn’t stop shots along the ice is not as impressive as 2ppg in 2024. McDouche would be scoring 10ppg in that era.

See this is the annoying argument. It ignores all the advances in training, fitness etc that forwards would also be getting. It only assumes such things would improve D-men and goaltenders when forwards would also improve in the same manner for the same reasons.

McDavid with todays advances in training, teaching etc may very well score more if you put him a time machine to compete in the 80s. However, if you put child Gretzky in a time machine, sent him to the future to train alongside McDavid and then sent him back to play in the 80s his numbers would be even more stupid than they already were. Accounting for goal differences in era as Hodgy says still puts Gretzky well ahead. At this time. McDavid has 10 years left in his career so who knows what happens from here on out.

 

[bossram]

Different training and nutrition.

Well yeah.

@tantalum is saying that era adjustments "ignore" the advancement in training, stick tech, etc. that would have helped Gretzky. But somehow he's ignoring that those advancements would help the defensive games of his opponents (vastly superior goaltending, better nutrition and not hucking darts between periods, more athletic).

Maybe Gretzky would be worse today, even with the training and stick tech! It's possible!

Era adjustments are fair. Whether you buy them or not, that's up to you.

 

[tantalum]

Prediction
Joesph Woll will fail to hit 40 games again due to injury

The new extension will end up looking like shit

123 pro games in 5 seasons or something. It's definitely a risk. But a $4 mil risk in another year or two isn't huge with an increasing cap. I think when Demko signed his deal he also had less than 200 pro games under his belt.

 

[StreetHawk]

Well yeah.

@tantalum is saying that era adjustments "ignore" the advancement in training, stick tech, etc. that would have helped Gretzky. But somehow he's ignoring that those advancements would help the defensive games of his opponents (vastly superior goaltending, better nutrition and not hucking darts between periods, more athletic).

Maybe Gretzky would be worse today, even with the training stick tech! It's possible!

Era adjustments are fair. Whether you buy them or not, that's up to you.

Easier to identify players from the past that may not do as well based on their habits from their day. Mario did smoke for example. Relied upon more pure talent and thus would have to train harder and hit the gym more in today's NHL.

But, the reverse of taking away the training that McDavid, Crosby, Bedard have had from age 5-18 or what never, to match those of players who were born in the 60's to early 70's they would also be completely different.

 

[Hodgy]

Era adjustments build in the relatively performance of a player to his peers but this is done on a pretty basic level so I get @tantalum 's point that you should look further into a player's relative performance.

 

[tantalum]

Well yeah.

@tantalum is saying that era adjustments "ignore" the advancement in training, stick tech, etc. that would have helped Gretzky. But somehow he's ignoring that those advancements would help the defensive games of his opponents (vastly superior goaltending, better nutrition and not hucking darts between periods, more athletic).

Maybe Gretzky would be worse today, even with the training stick tech! It's possible!

Era adjustments are fair. Whether you buy them or not, that's up to you.

I did a poor job explaining my mind in retrospect...when people talk about era adjustments they often only talk one side of the story. Not all the time but often. Like the post I responded to a bit ago. A modern day player would destroy teams in the 80s because of X,Y,Z failing to take into account the advances everywhere. The numbers aren't actually worked out....

But further my point was there is a very real thing that gets lost even when doing such an adjustment. Sure it could look "close" on the surface but when you dig deeper and you are talking about how good is a player compared to all of his peers well then you can see The Great One is incomparable.

 

[JT Milker]

See this is the annoying argument. It ignores all the advances in training, fitness etc that forwards would also be getting. It only assumes such things would improve D-men and goaltenders when forwards would also improve in the same manner for the same reasons.

McDavid with today’s advances in training, teaching etc may very well score more if you put him a time machine to compete in the 80s. However, if you put child Gretzky in a time machine, sent him to the future to train alongside McDavid and then sent him back to play in the 80s his numbers would be even more stupid than they already were. Accounting for goal differences in era as Hodgy says still puts Gretzky well ahead. At this time. McDavid has 10 years left in his career so who knows what happens from here on out.

I’m saying you shouldn’t ignore advancements in technology, training, nutrition. Gretzky will likely always be the greatest player ever and own a number of ridiculous records. But McDavid is miles better currently, because people get better at things with time.

 

[I am toxic]

Gretzky dominated his peers like no one else has ever done - other than Mario until his illness and injuries got to him, and Orr before his knees.

McDavid, along with Crosby, is the best player to come along since then, but he simply hasn't generated the kind of separation from his peers that those three did. Just not in the same class.

Period and end of story. Anyone who actually watched them knows this.