Auston Matthews 69 goals in 81 games, most goals scored since Lemieux in 1995-96

[wetcoast]

So we need to stop "blowing smoke" up the ass of the 2nd highest scoring goalscorer of all time because he didn't have any great goalscoring competition? So if Bossy, M. Richard and Brett Hull had played during OV's time, he would have less goals?

No you are right VN is off track but conversely people saying player A is better because his scoring is so much more is also off track.


For example had Stamkos and Crosby been healthy Ovi still would be the best goal scorer of all time but the he "scored X% more than these guys" argument falls a bit flat when one accounts for injuries and context.

Put another way in some alternative universe if say 4 of the top 5 goal scorers of all time played at the same time and then the 5th best goal scorer played in another era with say the 1-15th best goal scorers would that 5th best all time guy "look" better?

Yes he would but that's not a good way to evaluate these things.

 

[Strangle]

One of the key elements of adjusted stats is that depending on who one is trying to prop up (seems exclusively the Crosby and Ovechkin era), they make little sense.

The reason it’s usually trying to prop up the Crosby/Ovechkin era is because that era was dogshit at scoring goals

 

[wetcoast]

One of the key elements of adjusted stats is that depending on who one is trying to prop up (seems exclusively the Crosby and Ovechkin era), they make little sense.

The concept of adjusted stats makes little sense to you?

Maybe what you mean to say is that the equation hockey reference uses needs tweaking.

Others like Mad Luke in the history section probably have a better equation but the adjustment is really simple it's like a conversion rate for money.

What's simple is people who want to use counting stats as more important in comparing players production form different seasons.

 

[Strangle]

The concept of adjusted stats makes little sense to you?

Maybe what you mean to say is that the equation hockey reference uses needs tweaking.

Others like Mad Luke in the history section probably have a better equation but the adjustment is really simple it's like a conversion rate for money.

What's simple is people who want to use counting stats as more important in comparing players production form different seasons.

Adjusted stats literally do not make rational sense

 

[wetcoast]

Jesus, he has a shot at 60 in 60.

I hope he gets it if only because this board will go nuts.

Was going to say bananas but not sure which one is worth more or how to adjust for nuts, bananas, crazy, bonkers and blowing up, does anyone have a hierarchy scale here?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Adjusted stats literally do not make rational sense

To you.

 

[wetcoast]

Adjusted stats literally do not make rational sense

Sure I'll give you my 1000 Canadian bucks for your 1000 American bucks then.

you know what doesn't make any sense?


Your post above.

 

[Senor Catface]

60 in 60 would be pretty cool

 

[Strangle]

To you.

Objectively, they do not make any sense

You may pretend they make sense, but that’s just a delusion

 

[Andy]

60 in 60 would be absolutely f***ing nuts.

I can't believe it. So damn exciting. I really hope he does it.

 

[Strangle]

Sure I'll give you my 1000 Canadian bucks for your 1000 American bucks then.

you know what doesn't make any sense?


Your post above.

What does the American dollar have to do with putting a puck in a net? We aren’t talking about the commodities market, too now are we?

Stock prices? Oil? None of that has anything to do with scoring goals

 

[bossram]

Sure I'll give you my 1000 Canadian bucks for your 1000 American bucks then.

you know what doesn't make any sense?

That is a fantastic and hilarious analogy.

I propose trading my 1000 yen for 1000 American dollars. I mean, adjustments don't matter!

 

[Auston Marlander]

yes but why did he figure those were the right numbers? and why are they the right numbers to take away? there has to be a reason how he came to that percentage right? you can make anything up but it doesnt mean its right

Ask the poster that question, not me. I have no idea why they chose 40, I do know why 30 was the other number.

 

[wetcoast]

What does the American dollar have to do with putting a puck in a net? We aren’t talking about the commodities market, too now are we?

Stock prices? Oil? None of that has anything to do with scoring goals

So scoring rates in the NHL are consistently close, what is your actual argument here?

 

[Strangle]

That is a fantastic and hilarious analogy.

I propose trading my 1000 yen for 1000 American dollars. I mean, adjustments don't matter!

Currency exchange and goal scoring

This discussion has gone from irrational to just stupid now

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Objectively, they do not make any sense

You may pretend they make sense, but that’s just a delusion

Your lack of understanding does not constitute an issue or concern.

People do misuse adjusted statistics; this includes both "making ill-informed calculations" and "using good calculations poorly".

This does not mean that they make no sense.

Not understanding the currency analogy above suggests that you haven't been paying attention - the goal of the NHL is not to score goals; the goal of the NHL is to earn victories. And in some eras, it costs more goals to "purchase" a victory in than other eras.

My belief is that you're choosing to not understand, so that's as much time as I care to spend here explaining the point. (I've spent much more time elaborating on this TO YOU in the past and it's clearly had zero impact.)

 

[Video Nasty]

The concept of adjusted stats makes little sense to you?

Maybe what you mean to say is that the equation hockey reference uses needs tweaking.

Others like Mad Luke in the history section probably have a better equation but the adjustment is really simple it's like a conversion rate for money.

What's simple is people who want to use counting stats as more important in comparing players production form different seasons.

Haven’t we been over this countless times? I understand different scoring eras, I understand the human need to try and compare players from different times, I understand that adjusted stats in some fashion have their place.

I’m commenting on the slavish devotion to them, as if they are concrete fact, as if they actually happened.

No matter how much it hurts, no matter how much Crosby and Ovechkin need to be forever protected in their bubbles, players before and after have done and are doing amazing things.

For the last time (this week probably), the concept of adjusted stats are not something difficult to wrap my head around.

But there’s many pieces of context they don’t account for and it’s beyond tiresome when no one before and after Crosby and Ovechkin who can just be given the credit they are due.

 

[Strangle]

So scoring rates in the NHL are consistently close, what is your actual argument here?

What’s the baseline? How do you know “scoring is up”?

It’s actually still down depending on the baseline. What’s the agreed upon scoring rate the NHL should be every year that we are supposed to compare to?

 

[wetcoast]

Currency exchange and goal scoring

This discussion has gone from irrational to just stupid now

Exhibit A here?

You still haven't explained a better way to compare goal scoring between different seasons or do you just not do that and use raw stats?

 

[Strangle]

Your lack of understanding does not constitute an issue or concern.

People do misuse adjusted statistics; this includes both "making ill-informed calculations" and "using good calculations poorly".

This does not mean that they make no sense.

Except that … they don’t make any sense

What it’s trying to do is akin to looking at a seed and predicting how a tree will grow. Just by looking at how much sunlight it’s getting.

Ignoring the soil changes over time, other trees growing in and around it, the atmosphere, how much water it is getting, etc

It’s ridiculous

Exhibit A here?

You still haven't explained a better way to compare goal scoring between different seasons or do you just not do that and use raw stats?

Just count the goals. We figured this out a hundred years ago

If you want to be the best goal scorer, score the most goals

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Exhibit A here?

You still haven't explained a better way to compare goal scoring between different seasons or do you just not do that and use raw stats?

He's advocating for raw stats because it benefits the players he roots for. There's no need to analyze it beyond that.

 

[Strangle]

He's advocating for raw stats because it benefits the players he roots for. There's no need to analyze it beyond that.

That’s not at all relevant, I’m looking at the argument objectively and it’s trash

 

[Bear of Bad News]

That’s not at all relevant, I’m looking at the argument objectively and it’s trash

No, your motivation is entirely relevant.

Everyone has biases, and it's the ones who shout "I'M THE OBJECTIVE ONE AND AM UNBIASED!!" that you need to pay particular attention to.

These are also the people who insist "don't bother looking into my motivations because it's not relevant".

 

[bossram]

Currency exchange and goal scoring

This discussion has gone from irrational to just stupid now

If there were like 8 goals per game in the late 80s, and 6.5 goals per game today, do you seriously think that goal scoring is equivalent? You could score 40 goals in the 80s by taking slapshots from the top of the circle that are sliding along the ice. There are basically 0 of those kinds of goals scored today.

The analogy makes sense. Because one currency does not have the same value as another. Just like goals in one era do not have the same value as in another era.

Exhibit A here?

You still haven't explained a better way to compare goal scoring between different seasons or do you just not do that and use raw stats?

I don't think we can win this one.

 

[Strangle]

No, your motivation is entirely relevant.

Everyone has biases, and it's the ones who shout "I'M THE OBJECTIVE ONE AND AM UNBIASED!!" that you need to pay particular attention to.

These are also the people who insist "don't bother looking into my motivations because it's not relevant".

No, I don’t really care who the argument is against. Everyone has the same opportunities to score as many goals as they can.

Everything else, ice time, powerplay time, linemates, red line, goalies, is all part of the game

If you wanted to argue that goal scoring was way out of whack because 80% of professional hockey players were off fighting a war, that would make sense. For those particular seasons.

But if you’re just arbitrarily choosing two players and two years and saying with confidence that “the player who scored less goals is a better goal scorer because players scored less goals” then you’re in a fantasy land.

You need parameters, weighting of those parameters, you need thousands of variables …. Or you can just concede that all of those are part of the game that all professionals play, conditions that vary for players, and just count the goals

There’s no rational reason an oveckin goal in 2014 should count as 1.35 2024 goals

1 goal = 1 goal

As it has for a hundred years. No need to galaxy brain it