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

[wetcoast]

You have this habit of going to extremes when someone doesn’t agree with your stance.

No I used the extremes to point out the problem with your and his argument.

The NHL used to play a 50 game schedule, then 70 ect

Also an extreme view like a goal is a goal deserves to be vetted right?

Let’s just circle back and agree that I think the current way of adjusting stats needs a lot of work, I certainly don’t have a solution, and I wish there was a way we could all have real life simulations that we would all somehow accept ala Rocky and Dixon in Rocky Balboa.

How is the current way we adjust stats a problem exactly like for the last 50 years or so?

Sure a small tweak like the one Mad Luke made is probably a little bit better but the hockey reference model is a pretty decent baseline.

Of course only using a single metric only goes so far so looking at everything like PPA, ice time trends and other factors are important but some of those are inherently built into the cake of adjusted stats already.

 

[93LEAFS]

You don't think there have been radical changes in equipment in the last 20 years?

In the previous 20 years, there were still guys using wooden sticks.

Aluminum shafted sticks like Gretzky's Easton looked cool but added no real advantage to shooting.

View attachment 824331

Was Giguere 400 pounds? It certainly looks it in the early 2000s. That trapper could intercept signals from space.

Here's Demko today:

View attachment 824332

I'm pretty sure Spezza was using a wooden one until very close to the end of his career.

I still remember something on the Leafs Youtube Channel when the Leafs skated at an outdoor rink, and they had Gardiner and Rielly try wooden sticks. I think Gardiner managed to use it the entire time, but Rielly gave up after 5 minutes complaining about weight/receiving passes with it.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Yeah I get it now.

Admittedly not the easiest thing to word.

 

[wetcoast]

It intrigues me how people use GP and era adjusted but are allergic to per 60.

Well it depends on how one uses per/60 right?

The classic example of per 60 is some secondary scorer having a fluke year playing 14:34 TOI per game being touted as the next top 10 at anything and then falls back the next year.

Also how much weight does one want to put on per 60 compared to PP TOI or offensive zone starts and the combination of any 3 of them?

 

[stats1]

I think 70 is in the bag, the question is can he reach 80?

 

[Ratsreign]

...and the kid from the desert shall lead the Leafs...


Can’t wait to finally see him playing for Team USA.

 

[Strangle]

So Gretzky seems to be the issue here not actual logic?

So Maruk was almost as good a goal scorer (60-65) as Ovechkin in his best year and better every year other than 07-08?

Here seems be another problem you are conflating.

No one is changing goal totals they are being adjusted in comparison to determine actual value.

Are adjusted stats perfect nope but they are 10X more use full than simply using counting stats.

Gretzky, I believe, is the only reason adjusted stats started being used to normalize outliers in hockey.

Now it’s gotten absolutely ridiculous

Dennis Maruk vs. Alex Ovechkin: Head-to-Head Stats Comparison | Stathead.com

Compare Players: Check out the head-to-head stats of Dennis Maruk and Alex Ovechkin including their awards, honors, championships, playoff and regular season stats, and much more on Stathead.com

stathead.com

Have a look at the raw stats and tell me if Maruk or Ovechkin is a better goal scorer. If you can’t look at this and figure it out, and you have to do 45 minutes of research and then do some math to be sure, then you’re just doing it wrong. The answer is right there in the raw stats

They are absolutely changing goal totals. The adjusted stats crowd takes a normal goal, then they make it worth either more than a goal, or less than a goal. Depending on the league average of whatever random years they want to compare.

Adjusted stats may have some value in splitting hairs over middling players, but that’s not when people make the arguments. People always make adjusted stats arguments around outlier players.

You can ‘normalize’ Gretzky, or Ovechkin or even Matthews.

You’re ignoring that talent disparity exists, and the fatal flaw of adjusted statistics is the assumption that talent levels amongst outliers is not a factor, and the only factor that matters is how high scoring games were.

Adjusted stats don’t even take into account the removal of ties or 3 on 3 (or 4 on 4) overtime.

Just those goals alone raise league averages, but they are counted as if they are normal goals. They are league manufactured and not at all natural goals.

The devils won with the trap and teams, players and coaches had a really hard time defeating it. It spread and goal scoring went down as a result. That’s part of the game. If players are scoring less because they can’t beat the defense, that’s on them. You can’t call 1 goal in a trap league equal to 1.5 goals while every team was emulating the oilers in the early 80’s.

These players are on the ice playing the game, they either score or they don’t.

Can you predict what the league average goal scoring is going to be next year? Of course you can’t. You have no clue. But adjusted stats inferred that it is a foregone conclusion because it’s the environment that dictates the league average and not the actual talent on the ice

The environment can attempt to explain why a year might be higher or lower scoring, but that doesn’t make a goal one year ‘harder’ or ‘easier’ to score than any other year.

If the degree of difficulty is the purpose for adjusted stats, that’s an entire new can of worms that’s impossible to quantify.

That’s why we keep track of goals and hockey isn’t a judged sport like a dunk contest

Adjusted stats are a nature vs nurture debate, and society’s pendulum has swing wildly away from nature and a lot of people online subscribe to the nurture argument. Individual accomplishment or failure is too easily explained away by whatever environmental excuses people can come up with.

“We couldn’t possibly have scored more goals! We played in the era where we couldn’t score many goals. How could we ever be expected to score like the 80’s or the 2020’s when we played in 2000?!”
- dead puck era hockey players

Such a ridiculous take to believe, it’s not the players not scoring it’s the environment! Theres nothing at all they could have done about it, they’re just the players on the ice

 

[Auston Marlander]

not sure why you decided you needed to step in or having to tell me anything I was handling it on my own

You asked a question about how a number came up. There was no answer posted yet, I provided a quick one as you weren't doing a great job if understanding or as you say, handling it on your own. Not sure why you are so offended by it, but if you don't want people responding to you, don't post on a public board.

 

[wetcoast]

Gretzky, I believe, is the only reason adjusted stats started being used to normalize outliers in hockey.

Scoring level rose quite a bit in the 80s right and then there was the deadpuck era fro mid 90s to early 2000s yet in your eyes players from both eras should be treated exactly the same with this a goal is a goal thing.

Now it’s gotten absolutely ridiculous

Dennis Maruk vs. Alex Ovechkin: Head-to-Head Stats Comparison | Stathead.com

Compare Players: Check out the head-to-head stats of Dennis Maruk and Alex Ovechkin including their awards, honors, championships, playoff and regular season stats, and much more on Stathead.com

stathead.com

Have a look at the raw stats and tell me if Maruk or Ovechkin is a better goal scorer

I asked a specific question not overall, if a goal is a goal then Maruk and his 60 goal season is better than Ovechkins right?

Ovi had 65 goals and 112 points so Maruk's season would be a top 3 season post lockout before this season.

They are absolutely changing goal totals. The adjusted stats crowd takes a normal goal, then they make it worth either more than a goal, or less than a goal. Depending on the league average of whatever random years they want to compare.

What's this whatever random years BS, the adjusted total absolutely depends on the level of scoring there is nothing random about it.

Adjusted stats may have some value in splitting hairs over middling players, but that’s not when people make the arguments. People always make adjusted stats arguments around outlier players.

This seems inconsistent with a goal is a goal thing we are talking about top goal scorers in a season like Dennis Maruk here.

You can ‘normalize’ Gretzky, or Ovechkin or even Matthews.

You’re ignoring that talent disparity exists, and the fatal flaw of adjusted statistics is the assumption that talent levels amongst outliers is not a factor, and the only factor that matters is how high scoring games were.

I'm not ignoring that but wouldn't talent levels be absolutely easy to see in your model, more goals more talent?

Adjusted stats don’t even take into account the removal of ties or 3 on 3 (or 4 on 4) overtime.

They actually do in a way as the increased scoring from OT games is baked into the cake of adjusted scoring as they probably slightly increase scoring levels all other things being equal as there are no more tie games.

Besides it's most top players playing in OT like you mention above.

Just those goals alone raise league averages, but they are counted as if they are normal goals. They are league manufactured and not at all natural goals.

Wait a second here aren't goals always goals, are you making up new categories of manufactured and natural goals here?

The devils won with the trap and teams, players and coaches had a really hard time defeating it. It spread and goal scoring went down as a result. That’s part of the game. If players are scoring less because they can’t beat the defense, that’s on them. You can’t call 1 goal in a trap league equal to 1.5 goals while every team was emulating the oilers in the early 80’s.

Scoring levels went down for a variety of reasons, goalie equipment exploded the clutch and grab era was in full swing but you seem to infer that goal scoring talent went down?

These players are on the ice playing the game, they either score or they don’t.

Can you predict what the league average goal scoring is going to be next year? Of course you can’t. You have no clue. But adjusted stats inferred that it is a foregone conclusion because it’s the environment that dictates the league average and not the actual talent on the ice

Why is it just one thing and not both?

The environment can attempt to explain why a year might be higher or lower scoring, but that doesn’t make a goal one year ‘harder’ or ‘easier’ to score than any other year.

Did you actually stop and read this let's break it down into the 2 parts

The environment can attempt to explain why a year might be higher or lower scoring

but that doesn’t make a goal one year ‘harder’ or ‘easier’ to score than any other year.

WTF actually it does.

If the degree of difficulty is the purpose for adjusted stats, that’s an entire new can of worms that’s impossible to quantify.

The degree of difficulty isn't the purpose, the purpose is to "normalize every year using a baseline of what actually happened.

Put another way it's a way to factor in the environmental factors and changes in the league from year to year that cause scoring to go up or down.

That’s why we keep track of goals and hockey isn’t a judged sport like a dunk contest

This seems totally irrelevant except it might point out why you are holding on so hard to such an ill advised take on " a goal is a goal."

 

[Strangle]

Scoring level rose quite a bit in the 80s right and then there was the deadpuck era fro mid 90s to early 2000s yet in your eyes players from both eras should be treated exactly the same with this a goal is a goal thing.


I asked a specific question not overall, if a goal is a goal then Maruk and his 60 goal season is better than Ovechkins right?

Ovi had 65 goals and 112 points so Maruk's season would be a top 3 season post lockout before this season.


What's this whatever random years BS, the adjusted total absolutely depends on the level of scoring there is nothing random about it.

This seems inconsistent with a goal is a goal thing we are talking about top goal scorers in a season like Dennis Maruk here.


I'm not ignoring that but wouldn't talent levels be absolutely easy to see in your model, more goals more talent?


They actually do in a way as the increased scoring from OT games is baked into the cake of adjusted scoring as they probably slightly increase scoring levels all other things being equal as there are no more tie games.

Besides it's most top players playing in OT like you mention above.


Wait a second here aren't goals always goals, are you making up new categories of manufactured and natural goals here?


Scoring levels went down for a variety of reasons, goalie equipment exploded the clutch and grab era was in full swing but you seem to infer that goal scoring talent went down?


Why is it just one thing and not both?


Did you actually stop and read this let's break it down into the 2 parts





WTF actually it does.


The degree of difficulty isn't the purpose, the purpose is to "normalize every year using a baseline of what actually happened.

Put another way it's a way to factor in the environmental factors and changes in the league from year to year that cause scoring to go up or down.

This seems totally irrelevant except it might point out why you are holding on so hard to such an ill advised take on " a goal is a goal."

What is the baseline number you use to adjust stats against?

And to answer your question “yes” 65 goals is 65 goals no matter who scored them or when they scored them

 

[Spargon]

Anyone else see the irony with the fact we constantly rag on the Coyotes and want them moved (justifiably so) but without them Matthews would probably be playing baseball. He grew up watching the Coyotes with his uncles season tickets and Shane Doan was his idol player.

 

[Strangle]

Anyone else see the irony with the fact we constantly rag on the Coyotes and want them moved (justifiably so) but without them Matthews would probably be playing baseball. He grew up watching the Coyotes with his uncles season tickets and Shane Doan was his idol player.

But we have Matthews now, what do we need the coyotes for?

Their work is done

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Well it depends on how one uses per/60 right?

The classic example of per 60 is some secondary scorer having a fluke year playing 14:34 TOI per game being touted as the next top 10 at anything and then falls back the next year.

Also how much weight does one want to put on per 60 compared to PP TOI or offensive zone starts and the combination of any 3 of them?

I would actually argue the opposite. 95% of the time I have seen it used, it is comparing like players. What you describe is the argument people use trying to debunk it. Almost invariably people who don't like that it sheds possible negative light on something. These people tend to be inventing other people's argument and trying to hold them accountable to something they never said. You see the same thing with the "it isn't linear" crowd (when usually no one said it was). All per 60 does is provide you with some insight that you might want to dig deeper in your analysis. Why do people look at per game played? Obviously to try to better compare apples. Same goes with per 60. The first 8 years of OV vs Matthews is the prime example of this.. Now if the values were close, no one would care. 2000 extra minutes (or equivalent of 100GP)? 1500 extra PP minutes (or equivalent of 72 GP)? Now for my money the best analysis combines them, again to get our apples as close to apples as we can.

What struck me funny is one of the sentences you used in describing era adjusted is exactly what per 60 does. At the end of the day it's a measure that should at times give you pause to investigate further.

 

[wetcoast]

What is the baseline number you use to adjust stats against?

you can use any baseline really but without looking at the hockey reference model my guess is that they use the average amount of scoring in an NHL season, which is why there are some problems with it used pre expansion with smaller roster but not post expansion.

And to answer your question “yes” 65 goals is 65 goals no matter who scored them or when they scored them

AL righty then.

Anyone else see the irony with the fact we constantly rag on the Coyotes and want them moved (justifiably so) but without them Matthews would probably be playing baseball. He grew up watching the Coyotes with his uncles season tickets and Shane Doan was his idol player.

Still the fact remains that the coyotes are a joke of an NHL franchise and Bettman has been trying to put the square in a round whole for years now.

 

[95Tal]

Maruk's 1981-82 season is being brought up again and again like he was some plumber Washington brought out of the stands to play for them. Isn't there a possibility that he had himself a great season that year and that it was based on his talent as an NHL forward? He was 3rd in goals behind Gretzky and Bossy and 4th in points, beating some pretty big names like Trottier and Dionne.

Adjusted stats seems to attempt to meaningfully compare different eras but it does not do so factually, and it should never be used to invalidate individual performances. If the latter is what it's used for then all players playing today will be written off in the future. In Maruk's case, the point totals aren't what matter to me, it's that he was fourth overall behind Hall of Fame talent. That some people "have never heard of him" or that he played in the '80s doesn't mean anything. It was one helluva season...

 

[authentic]

Anyone else see the irony with the fact we constantly rag on the Coyotes and want them moved (justifiably so) but without them Matthews would probably be playing baseball. He grew up watching the Coyotes with his uncles season tickets and Shane Doan was his idol player.

Fun fact. Matthews was in the stands when Ovechkin scored “the goal” against Arizona, and they both share the same birthday.

 

[wetcoast]

I would actually argue the opposite. 95% of the time I have seen it used, it is comparing like players. What you describe is the argument people use trying to debunk it. Almost invariably people who don't like that it sheds possible negative light on something. These people tend to be inventing other people's argument and trying to hold them accountable to something they never said. You see the same thing with the "it isn't linear" crowd (when usually no one said it was). All per 60 does is provide you with some insight that you might want to dig deeper in your analysis. Why do people look at per game played? Obviously to try to better compare apples. Same goes with per 60. The first 8 years of OV vs Matthews is the prime example of this.. Now if the values were close, no one would care. 2000 extra minutes (or equivalent of 100GP)? 1500 extra PP minutes (or equivalent of 72 GP)? Now for my money the best analysis combines them, again to get our apples as close to apples as we can.

What struck me funny is one of the sentences you used in describing era adjusted is exactly what per 60 does. At the end of the day it's a measure that should at times give you pause to investigate further.

Fair enough PP TOI is extremely use full as scoring rates are higher on the PP than 5 on 5 but the thing is that often when players are given increased ice time their scoring doesn't go up at the same rate.

My gut feeling is that scoring/60 requires a ton of context, like Tage scoring 5 goals in a game last season then not playing very much after his 5th goal but maybe these things even out I honestly don't know.

I remembering reading a pretty good article about it somewhere here but no idea who linked it or looked at it and wrote it up.

I googled it and came up with this thread here and will post if before reading it as I have zero idea if it will give any use full information.

Points Per/60, what does it really mean?

So was thinking about the gap between McDavid and Matthews and compared their points per/60 for their rookie seasons to see what the gap was. It was .52. (yes Oiler fans we know McDavid is better) but then I noticed some odd things. Stamkos lead the NHL at 3.96 in a small sample size followed...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[authentic]

Maruk's 1981-82 season is being brought up again and again like he was some plumber Washington brought out of the stands to play for them. Isn't there a possibility that he had himself a great season that year and that it was based on his talent as an NHL forward? He was 3rd in goals behind Gretzky and Bossy and 4th in points, beating some pretty big names like Trottier and Dionne.

Adjusted stats seems to attempt to meaningfully compare different eras but it does not do so factually, and it should never be used to invalidate individual performances. If the latter is what it's used for then all players playing today will be written off in the future. In Maruk's case, the point totals aren't what matter to me, it's that he was fourth overall behind Hall of Fame talent. That some people "have never heard of him" or that he played in the '80s doesn't mean anything. It was one helluva season...

No one who dominates in their era is really written off. At the end of the day similarly dominant players usually get a better ranking and all-time legacy if they played during higher scoring eras, despite the fact that usually the higher scoring periods coincided with factors that made it easier to dominate in. Think of the watered down league of the 70s due to rapid expansion and the existence of the WHA. Scoring was already rising from that point on, and then offensive talent improved at a rate that defense and goaltending didn’t catch up with until the 90s. 1970-90 coincides with the three most dominant players of all-time, and it’s fair to say that they were not hurt by this in a way they would’ve been if they had their primes in the dead puck era or 2010s.

 

[AlienWorkShop]

I've had it up to here with all this Dennis Maruk bashing!

 

[shortfuze]

The kid is pretty good at hockey, I’d say.

 

[wetcoast]

Maruk's 1981-82 season is being brought up again and again like he was some plumber Washington brought out of the stands to play for them. Isn't there a possibility that he had himself a great season that year and that it was based on his talent as an NHL forward? He was 3rd in goals behind Gretzky and Bossy and 4th in points, beating some pretty big names like Trottier and Dionne.

Adjusted stats seems to attempt to meaningfully compare different eras but it does not do so factually, and it should never be used to invalidate individual performances. If the latter is what it's used for then all players playing today will be written off in the future. In Maruk's case, the point totals aren't what matter to me, it's that he was fourth overall behind Hall of Fame talent. That some people "have never heard of him" or that he played in the '80s doesn't mean anything. It was one helluva season...

Hey I'm in my mid 50s so I had many Maruk hockey cards and remember him but the 80s were really run and gun and even in the 70's a guy like Ron Sedlbauer scored 40 goals in one unicorn season.

Maruk just happens to the have "the best" relatively unknown stat season ever.

Put another way last year in a relatively high scoring season, at least in the recent past, 11 players scored 100+ points and the league had 32 teams.

In 81-82, the year Maruk scored 60-76-136 in a 21 team league 13 players scored 100+ points.

That's quite the difference and even more so considering they played 80 games then and we have 82 now.

 

[al secord]

...and the kid from the desert shall lead the Leafs...


Can’t wait to finally see him playing for Team USA.

That's going to be a scary team.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

You asked a question about how a number came up. There was no answer posted yet, I provided a quick one as you weren't doing a great job if understanding or as you say, handling it on your own. Not sure why you are so offended by it, but if you don't want people responding to you, don't post on a public board.

yeah but I wasn't asking the 25% or whatever u said 23% I'm more so interested how he landed on that being the right number? seems pretty wrong. I dunno how Ovechkin's 50+ goal seasons can be worth over 20 goals to Matthews current amount actually it would be more
is 52 = 40 then how many would he really need to match one of Ovechkin's 50+ seasons?

basically 1.5 matthews goals for 1 of ovechkins. since Matthews would need 10+ to get 50+ that means about 25-30 goals dont count for Matthews while trying to get on the same level as Ovechkin. its just complete nonsense with that logic.

never really needed you to step in. I mean if you just looked at it you should have been able to see how stupid their side was

 

[hockeeyyy]

It's hard to understand why some people believe arguing about era-adjusted stats is important enough to look as if they have nothing to live for outside of HFBoards.

 

[DearDiary]

It's hard to understand why some people believe arguing about era-adjusted stats is important enough to look as if they have nothing to live for outside of HFBoards.

This reads like the type of post a person with nothing to live for would say