Better Goal Scorer 66 or 8

[PainForShane]

There's a difference between not being deep, and not having better options than a 50 point scorer like Kunitz. Do you think Team Canada was as talented in 2014 as they are today? Would you pick that 2014 team to beat the Four Nations team?

And wasn't MSL having troubles with Yzerman back then, which is part of why he was initially left off the Team Canada roster and then requested a trade out of Tampa?



How does this have anything to do with the fact that the extra PPs were pretty obviously the primary reason scoring went up so much immediately after the 2005 lockout? Where do you think I said anything about PPs driving scoring changes at other times?



So, even if we can't determine if the goalie pad changes actually did what the NHL intended them to do, we should just assume they did because the NHL said they would? Does the NHL has a long track record of successfully implementing common sense solutions to complicated problems that makes you believe they are this competent?

If the league changing the rules and goalie pads didn't actually achieve their stated intent, and the variations in scoring rates are instead the natural result of variations in talent level around the league from year to year, do we still need to era adjust?

Um... I never said the Canada team of 2014 was as talented (or deeper) than the Canada team of today. WTF strawman is this.

And no, Marty St. Louis wasn't having troubles with Yzerman prior to team selection. The problems happened afterward, because Yzerman initially left him off team Canada. As everyone knows, Canadian hockey generally tends to be deep, and that Yzerman choose to take Kunitz over MSL at least initially, because there weren't enough roster spots to go around assuming a healthy Stamkos.

This is because "50 point Chris Kunitz" had scored his 52 points in 48 games the year prior. 8th in the league in both goals and points. Obviously part of that is due to Sid but at the time he wasn't some 3rd line player like you're continually insisting he was.

***

Also, we've already determined that the rules and goalie pad changes actually did what the NHL intended them to do. There have been multiple posts containing charts / tables that show scoring went up year to year as a direct result of these things.

So yes, we need to era adjust, for a number of reasons. These reasons include the above as well as the increased power plays immediately following the 2005 lockout, which you yourself have repeatedly been mentioning. Either way everyone knows the scoring environment changes across eras.

***

Lastly this thread / conversation has never been about whether the NHL is competent, but if they make rule changes to ensure that scoring goes up, and then scoring goes up, then yes I would say this particular implementation was competent.

You seem lost.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Repeating the same bullshit enough times doesn't make it true.

Pot meet kettle,
Still waiting for your proof after 20 pages, that goalie equipment had no affect on scoring going up.

We’ve all been waiting for that proof that goalie changes had nothing to do with it, yet here we are, and you’ve still got nothing.

Goalie pads, PPO, and rule changes are the reason.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Um... I never said the Canada team of 2014 was as talented (or deeper) than the Canada team of today. WTF strawman is this.

And I never said that they weren't deep. I said Kunitz was one of the best options they had available. There were a lot of guys of his level that they could pick from, but that doesn't mean they were great goal scorers. The fact that Team Canada is more talented today seems like pretty good evidence of there being more high level guys for them to pick from, right?

And no, Marty St. Louis wasn't having troubles with Yzerman prior to team selection. The problems happened afterward, because Yzerman initially left him off team Canada. As everyone knows, Canadian hockey generally tends to be deep, and that Yzerman choose to take Kunitz over MSL at least initially, because there weren't enough roster spots to go around assuming a healthy Stamkos.

So, his own GM didn't pick him despite being the reigning Ross winner, but there was nothing going on behind the scenes?

This is because "50 point Chris Kunitz" had scored his 52 points in 48 games the year prior. 8th in the league in both goals and points. Obviously part of that is due to Sid but at the time he wasn't some 3rd line player like you're continually insisting he was.

That year was literally the only time Kunitz ever came close to being a PPG player. His overall average for his career was 50 points per 82 games, and he only scored more than 60 3 times in 15 years. Maybe 3rd liner is a little harsh, but was never much more than an average middle 6er. Regardless of what label you put on him, he's still not the kind of guy you ideally want on the wing to help the best player in the world showcase his skills.

***

Also, we've already determined that the rules and goalie pad changes actually did what the NHL intended them to do. There have been multiple posts containing charts / tables that show scoring went up year to year as a direct result of these things.

So yes, we need to era adjust, for a number of reasons. These reasons include the above as well as the increased power plays immediately following the 2005 lockout, which you yourself have repeatedly been mentioning. Either way everyone knows the scoring environment changes across eras.

How did you determine that they actually did what the NHL intended? I've been looking at the numbers for years and can't see anything that would suggest it actually did. So what did you look at to come to this conclusion, exactly? Where's the tangible link between goalie pads and scoring that I can't find anywhere? If it's true, why can't anyone connect the dots more than "scoring went up, therefore goalie pads were somehow the reason".

***

Lastly this thread / conversation has never been about whether the NHL is competent, but if they make rule changes to ensure that scoring goes up, and then scoring goes up, then yes I would say this particular implementation was competent.

You seem lost.

I'm "lost" because the whole argument of "the scoring went up, therefore goalie pads were the biggest reason" is missing the important part where I can look at the same evidence and come anywhere close to the same conclusion. If I can explain the same increase in scoring with something that I can see, why should I believe something that no one can show me in a way that isn't just repeating the same weak claims that led to my questions in the first place?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Pot meet kettle,
Still waiting for your proof after 20 pages, that goalie equipment had no affect on scoring going up.

We’ve all been waiting for that proof that goalie changes had nothing to do with it, yet here we are, and you’ve still got nothing.

Goalie pads, PPO, and rule changes are the reason.

So, because I can't do the impossible and prove beyond all doubt that something doesn't exist, that must mean that your baseless explanation is true despite having nothing suggesting it is? Do you also believe unicorns are real because no one can definitively prove they don't exist?

 

[filinski77]

The influx started a little earlier than that (I'd say the 2013 draft was the start), but how many of those older guys in the top 10 in 2017/18 were playing with youngsters that were much better than the guys they replaced in the depth chart? Crosby had Guentzel. Wheeler had Laine and Ehlers and Connor. Giroux had Provorov, Gostisbehere, Konecny.

For the younger guys, McDavid had Draisaitl. Kucherov had Point and Sergachev, not to mention Stamkos. Mackinnon had Rantanen. Hall played with Hischier and Bratt.

The few guys who buck the trend of playing with talented youth were Malkin/Kessel, who played together, and Kopitar with Dustin Brown.

Obivously, all of that youth wasn't ready for prime time yet, but it was starting to help drive scoring up. As those guys progressed, and more talent joined along side them and progressed, a lot more guys are playing with good young linemates and scoring more as a result.

There was also a massive lull in drafted superstar forwards after 1991 that ran up until Crosby/Malkin/OV at the lockout, and then another one after those two drafts. It wasn't until about 2013 that we started regularly seeing high talent guys coming through the draft again for about a decade, and seem to be heading for another lull. Hopefully, it doesn't last 20+ years this time and we aren't destined for another low scoring era starting in 12 or 15 years.

"The influx started a little earlier than that (I'd say the 2013 draft was the start), but how many of those older guys in the top 10 in 2017/18 were playing with youngsters that were much better than the guys they replaced in the depth chart? Crosby had Guentzel. Wheeler had Laine and Ehlers and Connor. Giroux had Provorov, Gostisbehere, Konecny."

Yes, 48 point Guentzel in 2017-2018 is what Crosby needed to start scoring more. Letang, Malkin, Kessel and co were not good enough. 0 evidence that Guentzel had an impact on Crosby that season. If anything, they both benefited from league wide scoring going up.

Wheeler - in 2016-2017 the Jets had 82 point Sheifele, 64 point Laine, and 64 point Ehlers. In 2017-2018 Laine was stagnant and had only 6 more points in 9 more GP, Ehlers had less points, Scheifele had less points. 0 evidence that the young top-6ers had any impact on Wheeler

Giroux - Konecny went from 28 points in 70 games to 47 points in 81 games - not even close to a difference maker. Provorov went from 30 points to 41 points. Gostisbehere did go from 39 points to 65 points from 2017 to 2018, but he also had 46 in 64 in 2015-2016, and dipped back to 37 points in 2019. Once again, no evidence that hugely talented young guys are what contributed to Giroux resurging in 2018 and 2019 when scoring shot up league-wide.

McDavid - Draisaitl went from 77 points in 2017 to 70 points in 2018. Once again 0 evidence that Draisaitl supported McDavids point growth. Also too hard to mix up league-scoring increases and the increase that comes from 20 year olds simply developing.

"For the younger guys, McDavid had Draisaitl. Kucherov had Point and Sergachev, not to mention Stamkos. Mackinnon had Rantanen. Hall played with Hischier and Bratt."

Kucherov - Sergachev was given a big role and had 40 points (pretty spot on for any teams #2 offensive D), but dropped down to low 30's for like 4 years after that. Stamkos was healthy again, but also saw a huge increase in performance from the few years prior (in-line with the statistical increase in league-wide scoring). Point did get a good bit better, but I think the fact that having healthy stamkos, and smaller goalie pads and higher league-wide scoring is a lot more representative of the change in Kuch's scoring than simply better young guys.

Mackinnon and Rantanen and Landeskog - They all doubled in points, that's really just high-talent guys that were super young and took a big step forward. Has little to do with changing the league-wide scoring, as all young teams will have breakout years where their young stars get better. Seguin went from 22 points to 67 in one year. Either way, this is not a good argument for my explanation since all of those guys on that team got better, and doesn't impact all of the older guys that all started scoring more when scoring went up.

Hall - Bratt had 35 points in 2018 LOL. Hischier did come in and put up 52 points, but pretty crappy argument if you are correlating a 52 point kid being the reason why Hall put up 93 and paced for 100 points.

"Obivously, all of that youth wasn't ready for prime time yet, but it was starting to help drive scoring up. As those guys progressed, and more talent joined along side them and progressed, a lot more guys are playing with good young linemates and scoring more as a result."
Under your assumption, was it only youth forwards that were good talent?

You are assuming that:
-> Forwards got better
-> Defense and goalies stayed the same

And this is what resulted in higher scoring. Is your argument actually just counter-intuitive? If you are saying that better teammates resulted in higher scoring league-wide, isn't 50 goals in 2015 with lower league scoring and lower quality team mates (ie. less help) just as impressive as 55-60 goals in 2024 where you have better team mates and more help (ie. an easier time scoring goals?) How do you then separate individual performance vs. how much your teammates are helping you out.

For example, Wheeler finished 11th in points in 2017 with 74 points, and 9th in points in 2018 with 91 points. Realistically very little difference between 9th and 11th place finishes - but there is a huge difference between 74 and 91 points (all else equal). So you are claiming that OTHER players impact is what results in the point difference, and not actually Wheeler being better.

So by this exact same logic, how can we compare Mackinnon's 140 points last year to Crosby's 104 point Art Ross? Because Crosby didn't have the Rantanen and Makar and young talent that all magically increased league-wide goal scoring without improving goaltending or defensemen ability to defend.

 

[filinski77]

How did you determine that they actually did what the NHL intended? I've been looking at the numbers for years and can't see anything that would suggest it actually did. So what did you look at to come to this conclusion, exactly? Where's the tangible link between goalie pads and scoring that I can't find anywhere? If it's true, why can't anyone connect the dots more than "scoring went up, therefore goalie pads were somehow the reason".

"Where's the tangible link between goalie pads and scoring that I can't find anywhere?"
Where is YOUR tangible link that offensive players actually got better? And not just better, but that they got better than the goalies and defensemen did. If all positions talent got better, there would logically be no impact on league-wide scoring.

"If it's true, why can't anyone connect the dots more than "scoring went up, therefore goalie pads were somehow the reason"
Because there is common sense here that you are either ignoring or just too incompetent to understand? When there is significantly more net available to score on, and significantly less padding to block the pucks, the pucks will go in more often. Shots that would previously tip off the corner of a pad are now going clean in on shots head to head.

You could argue that agility has increased, but there is less of a reasonable correlation to that, since a huge part of today's goaltending is head-on positional shots anyways. Otherwise goalies would play with closer to players equipment.

I mean, look at the goalies choices themselves - they were CHOOSING to play with the largest possible equipment they could, because THEY themselves and their coaching staff knew it would give them better chances at stopping the pucks.

 

[Golden_Jet]

So, because I can't do the impossible and prove beyond all doubt that something doesn't exist,

so you’ve got nothing, just like we all thought, yet you keep doubting down on it, basically it’s just feelings and because…. then.

 

[SkinsFan09]

Correlation doesn't prove causation. There was also a huge influx of high end young talent coming into the league starting around 2016. What do you think suggests it was definitely goalie pads and not the dozens of new elite scorers who are very clearly upgrades over the guys they replaced on the depth charts.

League scoring average isn't going to dramatically shift the way it has based solely on 8-12 elite players coming in. If only those guys were putting up elite numbers that'd be one thing, but when guys who are clearly not as good as they used to be (Ovechkin, Crosby) saw their numbers rise as well, that's not because Leon Draisatl and Nathan Mackinnon entered the NHL.

You keep asking people to give you evidence but not holding yourself to the same standard.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

"The influx started a little earlier than that (I'd say the 2013 draft was the start), but how many of those older guys in the top 10 in 2017/18 were playing with youngsters that were much better than the guys they replaced in the depth chart? Crosby had Guentzel. Wheeler had Laine and Ehlers and Connor. Giroux had Provorov, Gostisbehere, Konecny."

Yes, 48 point Guentzel in 2017-2018 is what Crosby needed to start scoring more. Letang, Malkin, Kessel and co were not good enough. 0 evidence that Guentzel had an impact on Crosby that season. If anything, they both benefited from league wide scoring going up.

Guentzel turned into a 40 goal scorer the next year and Crosby scored 100 points for the first time since 13-14 when he last played frequently with Malkin. Crosby's 90+ point seasons, Guentzel was scoring 30+ goals. Replace him with a Dupuis or Rust level guy, and Crosby isn't scoring as much.

And leaguewide scoring doesn't just "go up". Players have to actually score more to make it go up.

Wheeler - in 2016-2017 the Jets had 82 point Sheifele, 64 point Laine, and 64 point Ehlers. In 2017-2018 Laine was stagnant and had only 6 more points in 9 more GP, Ehlers had less points, Scheifele had less points. 0 evidence that the young top-6ers had any impact on Wheeler

In 2016-17, Scheifele played 79 games and scored 82 games. In 17-18, he only played 60 games, and still scored 60 points. Do you think Scheifele missing 22 games gave Wheeler a few more opportunities to play with the youngsters that he might not have otherwise gotten? Do you think that might explain the 17 point increase Wheeler had in scoring? More good chances = more points, right?

Giroux - Konecny went from 28 points in 70 games to 47 points in 81 games - not even close to a difference maker. Provorov went from 30 points to 41 points. Gostisbehere did go from 39 points to 65 points from 2017 to 2018, but he also had 46 in 64 in 2015-2016, and dipped back to 37 points in 2019. Once again, no evidence that hugely talented young guys are what contributed to Giroux resurging in 2018 and 2019 when scoring shot up league-wide.

If you replace those guys with the plugs they replaced in the lineup, do you think Giroux still scores that many points? They don't have to be superstars to be big upgrades.

McDavid - Draisaitl went from 77 points in 2017 to 70 points in 2018. Once again 0 evidence that Draisaitl supported McDavids point growth. Also too hard to mix up league-scoring increases and the increase that comes from 20 year olds simply developing.

So, high potential 20 year olds developing increasing scoring? Huh, I wonder where I've heard that before...

"For the younger guys, McDavid had Draisaitl. Kucherov had Point and Sergachev, not to mention Stamkos. Mackinnon had Rantanen. Hall played with Hischier and Bratt."

Kucherov - Sergachev was given a big role and had 40 points (pretty spot on for any teams #2 offensive D), but dropped down to low 30's for like 4 years after that. Stamkos was healthy again, but also saw a huge increase in performance from the few years prior (in-line with the statistical increase in league-wide scoring). Point did get a good bit better, but I think the fact that having healthy stamkos, and smaller goalie pads and higher league-wide scoring is a lot more representative of the change in Kuch's scoring than simply better young guys.

Again, replace Sergachev and Point with average guys from 2010, and ask yourself if Kuch and Stamkos score more or less?

Mackinnon and Rantanen and Landeskog - They all doubled in points, that's really just high-talent guys that were super young and took a big step forward. Has little to do with changing the league-wide scoring, as all young teams will have breakout years where their young stars get better. Seguin went from 22 points to 67 in one year. Either way, this is not a good argument for my explanation since all of those guys on that team got better, and doesn't impact all of the older guys that all started scoring more when scoring went up.

Again, you mention these high talent guys who are super young took a big step forward and put up big points.

And the older guys started scoring more because they had better help, or they were pushed down into roles better suited for their skills levels. Throw a 2nd tier guy on a 2nd line and he's probably not going to be facing the other teams' shutdown lines as frequently anymore, giving him a better chance of being able to beat the defenders on the ice. Give him a better 2C to play with and that also improves his chances. Have 2nd and 3rd pairing defensemen that aren't plugs and can make a good outlet pass and that'll also probably help him get some more good chances. Having better teammates is the biggest thing that makes it easier to score.

Hall - Bratt had 35 points in 2018 LOL. Hischier did come in and put up 52 points, but pretty crappy argument if you are correlating a 52 point kid being the reason why Hall put up 93 and paced for 100 points.

Again, both were upgrades over the guys they replaced, even if they weren't finished products yet.

"Obivously, all of that youth wasn't ready for prime time yet, but it was starting to help drive scoring up. As those guys progressed, and more talent joined along side them and progressed, a lot more guys are playing with good young linemates and scoring more as a result."
Under your assumption, was it only youth forwards that were good talent?

You are assuming that:
-> Forwards got better
-> Defense and goalies stayed the same

And this is what resulted in higher scoring. Is your argument actually just counter-intuitive? If you are saying that better teammates resulted in higher scoring league-wide, isn't 50 goals in 2015 with lower league scoring and lower quality team mates (ie. less help) just as impressive as 55-60 goals in 2024 where you have better team mates and more help (ie. an easier time scoring goals?) How do you then separate individual performance vs. how much your teammates are helping you out.

No, I'm assuming everyone got better, but in the new distribution of talent, there's more guys at the upper levels who can outclass their opponents more often and score more, and a lot of them are playing with a least one or two other really talented guys. And having better teammates is exactly what is helping most of these guys score more, which is driving scoring rates up. That's literally what I've been saying this whole time.

And OV had Backstrom and Carlson and Semin and Green, so he didn't really struggle as badly with lower quality teammates like a lot of his peers. There's also the question of whether he still would have gotten all of those chances against better opponents, or did being one of the handful of truly big fish in the pond allow him to feast on his lesser peers?

For example, Wheeler finished 11th in points in 2017 with 74 points, and 9th in points in 2018 with 91 points. Realistically very little difference between 9th and 11th place finishes - but there is a huge difference between 74 and 91 points (all else equal). So you are claiming that OTHER players impact is what results in the point difference, and not actually Wheeler being better.

(see above) - short answer - lots of variables played into his improvement, but probably not the goalie pad changes.

So by this exact same logic, how can we compare Mackinnon's 140 points last year to Crosby's 104 point Art Ross? Because Crosby didn't have the Rantanen and Makar and young talent that all magically increased league-wide goal scoring without improving goaltending or defensemen ability to defend.

I think to compare those seasons we need to look at MacKinnon's 140 point season and explore the context of what allowed him to score that many points, and look at Crosby's season and explore the context of what prevented him from scoring more. What we definitely shouldn't do is simple math based on scoring averages and pretend it's the right answer.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

League scoring average isn't going to dramatically shift the way it has based solely on 8-12 elite players coming in. If only those guys were putting up elite numbers that'd be one thing, but when guys who are clearly not as good as they used to be (Ovechkin, Crosby) saw their numbers rise as well, that's not because Leon Draisatl and Nathan Mackinnon entered the NHL.

You keep asking people to give you evidence but not holding yourself to the same standard.

What if it's not solely 8-12 elite players? What if it's 8-12 more elite players, plus a whole bunch of guys who aren't elite but are incrementally better offensively than the guys they replaced? You don't need a superstar to get more offense than you were getting from defensemen like Ryan O'Byrne or Patrik Nemeth or Greg Zanon, just someone who isn't a total disaster with the puck on their stick. Replace a few dozen of those types of guys with young mobile defensemen who can handle the puck and make an outlet pass, and replace the plugs like Blake Comeau with players who know not to attempt a drop pass on a break away, and all those little changes add up pretty quickly.

And I'm showing all the evidence I can find that supports my claims. Go read through all my posts and read all the explanations and examples that show why I think I'm right. Then go read the posts claiming I'm wrong, and tell me where you see anything like that. It's all just bullshit that boils down to "you can't prove it's not goalie pads so it must be true" instead of reasons why it's actually true.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

so you’ve got nothing, just like we all thought, yet you keep doubting down on it, basically it’s just feelings and because…. then.

Can you prove beyond all doubt that unicorns don't exist? Or that the moon isn't made of limburger cheese? Or that your mother isn't a hamster? Not being able to disprove something doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Can you prove beyond all doubt that unicorns don't exist? Or that the moon isn't made of limburger cheese? Or that your mother isn't a hamster? Not being able to disprove something doesn't mean it's true.

Yep that applies to you then as well, as you haven’t proven a damn thing yet, as numerous posters have pointed out.

Thus you’re on a lonely island Willis with your take, it’s just a meme now.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Yep that applies to you then as well, as you haven’t proven a damn thing yet, as numerous posters have pointed out.

Thus you’re on a lonely island Willis with your take, it’s just a meme now.

Trust me, I'd much rather be all alone in this conversation explaining the same basic concepts over and over again than be in agreement with people who believe that not being able to prove something wrong must mean it's definitely right. But, then again, what else would I expect from someone whose mother is clearly a hamster until you can prove that she's not?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Trust me, I'd much rather be all alone in this conversation explaining the same basic concepts over and over again than be in agreement with people who believe that not being able to prove something wrong must mean it's definitely right. But, then again, what else would I expect from someone whose mother is clearly a hamster until you can prove that she's not?

Let us know, when you have an actual take, instead of whining Willis.
you’ve been asked to prove something, and resorted to unicorns, shocking.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Fellas. Please take it elsewhere.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Let us know, when you have an actual take, instead of whining Willis.
you’ve been asked to prove something, and resorted to unicorns, shocking.

Why don't you let me know when you actually have a shred of compelling evidence that shows goalie pad changes actually increased scoring that doesn't rely on the laughable idea of "it you can't prove it wrong, it must be right". Otherwise, I'll keep calling you out for using the same logic as people who think unicorns are real or that tax cuts for the rich will eventually trickle down to the people doing all the actual work. To put it in easy to understand meme terms for you - "pics or it didn't happen".

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Fellas. Please take it elsewhere.

Is debating the merits of era adjustment not relevant to a thread asking which scorer from different eras is better? Where should this be discussed if this isn't the right place?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Is debating the merits of era adjustment not relevant to a thread asking which scorer from different eras is better? Where should this be discussed if this isn't the right place?

You've both been resorting to personal attacks each of the last several rounds.

Clearly, the merits of the conversation topic have finished.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Well this is a very backdoor discussion on the level of Ovechkin's competition during most of his goal scoring crowns and the relative separation between him and the League. I'd agree that Ovechkin's generation probably wasn't the toughest as far as goaltending competition goes but I think it's getting a bit underrated. Lemieux has 0 second place goal scoring finishes and three third places. In 1986-87 it went Gretzky, Kerr and then Lemieux and Kurri tied for third, in 1992-93 it went Selanne and Mogilny tied at the top and then Lemieux third, and then in 1996-97 it went Keith Tkachuk, Selanne and then Lemieux and LeClair tied for third.

So it's not like he's adding Goal Scoring Titles if you were to try and control out All Time Greats.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You've both been resorting to personal attacks each of the last several rounds.

Clearly, the merits of the conversation topic have finished.

I don't agree that my use of exaggerated examples of flawed logic to make a point is a personal attack, but I can't disagree that nothing productive is going to come from continuing.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Well this is a very backdoor discussion on the level of Ovechkin's competition during most of his goal scoring crowns and the relative separation between him and the League. I'd agree that Ovechkin's generation probably wasn't the toughest as far as goaltending competition goes but I think it's getting a bit underrated. Lemieux has 0 second place goal scoring finishes and three third places. In 1986-87 it went Gretzky, Kerr and then Lemieux and Kerr tied for third, in 1992-93 it went Selanne and Mogilny tied at the top and then Lemieux third, and then in 1996-97 it went Keith Tkachuk, Selanne and then Lemieux and LeClair tied for third.

So it's not like he's adding Goal Scoring Titles if you were to try and control out All Time Greats.

No, he probably wouldn't be adding goal scoring titles, but how does the raw number of goal scoring titles prove who is better? Does Lemieux losing to Gretzky or Selanne really mean he's worse at scoring goals than someone who beat 2nd place Jeff Carter or John Tavares? Or is it plausible that Lemieux was both a better goal scorer, and also played in an era where there was much stiffer competition for the individual trophies?

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, he probably wouldn't be adding goal scoring titles, but how does the raw number of goal scoring titles prove who is better?

Uh, because being the best goal scorer in the nhl in a given season is better than NOT being the best goal scorer in the nhl in a given season?

 

[Regal]

I understand my math perfectly. What I don't understand is why you're talking about a percentage of the league scoring instead of the almost 600 point difference between just the 26 top players. Does it being a smaller percentage of the league somehow explain that massive difference in totals between the top 26 players?

I also don't understand how "expansion teams make it easier to score by diluting talent" and "the top talent still scored a lot less despite there being more expansion teams making it easier to score" add up to prove it was harder to score. To me, scoring less against worse competition would suggest the "top talent" aren't nearly as good.

And the top 26 guys from 1990-91 outscored the top 26 guys from 2010-11 by 29%, so your "outrageous exaggeration in talent" is actually a bit lower than reality.

Clearly you don’t. The top 26 players in the 06 regularly accounted for points on more than 100% of the league goals. Apparently that means they’re twice as good as the 80s guys!!

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Uh, because being the best goal scorer in the nhl in a given season is better than NOT being the best goal scorer in the nhl in a given season?

But beating one group of players doesn't tell us anything about how you measure up to a totally different group of players. How does beating Jeff Carter mean you're better than a guy who lost to Wayne Gretzky?

 

[Midnight Judges]

But beating one group of players doesn't tell us anything about how you measure up to a totally different group of players. How does beating Jeff Carter mean you're better than a guy who lost to Wayne Gretzky?

Lemieux lost to all sorts of people.

He never lost a title to Gretzky.