MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 11,201
- 6,663
that 2 different claim, it is easier to score goals vs it is easier to score a larger percentage of the teams goals.
The 1984 oilers scored 446 goals, for Gretzky to score 30% of their goals (and every goals he score are added to the team goal making it harder and harder) if him scoring does not remove anyone else goals he would have needed to score 153 goals and the Oilers would have ended up with 512 of them.
To score 30% of the 2001 panthers goals, Bure needed to score 59-60, was that harder to do than scoring over 150 goals with the oilers ?
If we add 1989 Mario Lemieux-Coffey and have a prime Anderson-Messier second on the 2001 Panthers, maybe it make it easier a bit for Bure to score goals (maybe not that much, maybe they play to win, he play less minutes, etc...) but the Panthers would have scored over near 350 goals that year maybe a bit more, now Bure need to score 105 goals to do it (and if he do they are probably more a 365 goals teams, now he need to score 110..., you get the idea)
I am really unsure it is linear how easier it get to score with how many goals the team score as for one the more you score the more goals the team has.
Imagine a team that score 200 goals with a player that scored 40, would he find a new gear and scored 80 and his team end up with 240 ? Was he not at least twice as good at scoring goal (and argument could be made much more than that) ?
in team goal percentage he went from 20% to 33%, a 65% jump.
Now imagine a team that score 400 goals with a player that scored 40, would he find a new gear and scored 80 and his team end up with 440 ? He went from 10% to 18.2% a significantly different jump... all that to say not sure how sound it is.
Last edited:
