| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 20:46:24
Okay, no imagination required here,
Who scored more points in his career?
Please don't forget to discuss and analyze!
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Berniefan4life |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 13:12:00
Gretzky is "the Great One."
and the reason is he holds the records to prove it. And everyone is compared to him in the Rinks, at least around here in small town Ontario.
Flyers Fan since age 5 |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 10:15:15
It was actually funny to read all those posts from the end of last season again...
I redid all my calculations, and Gretzky came out on top again...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 14:34:50
Andyhack, I agree that there is validity to the Lemieux being healthy hypothetical. No different than the Bobby Orr with good knees hypothetical. I appreciate the way that you, Willus, and a few others can look at things objectively, as I think I can look at things objectively as well. I concede that some hypothetical questions need to be explored and some merit put to them. Other are bunk. The healthy Lemieux question is a valid question.
And my point on stats is very similar. I have stated in other posts about some of Crosby's "records." Such as youngest player to 200 points, etc. are a joke. I also concede that through Gretzky's career, some of his records were not records before he came along.
And finally, no different than people dismiss the Hypothetical Lemieux question, as many people dismiss Gretzky's actual accomplishments as "He floated at centre, he played in the west, he never got hit" blah, blah, blah.
Stats are stats, reality is reality, and some hypothetical questions are valid. In the end, we all believe in what we believe. I would like to think that I have learned from discussions with you, Willus, Pucknuts, etc and you from me. My opinion is still what it is, but I am certainly more educated and obective towards other players than I was before. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 11:11:33
Beans - Just want to make sure that the somewhat conciliatory tone in my last post isn't misinterpreted. I just thought your comment about how one looks at stats was a good and important one (and I had also just read your "possible" concession in the Lemieux hypothetical thread). BUT, I still think we are more than capable of knowing which hypotheticals, multipliers, formulas, etc are clearly "out of hand". We know, for example, (hopefully!) that even 3 times as legitimate a hypothetical as some of the funny examples that you guys are presenting still wouldn't compare to the legitimacy of the "what if Lemieux were healthy" hypothetical.
Anyway, gotta work now. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 10:11:11
I was curious about that comment i made earlier about games they may have played with no points and how that would effect their PPG average. You could consider it as they were not playing in that game...
So I took a look at the top two scorers this year.
Crosby 79 Games 120 Points PPG = 1.52
he did not score in 19 of the 79 games PPG = 2.00
Thonton 82 Games 114 Points PPG = 1.39
he did not score in 25 of the 82 games PPG = 2.00
Interesting...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 09:59:30
Ok Beans, I think we're getting closer to agreement. What's interesting about all this is that I actually started the Lemieux hypothetical poll, in part anyway, because I feel that stats are overemphasized and thought the discussion would bring that point out, which maybe it has. As you know by now, I tend to rely much more on other things such as simply my "gut instincts" in making my assessments of hockey players - as said previously, based on those things, I actually rank both Lemieux and Gretzky below some other hockey players (as you know, for me, they are below Orr and Messier). Anyway, as Admin says, perhaps we can all learn from hypotheticals if we are open to learning. Off to lunch! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 09:46:35
Andyhack, since this is a sarcastic poll, I wanted to throw my post at it. I think what I am trying to say is that all the multipiers and formulas and what ifs and such can get out of hand pretty quickly and are just as weak of arguements as "Looks at Gretzky's points, records, etc." One can make stats looks however they want to.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 08:54:22
Admin, where's those new smilies? I need one right now that claps its hands. These posts are highly entertaining.
Early in his career i believe there should be a language barrier multiplier as well.
Perhaps a resistance multiplier as he had to move a much larger body mass.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 08:26:43
Eric Lindros would have passed both of them if he hadn't had an eggshell for a skull. Plus, he has a long stick. So I'm told.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 08:15:49
Now now guys. I am enjoying your fun, but please, JUST THE FACTS! You see, we can't go into hypotheticals because we are incapable of distinguishing between the merit of analyzing the multipliers you are mentioning and the merit of imagining how Lemieux would have done if healthier. Or, even if we bring ourselves to being capable of thinking about the "What if Lemieux would have been healthier" hypothetical, there is NO WAY, YES, NO WAY WHATSOVER, NOT AN IOTA OF A CHANCE, that Lemieux could have surpassed Gretzky. So, sorry guys, we must stick to JUST THE FACTS!
p.s. I don't know how many of you will get this reference, but if you were the jury for that kid in Twelve Angry Men, the poor guy would have fried! |
| manninm |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:32:10
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Actually I just had a thought (smell of rubber burning), I wonder how many games they played in that they had no points, we could take those games out and then calculate their PPG average...I am not sure where that information would be...
That would be a no points per game multiplier...
I think I better change those belts...
Beans you are making me laugh again...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...
I forgot about the golf game multiplier! Take the USGA (or RCGA) handicap of the player and multiply it into total points. I wonder who would be ahead with this???
Because the demands on a goalie are mostly mental, it means that for a goalie, the biggest enemy is himself." ~Ken Dryden |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:27:44
Don't forget the longer stick muliplier...
I believe that the NHL made a rule change to allow Lemieux to use a longer stick, the same as the change they made for Chara.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:20:59
Actually I just had a thought (smell of rubber burning), I wonder how many games they played in that they had no points, we could take those games out and then calculate their PPG average...I am not sure where that information would be...
That would be a no points per game multiplier...
I think I better change those belts...
Beans you are making me laugh again...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:17:00
It is Gretzky if you are looking at Hockey Points. But are you including the notches on the bedpost?? Gretzky is seriously ugly man who somehow got a super-hot wife. Lemieux has those dashing good looks. I think that Lemieux was the Wilt Chamberlain of the NHL. He must have 10,000-20,000 bedpost notches.
SO, if you consider the bedpost multiplier, the Hodgkins multiplier, the East Coast Multiplier, the playing in the 90's multiplier, and the Team Owner multiplier, by my calculations Lemiuex had a PPG of 47.25 which would mean his actual point total was 43, 234. That's more than 10 times the points that Gretzky got!!!
Try arguing that logic!
|
| bonfire420 |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:14:59
quote:
Originally posted by manninm
You're forgetting the Hodgkins multiplier!! (NHL PPG Avg x years missed due to hodgkins)/PPG Avg. in the Q. Works out to be (1.88 x 3)/2.81 = 2.01. Now multiply 2.01 to his regular season point total (2.01 x 1723 = 3463 That's 600 more than Gretz! My vote goes to Lemieux based on this mulitplier.
Because the demands on a goalie are mostly mental, it means that for a goalie, the biggest enemy is himself." ~Ken Dryden
This guy is a genious!!! However I think he forgot to factor in the appearance on Saturday Night Live multiplier... But a bright old egg nonetheless. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:12:58
quote:
Originally posted by manninm
You're forgetting the Hodgkins multiplier!! (NHL PPG Avg x years missed due to hodgkins)/PPG Avg. in the Q. Works out to be (1.88 x 3)/2.81 = 2.01. Now multiply 2.01 to his regular season point total (2.01 x 1723 = 3463 That's 600 more than Gretz! My vote goes to Lemieux based on this mulitplier.
He only missed 24 games because of Hodgkins, not three seasons...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| manninm |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:03:58
You're forgetting the Hodgkins multiplier!! (NHL PPG Avg x years missed due to hodgkins)/PPG Avg. in the Q. Works out to be (1.88 x 3)/2.81 = 2.01. Now multiply 2.01 to his regular season point total (2.01 x 1723 = 3463 That's 600 more than Gretz! My vote goes to Lemieux based on this mulitplier.
Because the demands on a goalie are mostly mental, it means that for a goalie, the biggest enemy is himself." ~Ken Dryden |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 05:50:00
You're right Pucknuts. I think I'll vote for Gretzky!
Also, I'll conclude from those stats that Gretzky is unquestionably the greatest player ever and when someone suggests otherwise I will tell them they are crazy and say things like "Orr, Messier, Howe?! How can you say that? Some people have no brains". Actually, he must have been twice as good Messier based on those stats.
Absolutely correct! Thanks for the FACTS!
p.s. good research as always Pucknuts - no kidding |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 05:36:32
I felt a need to help the Lemieux camp out here.
So I have tabulated all of Mario Lemieux's points which include :
Junior regular season and playoffs
NHL reular season and playoffs
all the olympic Canada cup and other international tournaments.
Total 2741 points
Now for Gretzky
NHL regular season :
Total 2857 points
I see no need to add any of his other stats...
Sorry Mario it just does not add up...
P.S.
Just incase you are interested Gretzky's Totals 3890 points.
stats are from NHL.com
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 05:25:52
Lemieux is doing surprisingly well, isn't he!
I thought about your counter-point, and after much deliberation determined, again, that Gretzky guys take things VERY SERIOUSLY. And perhaps, ultimately, that WAS the point.
As for your Stastny point, I'll apply that wonderful, miraculous thing called the power of common sense to distinguish the merits of that hypothetical from the merits of the Lemieux one (though-Stastny was great!) - anyway, Stastny is for another thread - this one is JUST ABOUT FACTS |
| Guest4462 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 23:18:23
I think the fact that Lemieux is leading this poll quite ironically make a good counter-point to what you were intending by this poll.
Think about it.... |
| Guest4462 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 23:16:25
this is a useless point.
What are you trying to say here? bah.. garbage.
Why dont you discuss how Peter Stastny was really the best player of all time and if got to North America when he was 15, he would have beaten all records. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 21:45:17
Walt Poddubny! Gary Dornhoffer! Wilf Paiement (who also wore 99, btw)!
I can't remember.
Probably Gretzky.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 21:04:07
I'm positive it was Lemieux.
Attaboy Andy! Showin' a little fire there. I like it.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| Guest4462 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 20:52:30
Lemieux easy. |
