199 points on 347 goals= 57%...untouchable

[BringBackHakstol]

Also, there are as many as 3 points on every goal, Lemieux did not contribute 57% of goals. It was 23.7% of the team's points scored.

way to bring up a point as support of your argument even though it contradicts your point...

the original poster is right.... mario contributed towards 57% of the goals scored that season by his team

 

[Sens Rule]

way to bring up a point as support of your argument even though it contradicts your point...

the original poster is right.... mario contributed towards 57% of the goals scored that season by his team

Mario was on the ice for 254 of the 347 goals they scored. So when he wasn't on the ice they scored 93 goals and when he was they scored 254. And he played roughly half the game or a tiny bit less. That is truly amazing.

 

[El_Loco_Avs]

Mario was on the ice for 254 of the 347 goals they scored. So when he wasn't on the ice they scored 93 goals and when he was they scored 254. And he played roughly half the game or a tiny bit less. That is truly amazing.

now *that's* impressive

I guess they wanted some secondary scoring after that.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Jagr had points on 127 of Pens' 242 goals in '99 (52.5%), might be good for third.

 

[Pens75]

Mario was on the ice for 254 of the 347 goals they scored. So when he wasn't on the ice they scored 93 goals and when he was they scored 254. And he played roughly half the game or a tiny bit less. That is truly amazing.

Yes it is...

I watched almost every game, the guy was unstoppable.

One of the best ever.

 

[Ogopogo*]

This is clearly a huge and meaningful stat. Ogopogo why do you completely dismiss stats for goalies being in any way meaningful and continue to talk about forwards and defencemen like their greatness (dominance) can be determined by your limited statistical formula. .

I don't believe you know how my formula works. There is more to it than just statistics.

I respect your work and all but you dismiss this as irrelevant statisitcally. You dismiss goalies being able to be measured statistically but you think Cy Denney can be compared to Mike Bossy or Wayne Gretzky.

You say we don't know how many minutes Mario was on ice during the season. But your statisical system does not account for Time on Ice..

My system is designed in a way that time on ice is largely irrelevant to my ratings. Variables like that can skew things (players in the 20s played more than 30 minutes per game) so, I eliminate them as a factor.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Don't be sour that Mario was better than Gretz.

 

[ACC1224]

I don't believe you know how my formula works. There is more to it than just statistics.



My system is designed in a way that time on ice is largely irrelevant to my ratings. Variables like that can skew things (players in the 20s played more than 30 minutes per game) so, I eliminate them as a factor.

Go figure that in hockey, time on the ice is irrelevent. Now I finally understand how you came up with Jim Carrey having a better career than Cujo.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Go figure that in hockey, time on the ice is irrelevent. Now I finally understand how you came up with Jim Carrey having a better career than Cujo.

Ever hear of "thinking outside the box".

There are many ways to do things, perhaps you haven't thought of them all?

 

[ACC1224]

Ever hear of "thinking outside the box".

There are many ways to do things, perhaps you haven't thought of them all?

I have, it's a convenient catch phrase for those who don't understand how things really work.

 

[gimzo23]

1988-89

Mario Lemieux did 199 points on 347 goals of his team: IT MEANS THAT HE CONTRIBUTE OF 57% OF THE GOALs

Nhl record

Just an idea on how he was alone:

OVECHKIN this year contribute to 45 % of the goals of the Washington Capitals....and we can say that......he was alone hey


Second best of all time: Lemieux WITH 53 % in 86-87 on 319 goals

Third Best: Gretzky : 52% with the oilers

so on 10 goals that the Pittsburgh Penguins did , Lemieux was on the scoresheet for almost 6 goals.


This record is untouchable ans nobody will ever approach this

This is really the real definition of a hart trophy winner.

I think it even was a 60% contribution to the Pens' goals that season. You have to take into account that Lemieux missed 4 games in the 88/89 season, (just checked, it was a 80-game schedule), so he contributed his 199 points on less than the 347 goals scored by the Penguins that season. I don't know how many goals the Penguins scored in the games that Lemieux missed, but you get pretty much exactly to 60% if you make the subtracting calculation with an average of 4 goals scored per game by the Pens. The Penguins may not have been as good without Mario than they were with him, but I think it's highly unlikely they didn't score a single goal in the 4 games without him.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I have, it's a convenient catch phrase for those who don't understand how things really work.

I aplogize, I didn't realize that I was conversing with such brilliance. Perhaps you should share your wisdom so that all of us dumbasses can become intelligent.

 

[muffin with tentacle]

This was also the year Lemieux scored his famous five goals, five different ways.

Huh? Wazzat?

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

And for those of you wondering why Dan Quinn, despite having all the skill in the world (and I mean it, the guy was gifted offensively), couldn't hold a consistent NHL job, you have your answer. Well, that and he was never the best locker room guy. And that little incident in a Minnesota hotel room in 1992.

And furthermore, for those of you wondering why Rob Brown faded so fast after his few really impressive seasons despite being a gifted offensive player, injuries...

 

[GuloGulo]

Huh? Wazzat?

Even strength, short handed, power play, penalty shot and ... own goal or homo goal?

 

[muffin with tentacle]

Even strength, short handed, power play, penalty shot and ... own goal or homo goal?

Homo goal?

 

[ACC1224]

I aplogize, I didn't realize that I was conversing with such brilliance. Perhaps you should share your wisdom so that all of us dumbasses can become intelligent.

You're on your own, I don't want to make a career out of this.

 

[jamiebez]

Even strength, short handed, power play, penalty shot and ... own goal or homo goal?

Empty netter.

 

[Sens Rule]

I don't believe you know how my formula works. There is more to it than just statistics.



My system is designed in a way that time on ice is largely irrelevant to my ratings. Variables like that can skew things (players in the 20s played more than 30 minutes per game) so, I eliminate them as a factor.

I have a very good idea of your formula and I think it has value.

I just question why you dismiss goalie stats as irrelevant and think that being in on 57% of a team's goals is irrelevant.

To add something ot this debate.... Secondary assists were not as common in the past and in the teens, 20's, 30's maybe a bit longer even less primary assists were scored. It is likely that in the 20's and 30's some players if second assists were counted would have been in on more than 57% of a teams goals. It is almost certain this is the case. Of course it was a different game then.

 

[GuloGulo]

Homo goal?

Ask Al Iafrate

 

[Ogopogo*]

I have a very good idea of your formula and I think it has value.

I just question why you dismiss goalie stats as irrelevant and think that being in on 57% of a team's goals is irrelevant.

To add something ot this debate.... Secondary assists were not as common in the past and in the teens, 20's, 30's maybe a bit longer even less primary assists were scored. It is likely that in the 20's and 30's some players if second assists were counted would have been in on more than 57% of a teams goals. It is almost certain this is the case. Of course it was a different game then.

You have put forth some very good reasons to deem the 57% and unimportant. Historically, a number like is very different for the different eras - things like ice time, second assists etc.

As I have said before, the team in front of the goalie makes a SIGNIFICANT impact of the statistics of the goaltender. The only "pure" goalie stat is a new one - SO saves/shots. The team in front of the goaltender cannot influence that statistic. Watching a goaltender play is the only real way to determine how good he is.

 

[Ogopogo*]

1988-89

Mario Lemieux did 199 points on 347 goals of his team: IT MEANS THAT HE CONTRIBUTE OF 57% OF THE GOALs

Nhl record

Just an idea on how he was alone:

OVECHKIN this year contribute to 45 % of the goals of the Washington Capitals....and we can say that......he was alone hey


Second best of all time: Lemieux WITH 53 % in 86-87 on 319 goals

Third Best: Gretzky : 52% with the oilers

so on 10 goals that the Pittsburgh Penguins did , Lemieux was on the scoresheet for almost 6 goals.



This record is untouchable ans nobody will ever approach this

This is really the real definition of a hart trophy winner.


Look the roster of the 1986-87.........................can i tell you that they were not close of the playoffs:

# Player Name GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Mario Lemieux................................. 77 70 98 168 92 -- -- -- -- --
Dan Quinn..................................... 70 40 39 79 50 -- -- -- -- --
Randy Cunneyworth............................. 71 35 39 74 141 -- -- -- -- --
Paul Coffey................................... 46 15 52 67 93 -- -- -- -- --
Doug Bodger................................... 69 14 31 45 103 -- -- -- -- --
Rob Brown..................................... 51 24 20 44 56 -- -- -- -- --
Dave Hunter, Edmonton......................... 21 3 3 6 6 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh....................... 59 11 18 29 77 -- -- -- -- --
Totals........................... 80 14 21 35 83 -- -- -- -- --
Charlie Simmer................................ 50 11 17 28 24 -- -- -- -- --
Jock Callander................................ 41 11 16 27 45 -- -- -- -- --
* Craig Simpson................................. 21 13 13 26 34 -- -- -- -- --
Bryan Erickson, Los Angeles................... 42 6 15 21 20 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh.................... 11 1 4 5 0 -- -- -- -- --
Totals........................ 53 7 19 26 20 -- -- -- -- --
Ville Siren................................... 58 1 20 21 62 -- -- -- -- --
Dave McLlwain................................. 66 11 8 19 40 -- -- -- -- --
Troy Loney.................................... 65 5 13 18 151 -- -- -- -- --
Phil Bourque.................................. 21 4 12 16 20 -- -- -- -- --
Dan Frawley................................... 47 6 8 14 152 -- -- -- -- --
Jim Johnson................................... 55 1 12 13 87 -- -- -- -- --
Randy Hillier................................. 55 1 12 13 144 -- -- -- -- --
Rod Buskas.................................... 76 4 8 12 206 -- -- -- -- --
Steve Gotaas.................................. 36 5 6 11 45 -- -- -- -- --
Zarley Zalapski............................... 15 3 8 11 7 -- -- -- -- --
* Moe Mantha.................................... 21 2 8 10 23 -- -- -- -- --
Bob Errey..................................... 17 3 6 9 18 -- -- -- -- --
Chris Dahlquist............................... 44 3 6 9 69 -- -- -- -- --
Mark Kachowski................................ 38 5 3 8 126 -- -- -- -- --
Perry Ganchar, Mtl. Canadiens................. 1 1 0 1 0 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh..................... 30 2 5 7 36 -- -- -- -- --
Totals......................... 31 3 5 8 36 -- -- -- -- --
Wilf Paiement................................. 23 2 6 8 39 -- -- -- -- --
* Chris Kontos.................................. 36 1 7 8 12 -- -- -- -- --
Kevin Stevens................................. 16 5 2 7 8 -- -- -- -- --
* Dave Hannan................................... 21 4 3 7 23 -- -- -- -- --
Dwight Mathiasen.............................. 23 0 6 6 14 -- -- -- -- --
Wayne Van Dorp................................ 25 1 3 4 75 -- -- -- -- --
* Chris Joseph.................................. 17 0 4 4 12 -- -- -- -- --
Norm Schmidt.................................. 5 1 2 3 0 -- -- -- -- --
Todd Charlesworth............................. 6 2 0 2 2 -- -- -- -- --
Brad Aitken................................... 5 1 1 2 0 -- -- -- -- --
Lee Giffin.................................... 19 0 2 2 9 -- -- -- -- --
Frank Pietrangelo (G)......................... 21 0 2 2 2 -- -- -- -- --
Scott Gruhl................................... 6 1 0 1 0 -- -- -- -- --
Pat Mayer..................................... 1 0 0 0 4 -- -- -- -- --
Dave Goertz................................... 2 0 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- --
Warren Young.................................. 7 0 0 0 15 -- -- -- -- --
Jimmy Mann.................................... 9 0 0 0 53 -- -- -- -- --
Steve Guenette (G)............................ 19 0 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- --
Pat Riggin (G)................................ 22 0 0 0 12 -- -- -- -- --
Gilles Meloche (G)............................ 27 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --
Bench 80 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Totals 319 520 839 2211

Just one more point to illustrate why I question this stat for historical comparison:

Joe Malone scored 38.3% of the goals for the Montreal Canadiens in the 1917-1918 season. Lemieux only scored 24.5% of the Penguins' goals in 88-89.

Does that mean Joe Malone blows away Lemieux and is clearly more dominant?

 

[joepeps]

Ask Al Iafrate

Start quote "Empty net goals are for homo's" End quote

 

[Sens Rule]

You have put forth some very good reasons to deem the 57% and unimportant. Historically, a number like is very different for the different eras - things like ice time, second assists etc.

As I have said before, the team in front of the goalie makes a SIGNIFICANT impact of the statistics of the goaltender. The only "pure" goalie stat is a new one - SO saves/shots. The team in front of the goaltender cannot influence that statistic. Watching a goaltender play is the only real way to determine how good he is.

But Mario played in an era where the idea he could be in on 57% of the goals is even less likely. His era actually strengthens the greatness of the accomplishment. The fact the Pens scored 93 goals when he was not on the ice out of 347 is insane.

The team any player plays on has a significant impact on his scoring stats, if not directly then through ice time and the situations he is used in.

 

[Sens Rule]

Just one more point to illustrate why I question this stat for historical comparison:

Joe Malone scored 38.3% of the goals for the Montreal Canadiens in the 1917-1918 season. Lemieux only scored 24.5% of the Penguins' goals in 88-89.

Does that mean Joe Malone blows away Lemieux and is clearly more dominant?

I don't know about that but it made many in this thread aware of Malone's accomplishments which is a good use for stats. Making others aware of greatness hidden by time or circumstances.