Poll: Brock Boeser Will Have The Best Rookie Season Since... (A: Dixon Ward)

[NoShowWilly]

No, nevermind. Daniel Sedin on January 21st / Game #48.



And before that it was Ryan Kesler on February 8th / Game #60.



In 2011-12, Daniel scored his 20th goal on January 17th / Game #47. This is now out of the realm of "recent memory."



In 2010-11, Daniel scored his 20th goal on Decmber 31st / Game #36...



...and Ryan Kesler scored his 20th goal on January 5th / Game #39.

Thank you for putting in the work.

 

[2011 still hurts]

I honestly think at the very least he hits 30 goals and 50 points (as long he plays the rest of the season). What a ****ing player.

Gonna say he beats this projection and reaches 35 goals and around ~65 points. Was hopeful for 40 goals but it might be a bit of a reach rn.

 

[2011 still hurts]

Since he's being shut down now, he ends the season at 29G, 26A. Good for 55 points in 63 games.

Not quite Bure's 60 points in 65 games pace, but it beats everyone else, including Dixon Ward.

Should also take into account that he was playing through an injured wrist for the last 7-8 games, probably effected his potential production a bit.

 

[Jyrki21]

For era-adjusted scoring, I think his pace was likely well above Bure’s.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I wanted him to set the Canucks rookie goals record (35). Too bad. Oh well, there's always Pettersson next year...

 

[Ace of Hades]

IMO, he has beaten Bure now and has had the best rookie season for the franchise.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

For era-adjusted scoring, I think his pace was likely well above Bure’s.

I don't know how reliable their method is, but hockey-reference.com has Bure's rookie season adjusted to 30g 23a in 65 games played.

 

[DL44]

IMO, he has beaten Bure now and has had the best rookie season for the franchise.

how so? adjusted numbers would be your only route i guess.

Bure as a rookie was spectacular.
Brock was fun to watch in a subtle slick skilled manner, with an incredibly entertaining snipe.

Bure brought you to the edge of your seat... made you shake your head and pinch yourself.

 

[CanaFan]

Thing about Bure is he was on fire over the last 20 or so games of the season. He started slow (scoring wise) but once he got his touch he was nearly a goal a game down the stretch. If he doesn’t miss the first 17 games of the season with visa issues he finishes with well over 40 goals most likely.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

I don't know how reliable their method is, but hockey-reference.com has Bure's rookie season adjusted to 30g 23a in 65 games played.

I think I'm wrong, I misread their page. Bure's rookie season is 30g 23a adjusted to 82 games.

Brock's season by the same metric is adjusted to 37g 33a in 82 games. Brock's season is better

 

[Ace of Hades]

how so? adjusted numbers would be your only route i guess.

Bure as a rookie was spectacular.
Brock was fun to watch in a subtle slick skilled manner, with an incredibly entertaining snipe.

Bure brought you to the edge of your seat... made you shake your head and pinch yourself.

I'm relying on adjusted numbers, and as well as relative context to their respective eras.

Bure was more fun to watch out of the two ofcourse.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Bure brought you to the edge of your seat... made you shake your head and pinch yourself.

Ya but loses a little style points for the flow.

 

[CanaFan]

I think I'm wrong, I misread their page. Bure's rookie season is 30g 23a adjusted to 82 games.

Brock's season by the same metric is adjusted to 37g 33a in 82 games. Brock's season is better

That seems wrong. Scoring in 1991-92 was 17% higher than this year. There’s no way Bures adjusted numbers over 82 games (53 pts) are lower than his real numbers over 65 (60 pts). Scoring inflation isn’t THAT big unless you’re adjusting further it for the Canucks’ own scoring ineptitude this year.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

Here's their method: Adjusted Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

"In order to account for different schedule lengths, roster sizes, and scoring environments, some statistics have been adjusted. All statistics have been adjusted to an 82-game schedule with a maximum roster size of 18 skaters and league averages of 6 goals per game and 1.67 assists per goal."

So I'm guessing average goals per game was above 6 in 91-92 and probably below 6 this year? This doesn't seem like a very good method, maybe someone else has a link to a better page

 

[Regal]

I think I'm wrong, I misread their page. Bure's rookie season is 30g 23a adjusted to 82 games.

Brock's season by the same metric is adjusted to 37g 33a in 82 games. Brock's season is better

Hockey-reference adjusts each season to 82 games, but not each individual player. They based their games played on the percentage of games the player played of the number of team games. So Bure played 65 games of what was an 80 game season, which would be the equivalent of 66.6 or 67 games of an 82 game schedule. So it should be seen as 53 points in 67 games, or 37 goals, 28 assists and 65 points over a full 82 games.

Meanwhile Boeser has played 62 of the team's 66 games, which translates to 77 games of an 82 game season. So his 70 points would amount to 39 goals, 35 assists and 74 points over 82 games.

 

[CanaFan]

Here's their method: Adjusted Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

"In order to account for different schedule lengths, roster sizes, and scoring environments, some statistics have been adjusted. All statistics have been adjusted to an 82-game schedule with a maximum roster size of 18 skaters and league averages of 6 goals per game and 1.67 assists per goal."

So I'm guessing average goals per game was above 6 in 91-92 and probably below 6 this year? This doesn't seem like a very good method, maybe someone else has a link to a better page

Well from what I can find the average goals per team was 3.46 in 91-92 and is 2.96 this year, which is a 17% increase. I don’t think using total Goals per game (i.e. doubling the average team goals) makes sense since you’re doubling the inflation but Bure/Boeser don’t play for both teams. Average team goals seems more relevant than average total goals per game.

 

[CanaFan]

Hockey-reference adjusts each season to 82 games, but not each individual player. They based their games played on the percentage of games the player played of the number of team games. So Bure played 65 games of what was an 80 game season, which would be the equivalent of 66.6 or 67 games of an 82 game schedule. So it should be seen as 53 points in 67 games, or 37 goals, 28 assists and 65 points over a full 82 games.

Meanwhile Boeser has played 62 of the team's 66 games, which translates to 77 games of an 82 game season. So his 70 points would amount to 39 goals, 35 assists and 74 points over 82 games.

This makes more sense. The base of games isn’t being used consistently. They should set it to 82 games pro rated for ease of comparison.

 

[Regal]

This makes more sense. The base of games isn’t being used consistently. They should set it to 82 games pro rated for ease of comparison.

Well the point is to adjust their actual points, not their paces. In all 82 game seasons it's easy because it's just simply the adjusted points they theoretically "scored" in the same number of games the player played. The issue with this season is that it's ongoing, so it's constantly adjusting for the number of team games. At the end of the year, Brock's 70 adjusted points will go down to 56, and we can read it as 56 adjusted points in his 62 games played.

 

[CanaFan]

Well the point is to adjust their actual points, not their paces. In all 82 game seasons it's easy because it's just simply the adjusted points they theoretically "scored" in the same number of games the player played. The issue with this season is that it's ongoing, so it's constantly adjusting for the number of team games. At the end of the year, Brock's 70 adjusted points will go down to 56, and we can read it as 56 adjusted points in his 62 games played.

Ya but since they didn’t play the same number of games I’m more interested in their pace. But it seems like the earlier numbers adjusted them both but then pro rated Boeser to a full season but not Bure. The gap shouldn’t be that large.

 

[Regal]

Ya but since they didn’t play the same number of games I’m more interested in their pace. But it seems like the earlier numbers adjusted them both but then pro rated Boeser to a full season but not Bure. The gap shouldn’t be that large.

I get that, but I think they want to put totals in context moreso, so you can say, compare scoring leaders each year. It would be nice if they had numbers for both though to make it easier I agree. Anything with 82 games is simple but the other years are a problem. In some ways it would make more sense if they didn't prorate the season to 82 games so you can just get their pace by dividing by their actual games played regardless of the season.

And Boeser's seem pro rated only because it treats the current season as a 66 game season, which he's played the bulk of. Once the season's over, it will be easier to compare this year's numbers to other 82 game seasons at least

 

[Captain Bowie]

Darn, so close. Certainly could have had a better rookie season than Bure.

 

[Stephen]

Sucks for Boeser to get hurt like that. Not surprising Cal Clutterbuck did the damage, I think he was involved in the latest Auston Matthews injury too. Guy has a penchant for damaging young superstars.

 

[canuckslover10]

Well this sucks

 

[Verviticus]

edit: misread the convo

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

So USAs first game in the World Championship is in 8 weeks. Thats well beyond the recovery of the current injury plus hid wrist.

Does he play then ??


If hes healthy and ready to go im all for it. 2 months is plenty of time to heal.