What's more impressive; 70 goals or 100 assists?

[Despote]

There are only top 5 players of all time that have hit 100 assists and there are many players that aren't top 5 all time that have hit 70 goals.

This season is another case where a top 5 player of all time may hit 100 assists and a player who isn't top 5 of all time may hit 70 goals.

 

[Video Nasty]

So you don’t think Adam Oates gets 10 more assists in 19 games the season he had 90 in 61? Not everything has to be so black and white and oversimplified here. There have been pages of legitimate arguments why 70 goals could be viewed as good or better than 100 assists. I personally think they are roughly equal and there’s not really a wrong answer but I chose goals as a general preference, and looks like the majority seems to agree.

It’s a wash because we can do the same for 70 goals to grow that field more.

What if Lemieux played even an extra game during each of the two seasons he hit 69 (missing 24 and 12 games respectively)? Of course, if he played the bulk of those games, he also joins Gretzky as a repeat member in the 100 assist club as well.

What if any of the other four instances of 68-69 goals had an 82 game schedule available to them, rather than 78 or 80?

What if Richard had 80 games instead of the 50 he was confined to when he set the 50 in 50 standard?

Three players who hit 95-97 assists in 1992-1993 certainly enjoyed having 84 games available to them, rather than the previous standard of 80. Oates had 90 through 80 games and LaFontaine had 92. Gilmour was the only one of the three who had 95 through 80.

These feats are somewhere in the same ballpark, though I do lean towards the one achieved by less players as more impressive. Particularly when we remove one of those players and the number of times it was reached crumbles from 13 to just 2.

 

[TheStatican]

I mentioned Crosby as people often extrapolate out his shortened seasons, particularly 2011-12 as some of the best in the cap era. But as you stated small sample sizes can be problematic.

Ok fair enough but there's also there's an important distinction to be made for goals and assists, especially in regards to the upper echelon players. Goal scoring is more prone to fluctuations compared to points. Take Crosby in 16-17, the way he start off that season had people talking of a potential 60-goal year, something he ofc ultimately fell well short of. He had 27 goals in his first 37 games, a scoring rate of 0.73/gm but in his last 37 games he had 17 goals for a scoring rate of 0.46 That's a decline of 59% But while his goal scoring pace declined tremendously, his point totals in contrast only declined by 28% While that is still a large decline, it's less than half as much as his goal scoring declined by. When one aspect of their game declines the greats are able to compensate by focusing on another aspect, just like McDavid is this season right?

Secondly it's unreasonable to make predictions to a very specific benchmark. First off the number who were on pace for 70 goals drops from 31 to 24 when you use the much better 60 games sample size vs the 41 game one, but a further 7 of those 24 seasons were just barely on pace for it with a 2% margin of error(and no other season within 2% of it). If we went with projections to 80 games, only 17 seasons were on pace for it. But interestingly enough, in an 80 game schedule more seasons were on pace for 100 assists - 18. While 82 games is the correct sample size to use now, is it really more correct than using an 80 game projection which is when nearly all of the 70 goals and 100 assist seasons happened? Anyhow, all that said and dispute my repeated posts in favor of goals, I do think the feats of 70 goals and 100 assists are very close - I said so much before starting this thread. I've only been drawn back in repeating into this argument because of the brashness of a certain fan base.

I’m of the opinion that extrapolated totals are even more meaningless than any arbitrary games played cutoff to project from. It’s really impossible to predict. I made a list at the end of last season of the best points per game a player reached with at least 70% of an 82 games played mark (57 GP). I think that’s “better” than 41 games but at the end of the day it’s hard to pick one. If I picked 80% of 82 games played then ‘93 Lemieux and other phenomenal seasons wouldn’t make the cut so I thought close to 60 games as the cutoff made sense.

The question I’m asking you is what do you think? What sample size do you think is sufficient? I genuinely am interested what you think so I’ll defer to you here.

This is something I spoke to in that Lemieux vs Gretzky thread where I stated that I agree a 1/2 season sample size isn't large enough for an accurate extrapolation, but that a 3/4 size is especially when further context can be applied. That further context being a players age and their scoring constancy. A player in his peak is more likely to maintain a similar scoring pace over the course of a season, particularly an exceptional one eg; 25yo Gretzky in his 8th year; 2.575@40gm, 2.70@gm60 2.69@final, or 26yo McDavid in his 8th year; ppg 1.875@40gm, 1.88@60gm, 1.865@final. And a player who scores points in 90% or more of his games is likewise indicative of being more likely to sustain his scoring rate than one who is scoring in only around 70-odd% of his games.

20 extra games may not on the surface seem like a big difference, but the potential for variances in pace actually decreases in a greater than linear fashion due to compounding. For example at the half way point of the 95-96, Lemieux was scoring at a rate of 2.66ppg, which is 15.5% higher than his end of season result. It was well known(in hindsight) that he was running hot to begin the year and it was in fact by far the least consistent season of any year he scored over 100 points. But by the 50 game mark he was at 2.4ppg, which was off by just 4.3% of his final rate and by the 3/4rd point of his season(gm 53 of 70) his scoring rate diverged by only 3.4% Getting off topic here, but over the course of an 80 game span a difference of 15.5% would result in a massive difference of 29 points(213 vs 184!) That kind of accuracy isn't very useful. But 3.4%? That's a difference of a mere 6 points(190 vs 184). I believe that's now a worthwhile point, where I would draw the line is with anything more than a single digit/5%. For the record the difference in Lemieux's scoring rates at the 3/4rd mark(of his gms) in his big near-full seasons was 2.9%('88 @gm58of77) 3.2%('89 @gm57of76) 3.4%('96 @gm53of70).

Another example was the Crosby season I mentioned above. His scoring rate from the halfway mark of the '17 season(gm37 of 75) to his final mark diverged by 13.9% But the difference between his mark from game 55 to the end was just a mere 2.6% and from game 60 1.7%. I think it's very clear that there's a massive difference in accuracy of projections between using a half season sample verses using 3/4rds of a season.

 

[WalterLundy]

Ok fair enough but there's also there's an important distinction to be made for goals and assists, especially in regards to the upper echelon players. Goal scoring is more prone to fluctuations compared to points. Take Crosby in 16-17, the way he start off that season had people talking of a potential 60-goal year, something he ofc ultimately fell well short of. He had 27 goals in his first 37 games, a scoring rate of 0.73/gm but in his last 37 games he had 17 goals for a scoring rate of 0.46 That's a decline of 59% But while his goal scoring pace declined tremendously, his point totals in contrast only declined by 28% While that is still a large decline, it's less than half as much as his goal scoring declined by. When one aspect of their game declines the greats are able to compensate by focusing on another aspect, just like McDavid is this season right?

Secondly it's unreasonable to make predictions to a very specific benchmark. First off the number who were on pace for 70 goals drops from 31 to 24 when you use the much better 60 games sample size vs the 41 game one, but a further 7 of those 24 seasons were just barely on pace for it with a 2% margin of error(and no other season within 2% of it). If we went with projections to 80 games, only 17 seasons were on pace for it. But interestingly enough, in an 80 game schedule more seasons were on pace for 100 assists - 18. While 82 games is the correct sample size to use now, is it really more correct than using an 80 game projection which is when nearly all of the 70 goals and 100 assist pace seasons happened when seasons were that size? Anyhow, all that said and dispute my repeated posts in favor of goals, I do think the feats of 70 goals and 100 assists are very close - I said so much before starting this thread. I've only been drawn back in repeating into this argument because of the brashness of a certain fan base.


This is something I spoke to in that Lemieux vs Gretzky thread where I stated that I agree a 1/2 season sample size isn't large enough for an accurate extrapolation, but that a 3/4 size is especially when further context can be applied. That further context being a players age and their scoring constancy. A player in his peak is more likely to maintain a similar scoring pace over the course of a season, particularly an exceptional one eg; 25yo Gretzky in his 8th year; 2.575@40gm, 2.70@gm60 2.69@final, or 26yo McDavid in his 8th year; ppg 1.875@40gm, 1.88@60gm, 1.865@final. And a player who scores points in 90% or more of his games is likewise indicative of being more likely to sustain his scoring rate than one who is scoring in only around 70-odd% of his games.

20 extra games may not on the surface seem like a big difference, but the potential for variances in pace actually decreases in a greater than linear fashion due to compounding. For example at the half way point of the 95-96, Lemieux was scoring at a rate of 2.66ppg, which is 15.5% higher than his end of season result. It was well known(in hindsight) that he was running hot to begin the year and it was in fact by far the least consistent season of any year he scored over 100 points. But by the 50 game mark he was at 2.4ppg, which was off by just 4.3% of his final rate and by the 3/4rd point of his season(gm 53 of 70) his scoring rate diverged by only 3.4% Getting off topic here, but over the course of an 80 game span a difference of 15.5% would result in a massive difference of 29 points(213 vs 184!) That kind of accuracy isn't very useful. But 3.4%? That's a difference of a mere 6 points(190 vs 184). I believe that's now a worthwhile point, where I would draw the line is with anything more than a single digit/5%. For the record the difference in Lemieux's scoring rates at the 3/4rd mark(of his gms) in his big near-full seasons was 2.9%('88 @gm58of77) 3.2%('89 @gm57of76) 3.4%('96 @gm53of70).

Another example was the Crosby season I mentioned above. His scoring rate from the halfway mark of the '17 season(gm37 of 75) to his final mark diverged by 13.9% But the difference between his mark from game 55 to the end was just a mere 2.6% and from game 60 1.7%. I think it's very clear that there's a massive difference in accuracy of projections between using a half season sample verses using 3/4rds of a season.

Thanks a lot actually that makes a good deal of sense. I’m also glad that the 70% or more cutoff I selected for my list compilation was the right way of going about doing what I was attempting. Appreciated.

 

[TheStatican]

As for the results of poll, I reiterate my surprise... There is a bit of a hive mind going on here which is blinded to the facts.

Oh c'mon man you can't be serious. Hive mind thinking, on hf Boards...??
A hive mind emerges when a group of individuals coordinate and cooperate in such a way that their actions and thoughts become synchronized. Hf boards, a place where the fan bases of 32 separate hockey franchises come together, many of whom hate each other with a passion, is just about the LAST place on Earth where I'd expect a coordinated hive mind effort to take place. Yeah you got your Leaf fans voting one way and your Oilers fans voting the other - I am neither, but it's an insult to everyone else to say the majority is just following the 'herd' as if they can't think for themselves.

 

[bucks_oil]

You don’t know what moving the goal posts means do you?

The point is that he wouldn’t have been anywhere close to a top 5 player if he had done it and he was more than capable of it in less than 70 games, and would’ve 100% reached it if he played the remaining 19 games in 1990-91 as he only needed 10 assists, basically 1/3 of his pace the entire season. It’s really not any more complicated than that.

I do understand what moving the goalposts mean.

I never said that reaching 100 assists was a criteria for being a top 5 player. You invented that. I said the only players who have hit 100 assists were also top 5 players of all time. There is a difference.

I also acknowledged that Oates (whom you brought to the argument, not me) was a top 5 playmaker of all time... so it would make sense that maybe he had a shot at 100 assists in a few of his 20 seasons in the league. But he didn't get there through some combination of talent and health... it takes both of course to achieve these sorts of milestones. It only goes to prove how tough it is to achieve.

Nevertheless, adding a top-5 playmaker of all time (who happens to be top 20 in all time scoring) to the very rare list of 100 assist players would not lessen or cheapen the achievement one bit. Oates is unanimously regarded as one of the best passers & playmakers to ever live. There would still be less than half as many players who achieved that milestone as there are 70 goal scorers.

It is much more rare, and therefore more impressive. This is a basic principle, it applies to everything from hockey players to diamonds. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

 

[bucks_oil]

Oh c'mon man you can't be serious. Hive mind thinking, on hf Boards...??
A hive mind emerges when a group of individuals coordinate and cooperate in such a way that their actions and thoughts become synchronized. Hf boards, a place where the fan bases of 32 separate hockey franchises come together, many of whom hate each other with a passion, is just about the LAST place on Earth where I'd expect a coordinated hive mind effort to take place. Yeah you got your Leaf fans voting one way and your Oilers fans voting the other - I am neither, but it's an insult to everyone else to say the majority is just following the 'herd' as if they can't think for themselves.

First: I'm sure there are no other biases coming into play. All non-Oiler and non-Leaf fans are entirely dispassionate in their debate.

Second: I like your argument about the greats compensating for struggles goalscoring by focusing on other elements of the game. One could say with shorthand, they are able to take what the game gives them and exploit no matter what the situation provides. I could easily weave that into my argument as to why there are so few (only 3) 100 assist players, and so few others (2-3) who got close. But I don't need to, because...

Third: on the very face of it, the numbers are strongly in support of the fact that one feat is more rare than the other, so fewer people can do it because fewer people have. Over 7500 players have played in the NHL. Three reached 100 assists. 8 reached 70 goals. To me, rare = impressive and I haven't yet seen a compelling argument to overcome that basic principle.

Fourth: Which is not to say I've read all of the opinions, nor do I conclude that such an argument couldn't exist... I'm just remarking (yet again) that on the very face of this debate, people are ignoring data to dive deeper and rationalize a different reality. One would expect that with two very impressive achievements. What one would NOT expect is that the results would be so skewed. So yeah, back to point one, it suggests something else is at play. And finally...

Fifth: I am in no way trying to stymie the debate, or say it is without merit... or personally attack you for being on the opposite side that I am... if you put your position out there great... but there are more people voting than are participating legitimately in the debate... and with the foundational statistics so skewed toward "pro-100", I reiterate points 1 and 3 above. This poll should be much closer.

 

[bucks_oil]

Just to add... since it has been suggested that team bias is driving this debate.

I think it's worth mentioning that:
* 7 different franchises have experienced a 70 goal seasons
* 4 different franchises have experienced 100 assist seasons
* Those same 4 franchises have experienced both a 70 goal and 100 assist season

It might be interesting to ask an LA fan, what was more impressive. Nichols' 70 goals or Gretzky's 114 assists. I think we know the answer.

Or Boston fans, whether it was Esposito's 76 goals or Orr's 102 assists. Again I think we know.

In Pittsburgh and Edmonton the answers would get a bit tougher... 85 and 92 goals are a long way from 70 and are their own milestones, but then again so is 163 assists and 200+ plus points.

 

[enthusiast]

Hard to say in a vacuum. There’s probably more variance in how impressive a 70-goal season can be, for reasons discussed here, but assuming we aren’t talking about a guy that’s pretty much just a product of a passing wizard, I’d give the nod to the goal scorer.

 

[North Cole]

Look at it this way, exactly the same number of players have scored 61 goals in a season as there have players who've gotten 87 assists. That's the same 1 to 1.43 ratio of goals to that 70 goals to 100 assists is. 61 goals would therefore be considered exactly the same level of achievement as getting 87 assists when going by this "logic" of a feat being more impressive based on the number of players who have achieved a mark. But since fewer players reached 100 assists, then the next 13 assists(87 to 100) are suddenly worth a tremendous amount more than then next 9 goals. Care to explain why these 13 assists should be valued so much more than those 9 goals are? I mean it's still the exact same ratio of 1 to 1.43 so what gives And it gets worse...

Suddenly, the next 22 goals(70 to 92) are worth just as much as the next 63 assists(100 to 163)! 92 goals and 163 assists have both only happened once after all and according to your logic the value of a record is depended on the number of players who have achieved it. But by all means, feel free to explain this inherent contradiction.

You are not recognizing the inconsistencies of valuing sports achievements based solely on rarity and the number of players who have achieved them. Clearly, factors beyond rarity, such as cultural significance and individual preferences, contribute to the determination.

I assigned no worth or value to anything. Merely drawing conclusions from your own logic about altered behaviors near the finish line of a milestone.

If there are inconsistencies in valuing sports achievements and a whole bunch of individual context/preferences you are now introducing, I have no idea why you brought up the study of modified behaviors anyways. You're just arguing against your own source now.

Either behavior is modified in order to achieve the goal or it is not. If it is then it stands to reason its more difficult to get the assist milestone than the goals, based on number of observable successes. Even more so when considering that the milestone with the less observable successes is by your own logic, more easily obtained at a ratio of 1.67 to 1.00

If it's based on personal preference then we have no way of saying which players actually modify their behavior as no control group would accurately portray all ranges of individual successes. All these random ratios you're trying to short hand are red herrings.

 

[TheStatican]

Even more so when considering that the milestone with the less observable successes is by your own logic, more easily obtained at a ratio of 1.67 to 1.00

Why the disingenuousness? It's evident you've revisited my previous posts in this thread since you referenced the initial ratio I provided. Yet, you conveniently overlooked my subsequent statement where I clarified that the ratio for star forwards is 1 to 1.44

Your right, my bad for overlooking that as it players a much larger role in explaining the difference. Taking out the defensemen(there's 6 atm; Hughes, Makar, Dobson, Hedman, Bouchard & Josi) from the top 50 scorers(I used the top 53 as there was a four-way tie for 50), yields 1178 goals and 1700 assists, a ratio of 1 to 1.44 - For every 70 goals the top scoring forwards have 101 assists, so that is close still slight edge to 70 though.

The ratio of 1 to 1.44 is not arbitrary; it reflects the observed ratio among the league's top forwards and closely mirrors the cumulative total for the top 100 goal and assist seasons in NHL history(1 to 1.45).

Either behavior is modified in order to achieve the goal or it is not. If it is then it stands to reason its more difficult to get the assist milestone than the goals, based on number of observable successes.

It's simple - Behavior modification among athletes is often observed in pursuit of specific individual-centric achievements, largely motivated by the perceived prestige associated with such accomplishments. However, a critical examination reveals that this modification of behavior to achieve predetermined goals may, paradoxically, undermine overall team performance. This assertion is substantiated by the observation that if the modified behavior were truly advantageous, athletes would consistently adhere to it throughout the entirety of a competitive season, rather than solely when approaching a benchmark. Notably, a discernible discrepancy exists in the attainment of different benchmarks; while goal-scoring milestones are more frequently reached, assist benchmarks are comparatively less prevalent, indicative of the disproportionate emphasis placed on goal-scoring achievements within hockey culture.

Furthermore, claiming that rarity alone is the sole determinant of value is easily proven to be illogical. As previously noted, 17 players have scored 61 goals in a season and 17 players have likewise recorded 87 assists in a season. Therefore, according to the 'rarity logic', they are equal achievements since they are equally as rare. However, looking at the next numbers over, both higher and lower, we observe disparities. For instance, 23 players have scored 60 goals in a season and 18 players have recorded 86 assists in a season. And 15 players have scored 62 goals in a season but only 13 players have recorded 88 assists in a season. These would not be considered equal achievements according to the 'rarity logic' since one has been accomplished by more players. Instead, when rarity is exclusively considered as the determinant of value, we encounter the following problematic dataset:

• 83 assists = 60 goals
• 87 assists = 61 goals
• 88 assists = 64 goals

This example underscores the limitations of a rarity-centric perspective, it results in a non-linear scaling of value which completely defies rational analysis.

The proposition that rarity alone confers value upon an achievement is an oversimplified viewpoint of reality. While rarity undoubtedly contributes to an achievement's allure, the concept of desirability emerges as an another determinant of athletic aspirations. Consequently, heightened desirability prompts a greater influx of individuals endeavoring to realize a particular goal, thereby influencing the relative frequency of its attainment. In essence, the attainment of goals is influenced not solely by their intrinsic difficulty, but rather by the interplay of rarity and desirability. Taking all the above into consideration, it becomes clear that rarity is just one aspect of value, and further context is needed to fully assess the worth of an achievement.