1917 - 1967 Goal Scoring

[Canadiens1958]

There is a tendency in the HOH forum to view goal scoring from the pre 1967 expansion era in the same light as modern day or post 1967 goal scoring.

The following should bring perceptions into proper focus. Raw unadjusted numbers.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Pre 1967 expansion only 2 NHL players - Howe and Maurice Richard had managed > 500 regular season career goals, only 9 > 300 regualr season career goals, only 49 > 200 regular season career goals and only 168 > 100 regular season career goals. Obviously players whose careers spanned both eras saw changes in their totals.

The expectations were that a forward would have a complete game, offensively and defensively. Their talents were evaluated accordingly.

Viewing these players or their offensive production within the context of today is very misleading.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think most of us are aware of how so many fewer goals were scored before the 1967 expansion. That's why so many of us use "Top 10 finishes," rather than absolute numbers, adjusted or otherwise.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Offensive Evaluations

I think most of us are aware of how so many fewer goals were scored before the 1967 expansion. That's why so many of us use "Top 10 finishes," rather than absolute numbers, adjusted or otherwise.

Admitting that evaluations, "Top 10 Finishes", are strictly offensive support my point rather well.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Admitting that evaluations, "Top 10 Finishes", are strictly offensive support my point rather well.

I don't think any self-respecting hockey history nut uses them as "be-all, end-all" evaluators. They're a part of the picture.

 

[BostonAJ]

1917-1943 also requires its own special considerations regarding stats. The NHL went thru some growing pains during this era, with some major rule changes being adopted. The lack of a forward pass, goalies being required to stand up at all times, players on the ice for the game's entirety, no red line, and many other rules allowed for a completely different kind of game. I assume none of us has ever seen a game from this time frame, but I wouldn't be surprised if it only vaguely resembled the game we know today.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Each era has different qualities. I'm not an expert on the O6, but it makes sense that players were often expected to have a more complete game. With only six teams, talent tends to be more compressed. Therefore, all but the very best forwards were competing for power play time, ice time, or even roster spots against players who whose skills were likely close to their own. Also, their opponents were much more likely to have skilled players even on lower lines. Both of these factors would force most players to play a more well-rounded game. Perhaps their was a different mindset then, but I would guess it was mostly caused by having only six teams. While this might be a factor in lower career goal totals before expansion, there are other factors to consider:

- shorter schedules
- the war interrupting careers
- lower salaries giving less incentive for players to have long careers

Pre-WWII seems very difficult to evaluate, as do seasons during the war and immediately after the war.

The other difficult time to evaluate is the expansion period until about the time of the WHA merge. The O6 was only low scoring compared to the higher scoring years that followed with expansion. There seems to be an incredible inflation of even the adjusted stats during the expansion years.

 

[seventieslord]

Admitting that evaluations, "Top 10 Finishes", are strictly offensive support my point rather well.

And that is why using them to illustrate a player's offensive ability (and not overall ability) makes sense...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not What Happens

And that is why using them to illustrate a player's offensive ability (and not overall ability) makes sense...

Sadly that is not what happens. Dick Duff being a prime example. 35th in goals from 1917-1967 gets spun into a negative offensively.

 

[seventieslord]

Sadly that is not what happens. Dick Duff being a prime example. 35th in goals from 1917-1967 gets spun into a negative offensively.

Dick Duff, like any other player, gets viewed in the context of his time (for example, he was 35th in goals from 1917 up to 1967 but that ranking hardly changes if you make 1940 the starting date; the fact that schedules used to be half as long as Duff played obscures the fact that many pre-WW2 players were more dominant than him) so I am not sure why this thread needs to exist. I don't see anyone going around saying so-and-so sucks because he only has x number of goals without applyng proper context.

 

[BM67]

Sadly that is not what happens. Dick Duff being a prime example. 35th in goals from 1917-1967 gets spun into a negative offensively.

And Dean Prentice is 15th.

The pre-O6 goal scoring numbers don't compare with the O6 numbers either. Nels Stewart held the goals record with 324 until the Rocket passed him in 1952. You need more than just a single line dividing pre-67 and post-67.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Beauty of Logical Coherence

Dick Duff, like any other player, gets viewed in the context of his time (for example, he was 35th in goals from 1917 up to 1967 but that ranking hardly changes if you make 1940 the starting date; the fact that schedules used to be half as long as Duff played obscures the fact that many pre-WW2 players were more dominant than him) so I am not sure why this thread needs to exist. I don't see anyone going around saying so-and-so sucks because he only has x number of goals without applyng proper context.

Duff's time is 1955 and beyond to 1972. In one sentence you go from the context of his time to comparing him outside the context of his time - pre WWII. That is why the thread exists.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Agreed

And Dean Prentice is 15th.

The pre-O6 goal scoring numbers don't compare with the O6 numbers either. Nels Stewart held the goals record with 324 until the Rocket passed him in 1952. You need more than just a single line dividing pre-67 and post-67.

Agreed. Much easier to start with a single line at a historically significant point as opposed to many. Other lines may follow as need be.

 

[seventieslord]

Duff's time is 1955 and beyond to 1972. In one sentence you go from the context of his time to comparing him outside the context of his time - pre WWII. That is why the thread exists.

You don't even read what people write half the time, do you?