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

[Goalie_Bob]

I think the posters point was that Lemieux was more important to his team and set an all-time record for helping his team win.

And he still didn't win the MVP, Gretzky did.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

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.

If I recall, your formula assumes that the talent level is more or less equal from year to year. IMO it is not.

 

[Goldark]

That's nice but, what does it really mean? It could mean that Mario played a freaking ton of ice time. It could mean that the rest of the team was brutal. It could be a combination of both.

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.

Nice stat but, it really doesn't indicate much of anything.

Uhh, he DID contribute (goal or an assist) on 57% of the team's goals. Your twisted, delusional definition doesn't fly.

23.7% ...that's a fact? Did you take into account Mario's unassisted goals, goals with 1 assists, Mario's lone assists on goals, etc? If you didn't, don't make stuff up.

It doesn't indicate much of anything? How about it indicating that Mario was insanely dominant and was essentially his entire team's offense. Quit trying to detract from that season.

You are one massive choder.

 

[HckyFght*]

What a meaningles bunch of gibberish. So Lemieux played on such crappy teams he wa sthe only guy who could score. How is that impressive? He was in his prime for five years before the Penguins even made the playoffs. I wonder if they would like to have some of those years back. Better than Gretzky? You're sniffing glue.
HckyFght!

 

[Ogopogo*]

23.7% ...that's a fact? Did you take into account Mario's unassisted goals, goals with 1 assists, Mario's lone assists on goals, etc? If you didn't, don't make stuff up.

Hey Einstein, why not look at the totals in the first post. Don't accuse me of anything when you know nothing about it.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

What a meaningles bunch of gibberish. So Lemieux played on such crappy teams he wa sthe only guy who could score. How is that impressive? He was in his prime for five years before the Penguins even made the playoffs. I wonder if they would like to have some of those years back. Better than Gretzky? You're sniffing glue.
HckyFght!

Obviously you didn't read the thread. That season the Pens made it to game 7 of the 2nd round.

 

[Rattray]

Obviously you didn't read the thread. That season the Pens made it to game 7 of the 2nd round.

nice....what a burn.

 

[bigjags*]

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?

1917 -1918? I woudn't even call that hockey back then. It was Pejorative Slurs on ice.

That comparison is ridicules.

 

[Ogopogo*]

1917 -1918? I woudn't even call that hockey back then. It was Pejorative Slurs on ice.

That comparison is ridicules.

This board really suffers when school is out.

 

[CRUNK JUICE]

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 might be wrong on this, but I believe players in Joe Malone's day played the entire 60 minutes of each game. I think that may skew things in his favor on this one...

 

[Ogopogo*]

I might be wrong on this, but I believe players in Joe Malone's day played the entire 60 minutes of each game. I think that may skew things in his favor on this one...

You have made my point. This kind of stat cannot be compared historically because players ice times have been different historically - along with assists being given out differently in different eras.

I don't think Malone played the full 60 minutes but, I bet 45 minutes wasn't out of the question.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

1917 -1918? I woudn't even call that hockey back then. It was Pejorative Slurs on ice.

That comparison is ridicules.

Is it a coincidence that the people around here that like throwing around words such as "Pejorative Slurs" are also the ones who cannot spell ridiculous?

 

[bigjags*]

Is it a coincidence that the people around here that like throwing around words such as "Pejorative Slurs" are also the ones who cannot spell ridiculous?

Yawn.

Leave your negativity for your marriage, don’t bring it on the HF boards. Thanks tho.

 

[bigjags*]

This board really suffers when school is out.

Using 1917 as an example is terrible. I’m not going to explain how the game has changed drastically to you, because you know it has. The game back then was so rudimentary and therefore not comparable with the likes of modern hockey.

 

[Sens Rule]

This board really suffers when school is out.

Agreed. Different Hockey - Yes. Pejorative Slurs on ice - No.

 

[Rattray]

Using 1917 as an example is terrible. I’m not going to explain how the game has changed drastically to you, because you know it has. The game back then was so rudimentary and therefore not comparable with the likes of modern hockey.

Agreed 100%.

I believe goalies werent even allowed to drop to the ice to make a save back then.

 

[Sens Rule]

Yawn.

Leave your negativity for your marriage, don’t bring it on the HF boards. Thanks tho.

So you accuse him of negativity when you label the players in the first years of the NHL as Pejorative Slurs. weren't you the one who said Orr would probably SUCK if he played today and that he would be in the AHL if he played today? Yes you were so your insight into talking about past eras is somewhat limited or well frankly Pejorative Slured.

 

[Rattray]

Im guessing the "Pejorative Slurs on ice comment" was more to do with the ancient players looking like Pejorative Slurs compared to a player from today's era. If thats the case, as sad as it sounds, he's right.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Im guessing the "Pejorative Slurs on ice comment" was more to do with the ancient players looking like Pejorative Slurs compared to a player from today's era. If thats the case, as sad as it sounds, he's right.

Funny, your grandchildren will probably call Jagr and Thornton Pejorative Slurs. He's not right, he's just young. I suspect you are as well.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Using 1917 as an example is terrible. I’m not going to explain how the game has changed drastically to you, because you know it has. The game back then was so rudimentary and therefore not comparable with the likes of modern hockey.

Sorry friend, there are ways to compare across eras. Just because you are not intelligent enough to understand it does not mean much.

Do you understand how nuclear fusion works? News flash, there's probably a lot you don't know. When you hit your 20s, you will realize that.

 

[Rattray]

Weren't you the one who said Orr would probably SUCK if he played today and that he would be in the AHL if he played today? Yes you were so your insight into talking about past eras is somewhat limited or well frankly Pejorative Slured.

Newsflash - The game has evolved

Im sorry, but if Orr was teleported into today's game, he would have a tough time making the NHL. Players back then are not even in the same league as a player in today's era. Speed, shooting, goaltending, passing, defensive systems, powerplays, PK, coaching, are all above and beyond.

Now, if he was born in 1980, and had all the updated training along the way, there's no question he'd be in the NHL. He was born with natural talent and that would have been taken to the maximum, no question.

 

[bigjags*]

So you accuse him of negativity when you label the players in the first years of the NHL as Pejorative Slurs. weren't you the one who said Orr would probably SUCK if he played today and that he would be in the AHL if he played today? Yes you were so your insight into talking about past eras is somewhat limited or well frankly Pejorative Slured.

I've asked a few people, who aren't computer savvy and but are hockey savvy and they all agree with me. Transporting an Orr from the 1970s would get chewed up in today's game. No question about it...

 

[bigjags*]

Sorry friend, there are ways to compare across eras. Just because you are not intelligent enough to understand it does not mean much.

Do you understand how nuclear fusion works? News flash, there's probably a lot you don't know. When you hit your 20s, you will realize that.

I wish I was just hitting my 20s. haha

I know the game inside and out. You, obviously, don't.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I wish I was just hitting my 20s. haha

I know the game inside and out. You, obviously, don't.

 

[Rattray]

Sorry friend, there are ways to compare across eras. Just because you are not intelligent enough to understand it does not mean much.

You dont see anyone comparing Carmen Electra to a primitive ape now do you?

There is an 80 year gap, and just like the human race, the game has evolved.....impossible to compare the two.