50 goals in 56 games vs. 100 points in 56 games

[King K Rool]

I was thinking of this, and while I lean towards 100+ points, I think 50+ goals in 56 games would be pretty amazing too. For me it's kind of a tough call

Click to read more...

 

[amnesiac]

so 73G pace or 146P pace

50G I guess

 

[Empoleon8771]

For comparison, the closest that anyone has gotten to those paces (73 goals per 82 games and 146 points in 82 games) was Ovi in 07-08 with 65 goals and Kucherov in 18-19 with 128 points.

I feel like the fact that you have to go all the way back to 07-08 to find someone even close to that pace makes me go with the goals option here. I guess Stamkos hit 60 in 11-12 as well, but it just seems like that level of goal scoring is a tad bit more rare than getting that many points.

 

[Canovin]

100 points in 56 games can also turn out to be 50 goals in 56 games

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Over 82 games this would be 146pts vs 73 goals.

146pt season has been done 20x in NHL history (10x after removing Gretzky)

73 goal season has been done 8x in NHL history (5x after removing Gretzky)

Definitely goals.

 

[Halla]

100 points in 56 games can also turn out to be 50 goals in 56 games

yeah butt he guy this thread is about is on pace for 34

 

[Regal]

Would be interesting to see how often either have been hit or come close in a 56 game period within a season, rather than just how many have hit the paced-for numbers over a full season. I think 73 is probably more impressive than 146, but goalscoring also seems more streaky, so it's possible in a smaller sample, the goalscoring might be easier.

 

[BM14]

100 points in 56 games can also turn out to be 50 goals in 56 games

Not enough PPs in the world for that to happen.

 

[StreetHawk]

I put a premium on goal scoring. Only so many tap in goals or open nets a player is going to get in a season. Still have to pick those corners.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Not enough PPs in the world for that to happen.

I see what you did there.

 

[Garthinater]

Points > goals

Surprised by the results tbh

 

[Eternal Leaf]

Looking at the full-season pace is probably unfair.

It's much easier to maintain the pace over 56 games (relatively speaking of course). I'd still lean towards the goals just because it's a bit more difficult cause there's no such thing as a secondary goal like there is a secondary assist.

As for the full season, if someone actually hit 73 goals over 82 games, that's outrageous in the modern game and it wouldn't even be a debate. 145 points is just not the same as someone potting 73 goals.

 

[Dache]

100 points in 56 games can also turn out to be 50 goals in 56 games

Was going to say this. Odds are the 100 pt guy is getting at least 30-35 goals so probably the 100 pt one then. Having said that the 50 goal guy is most likely getting 80-90 pts as well

 

[King K Rool]

100 points in 56 games can also turn out to be 50 goals in 56 games

True enough, and I did consider that, but I think if McDavid gets 100+ it will be 35/65 or something like that.

73 goals in 82 games pace is a good argument though. I'm also taking into account how many assists Matthews would get if he scored 50, Idk, is 75-80 points fair?

 

[BlueBaron]

Over 82 games this would be 146pts vs 73 goals.

146pt season has been done 20x in NHL history (10x after removing Gretzky)

73 goal season has been done 8x in NHL history (5x after removing Gretzky)

Definitely goals.

That's a pretty good argument.

It's a surprising poll considering how unlikely both are.

 

[Confucius]

I was thinking of this, and while I lean towards 100+ points, I think 50+ goals in 56 games would be pretty amazing too. For me it's kind of a tough call

The problem is how are the points earned
0 goals 100 points
50 goals 0 assists
Id take the 50 goals

 

[CatchyTune]

Points > goals

Surprised by the results tbh

since there are only 2 types of points what you are basically saying is assists>goals

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

50 goals in 50 games has been done by 6 people not named Gretzky or Lemieux. 100 points in 50 games has only been done by 2 people not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[KidLine93]

since there are only 2 types of points what you are basically saying is assists>goals

Not really.

I'd rather my top scorer to go 0 Goals 100 Assists than 50 goals 0 assists since 100 points translates into more offence on the score sheet.


As far as the poll question goes I think its less likely for someone to score 73 goals as opposed to getting 146 points based on how many people have hit those marks in the past.

This is a lot like crosby vs ovechkin over the past 8 years. One scores more goals but the other gets more points. People can debate which is more useful

 

[Isaac Nootin]

50 goals in 50 games has been done by 6 people not named Gretzky or Lemieux. 100 points in 50 games has only been done by 2 people not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

The OP says 56 games, not 50.

 

[Deadly Dogma]

Not really.

I'd rather my top scorer to go 0 Goals 100 Assists than 50 goals 0 assists since 100 points translates into more offence on the score sheet.


As far as the poll question goes I think its less likely for someone to score 73 goals as opposed to getting 146 points based on how many people have hit those marks in the past.

This is a lot like crosby vs ovechkin over the past 8 years. One scores more goals but the other gets more points. People can debate which is more useful

It would obviously require a deeper dive, we would need to look at the pp time each got and say if the 2ppg guy dominated 5v5 and the 50 goal guy feasted on PP goals then to me the 2ppg is more impressive and vice versa. On the next level if the 2ppg guy played an amazing 2 way game that separates him even further from the 50 goal guy or vice versa.

 

[Machinehead]

100 in 56 is 1.78 PPG.

12 players have done that in a season.

Only 5 players have 50 goals in 50 games.

 

[KidLine93]

It would obviously require a deeper dive, we would need to look at the pp time each got and say if the 2ppg guy dominated 5v5 and the 50 goal guy feasted on PP goals then to me the 2ppg is more impressive and vice versa. On the next level if the 2ppg guy played an amazing 2 way game that separates him even further from the 50 goal guy or vice versa.

You're right, it would need more context. Just like most of these debates

I dont understand why guys who light it up on the powerplay get punished in these debates though. Shouldn't the guy whos great 5v5 work on something so hes more productive on the PP? At the end of the day I'm worried about total offense created. Not what situations it was created in.

If a guy is guaranteed to score every time your team gets a powerplay thats a huge asset.

 

[Deadly Dogma]

You're right, it would need more context. Just like most of these debates

I dont understand why guys who light it up on the powerplay get punished in these debates though. Shouldn't the guy whos great 5v5 work on something so hes more productive on the PP? At the end of the day I'm worried about total offense created. Not what situations it was created in.

If a guy is guaranteed to score every time your team gets a powerplay thats a huge asset.

I do agree that the PP stigma is unfair, however its important to look at the amount of PP time a player gets relative to another player. I have not done the math but I assume the avg ppg for 5v5 mins is lowe r than the avg ppg for pp mins.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Anyone voting for 50g doesn’t understand math. You could literally have said player have 40 goals and 60 assists vs 50 goals and 10 assists. Which is better?