50 Goals vs 100 Points

[TheGuiminator]

Assuming that the 50 goals scorer isn't a 100 points player (more like 50 goals and 25-35 ish assits) and the 100 points player isn't a 50 goals scorer (and more like a 25-35 ish goal scorer), I'd pick the 100 points player

100 points players are mostly the ones who's driving their own line and generating more offense, while the 50 goals scorers are mostly elite finishers.

That said, both are great, it all comes down to personnal preferences but I think the 100 points scorers bring a little more to the table than the 50 goals scorers.

 

[CycloneSweep]

Depends how many points does the 50 goal scorer have?

Or why not both like Draisaitls season

 

[The Moose is Loose]

I think the 100 points is harder to get, but 50 goals is rarer so I’m pretty torn but I’d take the 50 goals

 

[Del Preston]

Both.

 

[Albatros]

Goals. Points are mostly arbitrary and a silly statistical category to start with.

 

[3074326]

Just the usual Crosby vs. Ovechkin thread.

I'll take Crosby like always.

 

[MadLuke]

I imagine the question imply scoring 50 goals without reaching 100 points, first instinct was too think that it was rarer to score 50g than 100 points because goal scoring is more noisy, peak earlier-less sustainable and that it could be better career wise to be a 100 points player, but:

Cheechoo
Perry in 2010-2011, never scored 90 points since went ppg once.
Kovalchuck in 05/06 was still dominant after that.
Stamkos/Ovechkin
Iginla

Cheechoo/Perry are the only one for who that was some unsustainable peak and Cheechoo got injured, put still it is 33% of the time.

Comparing to the list of 100 points player (Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com)

Those seem to have more sustained success, for 100 points to be a better predictor of the rest of the career so it could be a better pick, even if 50 is rarer and more special (the fact that is less reproducible could be a sign that your year shoot percentage/luck play a bigger role)

 

[ottawa]

Crosby fan. 100 pts. Ovechkin fan. 50 goals. There are more Crosby fans. So the answer is 100pts

Even Crosby fans are voting for the 50 goal option, it's the logical choice.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think the 100 points is harder to get, but 50 goals is rarer

That makes no f***ing sense.

 

[RedWingzz]

I think the 100 points is harder to get, but 50 goals is rarer so I’m pretty torn but I’d take the 50 goals

This doesn't make sense. If something is rare, it literally means it is less likely to occur. So you're saying 50 goals is less likely to happen, but 100 points is more difficult to do?

I do agree that 50 goals is less likely to happen, which would also mean that 50 goals is harder to get.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

That makes no ****ing sense.

I think it takes more talent to get 100.

Fewer players have statistically gotten 50 goals.

Don't see why its hard to understand

 

[The Moose is Loose]

This doesn't make sense. If something is rare, it literally means it is less likely to occur. So you're saying 50 goals is less likely to happen, but 100 points is more difficult to do?

I do agree that 50 goals is less likely to happen, which would also mean that 50 goals is harder to get.

I think 100 points takes more talent to get.

But statistically, 50 goals has happened fewer times.

 

[Thenameless]

50 goals for me, as it's still a very magical number, and part of the reason the goal scoring champion is awarded the Rocket Richard Trophy. It's just historically more difficult to score 50 goals than it is to accumulate 100 points. Once Gretzky started obliterating the record books with 200 point seasons, the 100 point mark didn't seem so impressive. Looking at it differently (from a percentage standpoint), you'll find that more 50 goal scorers also had 100 point seasons that same year, but fewer 100 point seasons also came with 50 goals scored.

 

[34]

Goals

 

[Saltcreek]

As stated above Both, Draisaitl.

 

[WJCJ]

Goals would mean more for me.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

Depends, how many goals the 100 point player has, if he himself is scoring 40+ goals then its close enough to choose the 100 point player. if not then generally speaking the 50 goal guy is bringing more to the table.

 

[WingsFan95]

It's clearly 50 goals considering the percentages of people having done it and the difficulty of scoring a goal vs. a 2nd assist for example.

Going further, 70 goals beats 140 points and if it ever happened 100 goals would beat 200 points.

 

[Panthaz89]

The 100 points considering you were responsible for more goals for...regardless of what's harder to do the puck is in the net more if you have 100+ points. Ovechkin and Draisaitl are great and all but you typically need them to have a great passer on their line except for Ovechkin in his prime where he could do it by himself. Not a lot of goals come unassisted. Typically if you are a 100 point player you are driving play a lot and making passes all over the ice not simply just the set up plays.

 

[SullivanT]

It's hard to say. For example what would you think is more impressive
50g + 55a
Or
41g + 87a

Both are impressive but I'd still take the extra 22 pt points as a team

 

[Semantics]

The fact 50 goals happens less frequently doesn't mean it's more impressive.

I'd go with 100 points every time, it indicates a player has playmaking ability and isn't strictly a finisher. Well rounded offensive players are more versatile and thus more valuable.

 

[Dr Salt]

100 points, as long as its not all secondary assists.