Does anyone currently drafted have the potential to score 50 in 9 consecutive seasons?

[BlueBaron]

I’m not sure why you’re talking about pace, this question has absolutely nothing to do with pace, but rather actual production. You wouldn’t need .61 or .7 gpg you would need 50g/per season

You don't understand why he showed 4 guys on pace for 50 goals before the season was disrupted in a discussion about whether anyone playing could have 9 such seasons. Really? you don't think pace might be an indicator who our 50 goal guys might be? What are you going by? horoscopes?

Oh I know it's really probably just a disingenuous argument to exclude everyone from the discussion but Ovie and Dra or you simply do not grasp that pace demonstrates production rate. Neither looks great.

If you are still confused next time you see a 50 goal season divide the players goals by games and you will notice he did in fact have the rate you said he didn't need.

 

[Halla]

Matthews probably like a 25% chance. no one else has any chance

Auston just keeps getting better and scoring more and more goals, but he needs to stay healthy (a good sign was not missing any games this year)

82gm pace

40-45-45-55

 

[Halla]

Be really tough to have both the talent combined w the durability to do this. Certainly some guys possess the hands /mind to do so (Matthews, pasta, Drai, Mcdavid, Laine) but man stars would need to align over an incredible sustained period.

not sure Mcdavid/Laine ever get 50 more than a couple times. McDavid was on pace for 40g in 75 games, after a pair of 41g seasons. Laine is even more unlikely as he would have finished with his 2nd worst productive season goalscoring wise after a career low last year. pretty sure he will average 35-40 from here on

Matthews is the only one with a legit shot imho (25-30%). Pastrnak/Draisaitl are extreme longshots and no point even throwing out any other names

 

[Dache]

You don't understand why he showed 4 guys on pace for 50 goals before the season was disrupted in a discussion about whether anyone playing could have 9 such seasons. Really? you don't think pace might be an indicator who our 50 goal guys might be? What are you going by? horoscopes?

Oh I know it's really probably just a disingenuous argument to exclude everyone from the discussion but Ovie and Dra or you simply do not grasp that pace demonstrates production rate. Neither looks great.

If you are still confused next time you see a 50 goal season divide the players goals by games and you will notice he did in fact have the rate you said he didn't need.

Sorry you got triggered so much by something you took as leaf hate yet again. I’ll explain it again. If the question is who can have 9 straight 50 goal seasons, pace is useless because even though a few were on pace this year, none actually got it. Sure this scenario won’t happen every year, but maybe a lockout, maybe an injury, who knows. The point is you can’t go and say “well player x got 50 for 4 seasons, then was on pace for 50 the next year even though he ended with 48, then got 50 4 more times so I guess he had 9 straight 50 goal seasons” and that goes for Ovi and Dra as well.

 

[Merrrlin]

I’m not sure why you’re talking about pace, this question has absolutely nothing to do with pace, but rather actual production. You wouldn’t need .61 or .7 gpg you would need 50g/per season

That's a you problem not a me problem

 

[bobholly39]

Matthews probably like a 25% chance. no one else has any chance

Auston just keeps getting better and scoring more and more goals, but he needs to stay healthy (a good sign was not missing any games this year)

82gm pace

40-45-45-55

You think there's a 25% chance Matthews will score 50 goals every season for 9 years straight?

 

[BlueBaron]

Sorry you got triggered so much by something you took as leaf hate yet again. I’ll explain it again. If the question is who can have 9 straight 50 goal seasons, pace is useless because even though a few were on pace this year, none actually got it. Sure this scenario won’t happen every year, but maybe a lockout, maybe an injury, who knows. The point is you can’t go and say “well player x got 50 for 4 seasons, then was on pace for 50 the next year even though he ended with 48, then got 50 4 more times so I guess he had 9 straight 50 goal seasons” and that goes for Ovi and Dra as well.

I don't think you know what triggered means. I am not upset, if you are projecting no need to be upset, calm down, take a deep breath. I get the sense you do not get how idiotic that post was.

I'll explain again. If you identify who your potential 50 goal scorers are (which those on pace for 50 are a good indicator of) then you are able to guess from that group which of them could do it 9 times. Pretending not knowing pace is helpful in this process is beyond bizarre. You can tell us all they don't need to have a pace to score 50 goals but that is just a strange form of denial. People who score 50 seasons almost always score at a 50 goal pace. We could discount people who scored at a 40 goal pace and then got 10 goals on the last day if that makes you happy but not sure how often that will come up.

I mean, you are basically just saying, "you don't have to fly to the moon, you just have to get to the moon" which of course requires flying. It's just not as clever as you think.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't think you know what triggered means. I am not upset, if you are projecting no need to be upset, calm down, take a deep breath. I get the sense you do not get how idiotic that post was.

I'll explain again. If you identify who your potential 50 goal scorers are (which those on pace for 50 are a good indicator of) then you are able to guess from that group which of them could do it 9 times. Pretending not knowing pace is helpful in this process is beyond bizarre. You can tell us all they don't need to have a pace to score 50 goals but that is just a strange form of denial. People who score 50 seasons almost always score at a 50 goal pace. We could discount people who scored at a 40 goal pace and then got 10 goals on the last day if that makes you happy but not sure how often that will come up.

I mean, you are basically just saying, "you don't have to fly to the moon, you just have to get to the moon" which of course requires flying. It's just not as clever as you think.

The truth of it is - a pace of 50 goals isn't good enough. You'd need to pace for ~60 goals. That way - you could account for fluctuations year to year due to injuries/consistency/suspensions/end of seasons.

Matthews has scored 47 goals in 70 games. A pace of 55 goals over 82 games.
If instead he had scored 50 goals in 70 games - that's a pace of 60 goals over 82 games - and of course he'd have 50 goals this year, despite the season ending early.

Obviously this season ending early is a unique and i'm not suggesting we use this as what to expect for future. But it works out nicely to make my case - that if he had been pacing for closer to ~60 goals, even in a season cut unexpectedly like this year, he'd be over 50, instead of under 50.

That's what Bossy did in the 80s. He averaged ~59.5 goals over 9 years - and the lowest he dipped was 51 (twice).
If Matthews were to average 50, or even 55 goals a years - he'd miss the mark a few times.

And - clearly i'm talking here about actual goals - not even pace. For pace - Bossy paced for 62 goals over a full season. If we adjust to an 82 game season instead of the 80 game seasons he played - it changes to pace of 64 goals per 82 games.

 

[BlueBaron]

The truth of it is - a pace of 50 goals isn't good enough. You'd need to pace for ~60 goals. That way - you could account for fluctuations year to year due to injuries/consistency/suspensions/end of seasons.

Matthews has scored 47 goals in 70 games. A pace of 55 goals over 82 games.
If instead he had scored 50 goals in 70 games - that's a pace of 60 goals over 82 games - and of course he'd have 50 goals this year, despite the season ending early.

Obviously this season ending early is a unique and i'm not suggesting we use this as what to expect for future. But it works out nicely to make my case - that if he had been pacing for closer to ~60 goals, even in a season cut unexpectedly like this year, he'd be over 50, instead of under 50.

That's what Bossy did in the 80s. He averaged ~59.5 goals over 9 years - and the lowest he dipped was 51 (twice).
If Matthews were to average 50, or even 55 goals a years - he'd miss the mark a few times.

And - clearly i'm talking here about actual goals - not even pace. For pace - Bossy paced for 62 goals over a full season. If we adjust to an 82 game season instead of the 80 game seasons he played - it changes to pace of 64 goals per 82 games.

While you are correct that a higher pace improves your chances by providing an injury cushion mathematically speaking it's not required. All that is required is a large enough sample size so that the perfect storm can hit.

Conversely durability is also a nice quality but also not essential from a math point of view.

 

[bobholly39]

While you are correct that a higher pace improves your chances by providing an injury cushion mathematically speaking it's not required. All that is required is a large enough sample size so that the perfect storm can hit.

Conversely durability is also a nice quality but also not essential from a math point of view.

For a single season - maybe. For 9 years in a row? Sure - mathematically it's not required. Mathematically speaking you can also win the lotto. Doesn't make it likely.

No player in history is consistently precise enough to hit 50 goals on the dot 9 years straight. Mike Bossy had to average 59 'raw goals' per year to do so. His 82 game pace was 64 goals/82 games.
Maybe a player could hit 50 9 years in a row with slightly smaller numbers than that - but it would certainly have to be higher than 50 on average. I'd guess the minimum needed might be 55 'raw goals' on average over 9 years, and an 82 game pace of ~56-57 to account for injuries. Obviously - durability is also a prerequisite, as any major injuries renders this useless.

 

[BlueBaron]

For a single season - maybe. For 9 years in a row? Sure - mathematically it's not required. Mathematically speaking you can also win the lotto. Doesn't make it likely.

No player in history is consistently precise enough to hit 50 goals on the dot 9 years straight. Mike Bossy had to average 59 'raw goals' per year to do so. His 82 game pace was 64 goals/82 games.
Maybe a player could hit 50 9 years in a row with slightly smaller numbers than that - but it would certainly have to be higher than 50 on average. I'd guess the minimum needed might be 55 'raw goals' on average over 9 years, and an 82 game pace of ~56-57 to account for injuries. Obviously - durability is also a prerequisite, as any major injuries renders this useless.

Nice story but you are using intuition. Math and the law of averages do not care about your intuition. The simple fact is that once someone proves they have 50 goal potential 9 50 goal seasons becomes plausible. Eventually one of those "plausible" players will hit if given a large enough sample size.

This is simple math, there is no debate here. It is the open, infinite nature of the timeline that makes this outcome inevitable. If you create a finite time limit, say 20 years, the possibility drops dramatically.

So it is far safer to say no one currently playing will do it than to say no one will ever do it.

 

[bobholly39]

Nice story but you are using intuition. Math and the law of averages do not care about your intuition. The simple fact is that once someone proves they have 50 goal potential 9 50 goal seasons becomes plausible. Eventually one of those "plausible" players will hit if given a large enough sample size.

This is simple math, there is no debate here. It is the open, infinite nature of the timeline that makes this outcome inevitable. If you create a finite time limit, say 20 years, the possibility drops dramatically.

So it is far safer to say no one currently playing will do it than to say no one will ever do it.

Does this thread ask about nhl hockey in the year 2350? I figured we were talking about current players only.

For a current player to hit 50 goals 9 years in a row - a reasonable expectation would be that he'd have to average closer to ~55-57 goals a year to manage that.

Matthews isnt good enough to do that. Its possible - unlikely, but possible - he could put together an impressive enough prime to average 50 goals a year over 9 years. That wouldn't cut it though.

 

[BlueBaron]

Does this thread ask about nhl hockey in the year 2350? I figured we were talking about current players only.

For a current player to hit 50 goals 9 years in a row - a reasonable expectation would be that he'd have to average closer to ~55-57 goals a year to manage that.

Matthews isnt good enough to do that. Its possible - unlikely, but possible - he could put together an impressive enough prime to average 50 goals a year over 9 years. That wouldn't cut it though.

You are moving goal posts. First you asserted this magical 56 goal pace requirement and when that is debunked you want to go back to the original topic.

All I ever said was that your little requirement 56 goal pace is nice but not essential from a mathematical point of view. I have agreed with you that higher pace and durability are nice cushions. I'm not sure what you are even arguing about at this point.

I will go a step further. I agree the odds of Matthews(or any other current player) doing 9 50 goal seasons is probably in 1% territory. It is not about Matthews being good enough, which he is. It's about all the other factors working against him. I also find it amusing that Matthews was just on a 55 goal pace and somehow "is not good enough" to meet your arbitrary 56 mark. I probably should wonder about your agenda....

 

[Dache]

I don't think you know what triggered means. I am not upset, if you are projecting no need to be upset, calm down, take a deep breath. I get the sense you do not get how idiotic that post was.

I'll explain again. If you identify who your potential 50 goal scorers are (which those on pace for 50 are a good indicator of) then you are able to guess from that group which of them could do it 9 times. Pretending not knowing pace is helpful in this process is beyond bizarre. You can tell us all they don't need to have a pace to score 50 goals but that is just a strange form of denial. People who score 50 seasons almost always score at a 50 goal pace. We could discount people who scored at a 40 goal pace and then got 10 goals on the last day if that makes you happy but not sure how often that will come up.

I mean, you are basically just saying, "you don't have to fly to the moon, you just have to get to the moon" which of course requires flying. It's just not as clever as you think.

Finally you said something correct. Yes the people that actually score 50 score at a 50 goal pace, however not all that score at a 50 goal pace score 50. That’s why pace is useless in projecting who can do it for 9 straight seasons.

 

[Merrrlin]

Finally you said something correct. Yes the people that actually score 50 score at a 50 goal pace, however not all that score at a 50 goal pace score 50. That’s why pace is useless in projecting who can do it for 9 straight seasons.

Pace was only being mentioned to give context to a world with injuries. We understand 49 <> 50 even if the 49 player gpg*82 is 50.

Some people just find reasons to argue.

 

[McFlash97]

50 for 9 consecutive season. Nobody can do it. No one. Ovechkin couldnt do it. too many factors come into play to do it for 9 straight seasons.

 

[Dache]

Pace was only being mentioned to give context to a world with injuries. We understand 49 <> 50 even if the 49 player gpg*82 is 50.

Some people just find reasons to argue.

That’s the thing though. Injuries will play a huge factor in something like this. A player can’t get injured in the 9 season and say “well he was on pace for 50” so that counts as 9 straight seasons. I’m not arguing at all, I’m trying to have a logical conversation which is what this site should be about.

 

[BlueBaron]

Finally you said something correct. Yes the people that actually score 50 score at a 50 goal pace, however not all that score at a 50 goal pace score 50. That’s why pace is useless in projecting who can do it for 9 straight seasons.

Finally huh? my other 11k+ posts were all wrong? Ok then....

 

[Dache]

Finally huh? my other 11k+ posts were all wrong? Ok then....

I was just referring to our conversation, unless you truly believed I have read all 11k of your posts. Seems like a silly thing to comment but I guess that’s all you were left with.

 

[BlueBaron]

I was just referring to our conversation, unless you truly believed I have read all 11k of your posts. Seems like a silly thing to comment but I guess that’s all you were left with.

Saying I am finally right seemed pretty silly to since everything in this thread I stated was an undisputable fact so you know....silly is relative around here

 

[Dache]

Saying I am finally right seemed pretty silly to since everything in this thread I stated was an undisputable fact so you know....silly is relative around here

Dekes? That you? You haven’t said a single “fact” yet. Just because something is your opinion does not make it a fact

 

[BlueBaron]

Dekes? That you? You haven’t said a single “fact” yet. Just because something is your opinion does not make it a fact

ROFL. The laws of mathematics, which has been almost entirely what I have been expressing (with the exception of my 1% guess on Matthews), are in fact FACTS. Next you are going to tell me gravity and temperature are opinions to.

These mathematical facts may contradict your instincts but as I have previously stated, math does not give a shit about your opinion, your hunches or your intuition.

Donald Trump is that you?

 

[Dache]

ROFL. The laws of mathematics, which has been almost entirely what I have been expressing, are in fact FACTS. Next you are going to tell me gravity and temperature are opinions to.

These mathematical facts may contradict your instincts but as I have previously stated, math does not give a shit about your opinion, your hunches or your intuition.

Just stop man. I’ve never once argued that pacing for 50 goals = pacing for 50 goals which is what you seem to be arguing. I’m stating that pacing for 50 goals =/= scoring 50 goals which is what a player would need to do 9 times to complete what’s in question here.

 

[BlueBaron]

Just stop man. I’ve never once argued that pacing for 50 goals = pacing for 50 goals which is what you seem to be arguing. I’m stating that pacing for 50 goals =/= scoring 50 goals which is what a player would need to do 9 times to complete what’s in question here.

I have simply stated that anyone who paces for 50 goals is potentially mathematically capable of 9 50 goal seasons.

Your post doesn't make much sense, of course pacing for 50 goals is pacing for 50 goals...I also at no time claimed that pacing for 50 goals was in fact scoring 50 goals if that is what you are trying to say, only that it illustrates (assuming a reasonable sample size of course) people capable of scoring 50 goals who are in turn mathematically potential 9x50 goal men.

PS. Saying "Just stop man" does not give you a pass for falsely implying I have been presenting opinions like facts. When you slander people you tend to have to own up for it or hear about it.

 

[Dache]

I have simply stated that anyone who paces for 50 goals is potentially mathematically capable of 9 50 goal seasons.

Your post doesn't make much sense, of course pacing for 50 goals is pacing for 50 goals...I also at no time claimed that pacing for 50 goals was in fact scoring 50 goals if that is what you are trying to say, only that it illustrates (assuming a reasonable sample size of course) people capable of scoring 50 goals who are in turn mathematically potential 9x50 goal men.

Sure. Anyone that paces for 50 goals is possibly capable of this, but now you’re asking for a lot of luck over 9 years regarding injuries, lockouts etc. So if that’s the case and luck can be involved then we should include players that pace for 45 or even 40 goals. Because what if they make the season longer or the nets bigger. Then they could get it too.