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

[BlueBaron]

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.

It's not luck, it's mathematical probability. Not to say your 40 goal guy cant become a 50 goal guy but his odds would be much lower than someone who has proven capable of the feat. Predicting for potential rule changes is of course absurd because it presents infinite unknown variables making your equation useless.

I should point out that what feels like "Luck" in the short term is actually just an inevitable point in the probability arc from a long term point of view.

 

[Dache]

It's not luck, it's mathematical probability. Not to say your 40 goal guy cant become a 50 goal guy but his odds would be much lower than someone who has proven capable of the feat. Predicting for potential rule changes is of course absurd because it presents infinite unknown variables making your equation useless.

Luck would still need to be involved for that player to never get injured, never have a lockout, have the season cut short like this etc. So yes luck would still be involved, how can you deny that? Making my equation useless? I never gave an equation, that the whole point. Using pace is an equation, which has infinite unknown variables. I’m saying 50 goals = 50 goals which has zero variables.

 

[BlueBaron]

Luck would still need to be involved for that player to never get injured, never have a lockout, have the season cut short like this etc. So yes luck would still be involved, how can you deny that? Making my equation useless? I never gave an equation, that the whole point. Using pace is an equation, which has infinite unknown variables. I’m saying 50 goals = 50 goals which has zero variables.

What you call luck is already a factor in the probability arc. There are reasons 50 goal seasons are uncommon, health, difficulty, changes in talents you play with. These reasons are still more magnified each time you add a consecutive season. You can call these things luck if you like, the math gods won't care. The law of averages says it will happen if given enough time.

For it to happen right now or at a convenient time to you, sure call it luck, but it happening was inevitable, we just didn't know when Like I said before, my guess Matthews odds to be around 1% but I also say assuming hockey never ends it will 100% happen again without any rule changes.

 

[Dache]

What you call luck is already a factor in the probability arc. There are reasons 50 goal seasons are uncommon, health, difficulty, changes in talents you play with. These reasons are still more magnified each time you add a consecutive season. You can call these things luck if you like, the math gods won't care. The law of averages says it will happen if given enough time.

For it to happen right now or at a convenient time to you, sure call it luck, but it happening was inevitable, we just didn't know when Like I said before, my guess Matthews odds to be around 1% but I also say assuming hockey never ends it will 100% happen again without any rule changes.

When did this become about Matthews? And sure the laws of probability also say that one day when I open my dryer my clothes will already be folded. I guess as long as dryers are a thing long enough it 100% will happen

 

[BlueBaron]

When did this become about Matthews? And sure the laws of probability also say that one day when I open my dryer my clothes will already be folded. I guess as long as dryers are a thing long enough it 100% will happen

It's not about Matthews, I just used him as an example, my number would be 1% for Pasta and Dra to.

Not sure why you are so snarky about what the law of averages dictate when you started this whole argument disputing them. Actually scratch that, I don't care. You seem like you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Dache]

It's not about Matthews, I just used him as an example, my number would be 1% for Pasta and Dra to.

Not sure why you are so snarky about what the law of averages dictate when you started this whole argument disputing them. Actually scratch that, I don't care. You seem like you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Not being snarky in the slightest. Just making an example about how far fetched some of the things the laws of probability dictate. You’re the one arguing to no end about something even you claim only has a 1% chance of happening

 

[geofff]

Considering Ovechkin's max consecutive 50-goals seasons was 3... not of these guys are going 9. At least, it's extremely unlikely barring some drastic change to the rules.

Looking at this mathematically. Let's say a player has a 8/15 chance of hitting 50 goals each year. (Ovechkin did it 8/15 times)

(8/15)^9 = 0.00349 = 0.349%

This is for some specific 9-year span. In a 20 year career (being generous), there are 12 separate 9-year spans.

so 12*0.349% = 4.19%

So for every 24 Ovechkins, on average it would only happen once. And none of these guys are Ovechkin.

 

[Merrrlin]

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.

Again, that's not what we're saying though. We're using pace to show what kind of rate a player likely has to play at to hit 50 regularly because of injuries. The pace mentioned would net them 60+ in a healthy season.

 

[Holymakinaw]

Considering Ovechkin's max consecutive 50-goals seasons was 3... not of these guys are going 9. At least, it's extremely unlikely barring some drastic change to the rules.

Looking at this mathematically. Let's say a player has a 8/15 chance of hitting 50 goals each year. (Ovechkin did it 8/15 times)

(8/15)^9 = 0.00349 = 0.349%

This is for some specific 9-year span. In a 20 year career (being generous), there are 12 separate 9-year spans.

so 12*0.349% = 4.19%

So for every 24 Ovechkins, on average it would only happen once. And none of these guys are Ovechkin.

For sure. But this thread is not really about who ever will do it. I think we all know no one will do it.

It's just about who has the potential to.

 

[BlueBaron]

Considering Ovechkin's max consecutive 50-goals seasons was 3... not of these guys are going 9. At least, it's extremely unlikely barring some drastic change to the rules.

Looking at this mathematically. Let's say a player has a 8/15 chance of hitting 50 goals each year. (Ovechkin did it 8/15 times)

(8/15)^9 = 0.00349 = 0.349%

This is for some specific 9-year span. In a 20 year career (being generous), there are 12 separate 9-year spans.

so 12*0.349% = 4.19%

So for every 24 Ovechkins, on average it would only happen once. And none of these guys are Ovechkin.

The odds of winning a 1 in 10 gamble stays 1 in 10 even if you won the previous round as I understand it.

I feel like you nailed the likelihood, I doubt to see it in my life time but it will happen eventually.

 

[Dache]

Again, that's not what we're saying though. We're using pace to show what kind of rate a player likely has to play at to hit 50 regularly because of injuries. The pace mentioned would net them 60+ in a healthy season.

No, the pace mentioned in the first one I replied to was listing players on pace for 50 goals

 

[North Cole]

It's not luck, it's mathematical probability. Not to say your 40 goal guy cant become a 50 goal guy but his odds would be much lower than someone who has proven capable of the feat. Predicting for potential rule changes is of course absurd because it presents infinite unknown variables making your equation useless.

I should point out that what feels like "Luck" in the short term is actually just an inevitable point in the probability arc from a long term point of view.

Speaking of which, given infinite variables and time, pace is fairly pointless. Any player to come along with an unassuming pace could score this many 50 goal seasons. Doesn't matter if their odds are lower if we have forever to wait.

/thread

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.

Underlined is ironic, that infinite timeline you're arguing is okay, but infinite variables is useless. As though an infinite timeline precludes infinite variables....?

Bold is not all that revolutionary. Simple fact is, a meteor has the chance to wipe us out. Eventually one will.

Ok.

 

[BlueBaron]

Speaking of which, given infinite variables and time, pace is fairly pointless. Any player to come along with an unassuming pace could score this many 50 goal seasons. Doesn't matter if their odds are lower if we have forever to wait.

/thread



Underlined is ironic, that infinite timeline you're arguing is okay, but infinite variables is useless. As though an infinite timeline precludes infinite variables....?

Bold is not all that revolutionary. Simple fact is, a meteor has the chance to wipe us out. Eventually one will.

Ok.

While you feel I am stating the obvious (and I am) a good many are in denial of this fact.

 

[North Cole]

While you feel I am stating the obvious (and I am) a good many are in denial of this fact.

I dont think they are necessarily in denial, just they dont reconcile what you're saying with the title of the thread. Its two different conversations and the nature of an infinite amount of time, is that stats really dont matter because the most extreme outliers will happen an infinite number of times.

Doesnt matter how unlikely. With a 1 in 10 million chance to get struck by lightning - if I stood outside for an infinite amount of time, I would get struck an infinite amount of times. Logically that's hard to accept, because I'm not getting hit by lightning right now or at all today..(I hope). So how can I get hit by lightning an infinite number of times?

Infinity is a weird paradox and doesnt really have much bearing on the question the OP is asking.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

I can see Matthews leading the poll, but can everyone honestly see him healthy enough to play 9 full seasons consecutively to get there?