rallymaster19
Guest
If you think Yzerman would have hit over 130 points in 2003 in his prime, then you are deluding yourself.
He would still likely lead the league in scoring, but he would not score 130+ points.
I can see him topping out at the high 120's. I picked 130 because I just do not see him topping 130. Jagr's 127 point mark in the same era was what I consider equal to Yzerman's 155 point year.
So thinking Yzerman could have scored in “the high 120’s†is reasonable but to think he could have scored 130 is delusional?
Because that makes sense.
As if everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your theory is delusional? You go through my posts history, question why I seem to post on a single player almost exclusively (which is quite frankly none of your business), come to the conclusion that I am “fanatical†and assert that I am delusional because I think Yzerman could have scored 130 points in 2003. Meanwhile you think Yzerman could have scored at least 127 points but not more than 130 and aren’t delusional, are unbiased because you post on an Internet forum about a variety of players and have such intimate knowledge of important hockey figures to judge guys like Burke and Rutherford being inferior to certain others.
Perhaps you should proof-read your own posts before posting and cease the lousy advice to others.
You chose one of the highest GPG years in 80's history. not the highest, but the second highest. You should have been using the average, not cherry picking the highest scoring year to make it look worse. You also failed to adjust for league size. By rights, all arguments on how many 100 point scorers we would have need to be increased 30% based on the league being 30% larger(30 teams instead of 21). The average year in the 80's, we had 12 100+ point scorers. That number averages to 18 when bumped by a third as it should be for league size, and that is just the average. In some years, there were 16+ 100 point scorers(more if you adjust to 82 games, sometimes as high as 18), therefore, adjusting up 30% would make 24-26 100 point scorers.
What don’t you get about 1986 just being a year, any year? The results are posted as probabilities and the base year containing the second highest scoring on record or the second lowest on record is irrelevant. Even running numbers based on the 2009 season of 82 games and 5.83 GPG, with an adjustment in 100-point scorers based on league size (aka number of teams), it is still mathematically only 0.03% possible that only Gretzky could have scored 100 points in 3 different seasons in the 1980s, as the adjusted numbers tell you. Based on the 1986 base season numbers, with the additional adjustment for league size (# of teams), the probability of the number of 100-point scorers being as high as they are based on the adjusted stats from 1990-2009 is on average 0.398% per season, and as low as 0.000001336% for 2001.
Also, by the way, your interpretation is incorrect anyway. Because it is based on a 1986 season you are looking at, the 90s/2000s numbers should be adjusted down to 21 teams not 80s numbers adjusted up to 30 teams. I have accounted for this in my calculations above, and the games/season adjustment was already done.
We estimated 25 100 point scorers when it was done correctly for 2003. the number does not seem outrageous given the much larger league size, parity among teams, etc
No, you estimated 25 100-point scorers based on flawed logic that you intentionally used to support your argument. The correct number is 30.
P.S I think you have me mixed up with someone else. The only time I referenced the Hockey news in the Messier/Yzerman thread was their 1997 list which was a collection of much brighter minds than those who did the 2007 list. if you see a point when I raised the 2007 list, then link it. I need to see the argument in context to the discussion it was being used in.
My apologies then, I made the assumption you were referencing the THN Top 60 Since Expansion at that time and not the earlier list from 1997. As pointed out earlier by seventieslord, it is odd that you chose a ranking from 97 to support that Messier was better than Yzerman considering the two players’ timelines in the NHL.
I glance at everyone's posting history when I get into a long debate to see if they have external influences and bias that sway their opinions and make them unreachable. Your posting History being so small, and almost every post exclusively about Yzerman, sometimes with a borderline fanatical tone, along with your name suggests serious bias. If I remember correctly, you even made an account on this forum specifically because you were annoyed with the Messier vs Yzerman thread.
You have not shown interest in talking about almost anyone but Yzerman. The likelyhood that you are obviously a very fanatical Yzerman fan is almost overwhelming.
You will see no wrong where he is concerned and it affects your objectivity.
Somehow you are a great judge of character and without knowing a thing about me outside of a few posts I make on a public Internet forum, you have come to all these personal conclusions about myself. Really think about that.
You know nothing about me. Quit making these outrageous claims and stop posting garbage about others. You sound utterly foolish in your tone of voice.