Were there serious talk about 100 goals in season?

[vadim sharifijanov]

but i also remember that hull himself said, nope it's not possible. everything went right this year and i was still 14 goals away.

in hull's big '91 season, oates missed 18 straight games in november and the first half of december. in those games, hull scored 16 goals.

so 70 goals in 60 games (technically oates missed two other games but i’m not going to search for those singles). assuming hull plays the full 80 instead of 78, that’s 93 goals in an imaginary perfect season.

hell, let’s put that pace in the 84 game schedule of 1993 and 94. that’s still “only” 98 goals.

maybe someone needs to search for those two other games oates missed... maybe 100 was possible if absolutely everything went right: health, schedule, chemistry, and perfectly synchronized peak seasons.

 

[Jets4Life]

Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux, Bure, Mogilny, Selänne - all of them did monster seasons in goals. But at that time, when they peaked - did the media and fans talked about 100 goals season?

Of course. 1991, in particular, many wondered if Brett Hull could reach the 100 goal mark for the 1991-92 season, after finishing with a career-high 86 goals in 1990-91.

 

[Big Phil]

wow that pretty much ends the conversation

haha, we'll see. Records are meant to be broken of course, but to do this you have to break what some think is among the most impossible records to break (50 in 39) twice in the same season. What planet is that player going to come from?

 

[The Panther]

haha, we'll see. Records are meant to be broken of course, but to do this you have to break what some think is among the most impossible records to break (50 in 39) twice in the same season. What planet is that player going to come from?

Of course, we take any praise Wayne Gretzky says with a grain of salt, but I recall after Ovechkin's 65-goal season, and Gretzky said something like, "I think he can break my 92 record". Of course, Ovechkin didn't and won't now, and he peaked 27 goals short. And that's the highest raw number we've seen since, what, Mario 22 years ago? So, 27 short is the best chance to break that record in more than a generation. And as Phil says, someone would essentially have to go '50-in-39' twice in the same season.

Given all this, and the current NHLPA dominance and systems-first style of the NHL, I maintain that this (and many other scoring-related) record(s) are never going to be broached without dramatic and fundamental changes to the nature of the sport.

(EDITED because I realized 1996 was not 32 years ago. Gimme a break, I'm sleep-deprived from raising a newborn...)

 

[Spirit of 67]

Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux, Bure, Mogilny, Selänne - all of them did monster seasons in goals. But at that time, when they peaked - did the media and fans talked about 100 goals season?

No, not really.

Gretzky got to 92 and that was a huge, huge number obviously.
Another 8 goals on top of that is almost impossible to imagine.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

There was talk of Hall challenging the 100 goal mark following his 86 goal season. 91-92 season was San Jose's first season. I was thought that with the dilution of other rosters plus the easy pickings that was the Sharks, that Hall would have a legit shot at the century mark. I think there was an article or two about it at the time.

 

[Jets4Life]

Michel Goulet once said in an interview that he thought if he played with Gretzky he'd have been the first 100 goal player just because of all of the chances he'd get.

In other words, Goulet is a moron?

 

[Johnny Engine]

In other words, Goulet is a moron?

Or just a flippant teller of fish tales. Goulet really isn’t accountable to any standard of truth when people ask him about stuff like this.

 

[daver]

The most serious talk should have been after the 83/84 season where Wayne was on pace for 100 after 62 games. I would guess that was the most games played into a season that a player was pacing for 100.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Given the 84 game schedule in 93. Lemieux would have done it or came damn close

 

[The Panther]

The most serious talk should have been after the 83/84 season where Wayne was on pace for 100 after 62 games. I would guess that was the most games played into a season that a player was pacing for 100.

The 'problem' that season is that his 62nd game was on March 4th, but should have been on February 21st -- the six games he missed were Feb.3rd to Feb.12th. I guess, after he came back, there was no longer any realistic chance of hitting 100. (Not that he didn't try -- he scored 12 goals in the first five games back from injury, but after that, he let up a bit.)

It's telling of how dominant Gretzky was in this period that he scored 50 goals in 42 games, and no one cared.

 

[Big Phil]

In other words, Goulet is a moron?

No, I wouldn't say he was. I'd say he was hopeful. Maybe he felt some good chemistry with Gretzky in 1984. I like the idea of him getting 70 a couple of times with Gretzky because Kurri peaked at that number and he wasn't any better at scoring goals. But 100? No. Maybe............MAYBE Mario on the same line or same team as Gretzky with both in their prime hits 100 goals.

 

[Tarantula]

I would think Goulet's comments were largely off the cuff, much like a commentator who turns and says to his broadcast partner that even he would score 50 with those line mates, doubt he was serious or meant to be taken literally.

 

[Jets4Life]

No, I wouldn't say he was. I'd say he was hopeful. Maybe he felt some good chemistry with Gretzky in 1984. I like the idea of him getting 70 a couple of times with Gretzky because Kurri peaked at that number and he wasn't any better at scoring goals. But 100? No. Maybe............MAYBE Mario on the same line or same team as Gretzky with both in their prime hits 100 goals.

Kurri was better than Goulet. Goulet may have had a 60 goal season with Gretz, but that is about it.

 

[The Panther]

Kurri was better than Goulet. Goulet may have had a 60 goal season with Gretz, but that is about it.

I think the point of Goulet's casual statement was to point out how nice it was to play on Gretzky's wing, not to big-up himself and boast about it.

(I started a thread on Goulet a while back, but I'm too lazy to look it up now.)

 

[Big Phil]

I think the point of Goulet's casual statement was to point out how nice it was to play on Gretzky's wing, not to big-up himself and boast about it.

(I started a thread on Goulet a while back, but I'm too lazy to look it up now.)

This is true. Goulet was praising Gretzky, not patting himself on the back for something hypothetical.

Kurri was better than Goulet. Goulet may have had a 60 goal season with Gretz, but that is about it.

He was a better player, but was he a better goal scorer? Either way, Kurri was the better fit because he was able to do all he did while playing excellent defense.

 

[Normand Lacombe]

100 goals is possible and I believe I will see it in the next 20-25 years. Lemieux was on pace for 100 before his Hodgins diagnosis in 1993. Gretzky had his 92. And an 87 goal year while missing 6 games. Could Gretzky have scored 13 goals in 6 games? Absolutely. To hit 100 goals, a team will need that once in a lifetime player of course. And a head coach who emphasizes offense. Hockey, like other sports, is always evolving.

 

[The Panther]

100 goals is possible and I believe I will see it in the next 20-25 years. Lemieux was on pace for 100 before his Hodgins diagnosis in 1993.

Actually, he wasn't. When he left for his medical consultation and then treatments, he'd scored 39 goals in 40 games (pace is for 82 goals in 84 games). Mogilny actually tied him a few days later, on January 8th. It was more when Mario came back from treatment that the Pens went on a late-season tear and he went crazy with something like 28 goals in his final 15 games. But at no time was he on pace for 100.

Gretzky had his 92. And an 87 goal year while missing 6 games. Could Gretzky have scored 13 goals in 6 games? Absolutely.

I think Gretzky had his chance in 1981-82, but -- again -- he'd have needed to scored 50 in 40 twice in the same season. I mean, the guy scored 42 goals in the last 40 games and it was a "slump". He was on pace for 100 goals for about six days or something at the end of 1981, merging into the start of 1982. But by mid-January he'd fallen off the pace.

So, think about this: the two most offensively gifted scorers ever in the history of the sport, playing in the two "easiest" seasons ever for scorers to put up big numbers (1981-82 and 1992-93), both playing for offensively-slanted teams that were easily #1 in League offense, were collectively on pace for a 100-goal season for about a week in one mid-season.

Players with the offensive talent of those two guys come along, say, once every 50 years...? So, there's a 1/50 chance of it being close to happening in a half-century.

Then, those guys have to play in a high-scoring season with a lot of offense. So, now it's about a 1/300 chance of it being close to happening in a half-century.

Then, those guys have to play on really good teams that lead the League in scoring. So, now it's about a 1/800 chance of it being close to happening in a half-century.


So, yeah, if you wait around another 50 years or so, I'd say there's a 1 in 800 chance!

-- Debbie Downer