What's more impressive; 70 goals or 100 assists?

[Crabapple]

The assists, because my player is the one that could get it.

But in all seriousness, 70 goals is better, if I could choose a player who I know will score 70 goals or 100 assists, I would choose 70 goals. However, the poll is asking what is more impressive, and that would be 100 assists based on who has accomplished the feat vs. who has scored 70 goals. Only Orr, Lemieux, and Gretzky (11 times) have hit 100 assists. The list of 70-goal seasons is bigger. To be on the list with only the 3 GOATS is something special.

 

[Frank Drebin]

*IF* Adam Oates played an entire season in 90-91 and registered 100+ assists

*or* had he recorded 3 assists more in the 84 games he played for the bruins in 92-93

*or* had Joe Thornton recorded 4 more assists in 05-06

Then the 100 assist club wouldn't have the same prestige it does today.

But those things didn't happen. And the only players to register triple digit assists in a season just happen to be 3 of the 4 best players to have ever played the game.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Goals for the pure fact that secondary assists exist, and sometimes you get those from literally just touching the puck and having no impact on the play that caused the goal to be scored.

if it's that "easy" to get assists, why have only 3 players ever hit 100 assists in a season?

 

[authentic]

Well the record shows it has so far. Just sayin'

100 assist guys who are top 5 of all time = 3/3
100 assist guys who are not regarded top 5 of all time = null set

So you don’t think Adam Oates gets 10 more assists in 19 games the season he had 90 in 61? Not everything has to be so black and white and oversimplified here. There have been pages of legitimate arguments why 70 goals could be viewed as good or better than 100 assists. I personally think they are roughly equal and there’s not really a wrong answer but I chose goals as a general preference, and looks like the majority seems to agree.

 

[DowJones]

Pretty close but not “exactly” so goals is a bit higher imo in todays NHL. Hard to judge since it is difficult to use historically stats since the amount of goals the top scorers scores changes so much between eras.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

Since the discussion seems to be swaying towards adding players who could have paced for both milestones, I thought I would add some information.

The following is a list of all players that were pacing for 70+ goals that played 41 ormore games in a season:

NHL stats

There are 31 instances across league history by the following 17 players:

Mario Lemieux (x5)
Wayne Gretzky (x4)
Phil Esposito (x3)
Brett Hull (x3)
Mike Bossy (x2)
Jari Kurri (x2)
Charlie Simmer (x2)
Dit Clapper (x1)
Auston Matthews (x1)
Alexander Mogilny (x1)
Howie Morenz (x1)
Cam Neely (x1)
Bernie Nicholls (x1)
Maurice Richard (x1)
Teemu Selanne (x1)
Nels Stewart (x1)
Cooney Weiland (x1)

The following is a list of all players that were pacing for 100+ assists that played 41 or more games in a season:

NHL stats

There are 21 instances across league history from the following 5 players:

Wayne Gretzky (x11)
Mario Lemieux (x6)
Connor McDavid (x2)
Adam Oates (x1)
Bobby Orr (x1)

100 assists (or 100 assist pace) is a rarer feat, and has been more exclusively achieved by all time talents. For me it is the more impressive accomplishment.

 

[TheStatican]

41 games is a laughable sample size and easily proven to be meaningless for the purpose of extrapolated totals. For instance Mike Bossy was on pace to score 70 or more goals 4 times at or shortly after the 41 game mark in a season. And how many times did he actually score 70 goals? Zero.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

41 games is a laughable sample size and easily proven to be meaningless for the purpose of extrapolated totals. For instance Mike Bossy was on pace to score 70 or more goals 4 times at or shortly after the 41 game mark in a season. And how many times did he actually score 70 goals? Zero.

Thanks tips, I tend to not place much value on the paced thing either. For instance I find the what ifs with Crosby's career can often be very optimistic for him. But since people were discussing it I thought to add some info.

Always appreciate your input.

 

[TheStatican]

Thanks tips, I tend to not place much value on the paced thing either. For instance I find the what ifs with Crosby's career can often be very optimistic for him.

Not sure what Crosby has to do with anything in this thread, but ok? Is this an attempted shot at me because of my team allegiance? For the record I don't personally project Crosby as scoring exactly 64 goals had he played out the '11 season, I think a total around 55, give or take a few would have been the end result.

 

[Grifter3511]

Thanks tips, I tend to not place much value on the paced thing either. For instance I find the what ifs with Crosby's career can often be very optimistic for him. But since people were discussing it I thought to add some info.

Always appreciate your input.

I mean, if @TheStatican wants to get specific, you could just say more players have had 35 goals after 41 games than have had 50 assists after 41 games, therefore it's easier to get 35 goals than 50 assists.

At the end of the day, by any measuring point, whether it's end of the season, mid season pace, or anywhere in between, it is harder to get or pace for 100 assists than it is 70 goals.

 

[93gilmour93]

So far the results of this poll lean heavily to one side....

 

[TheStatican]

I mean, if @TheStatican wants to get specific, you could just say more players have had 35 goals after 41 games than have had 50 assists after 41 games, therefore it's easier to get 35 goals than 50 assists.

At the end of the day, by any measuring point, whether it's end of the season, mid season pace, or anywhere in between, it is harder to get or pace for 100 assists than it is 70 goals.

One - where's the data that proves that? By all means show it.
Two - Your still ignoring desirability.

Once again here's the link to a peer reviewed study that corroborates the fact that athletes actually modify their behavior to meet specific end-of-year benchmark figures. This phenomenon is particularly evident in goal-scoring benchmarks, as evidenced by the significant and unnatural increase in the number of 50-goal scorers. However, this behavior IS NOT observed in assist benchmarks. These are the number of times NHL players have hit each total for goals and assists.

 

[Grifter3511]

One - where's the data that proves that? By all means show it.
Two - Your still ignoring desirability.

Once again here's the link to a peer reviewed study that corroborates the fact that athletes actually modify their behavior to meet specific end-of-year benchmark figures. This phenomenon is particularly evident in goal-scoring benchmarks, as evidenced by the significant and unnatural increase in the number of 50-goal scorers. However, this behavior IS NOT observed in assist benchmarks. These are the number of times NHL players have hit each total for goals and assists.
View attachment 827279

The data is in this thread. On the first page we have the number of players who have hit each milestone and how many times it has happened, and then the poster I quoted gave you a list of every player in league history who was on pace for those milestones after 41 games. You have dismissed them both and now ask for evidence. It's in this thread.

As for your second point, I'm not sure how a player desiring a specific outcome equates to a fan finding it more impressive than a different outcome.

Edit: you can produce all the charts and variables that you like. For my money, nothing will trump the exclusivity factor. For instance, you get invited to an 'exclusive club.' You show up to your first meeting and see 8 or 9 other guys there. Some you know for sure. There's the great one, and Brett hull, lemieux, etc. There's also a guy or two you're not overly familiar with but once introductions are done you're like, 'right, Bernie Nicholls, I know who you are.

Now you get invited to a second 'exclusive club.' You show up to your first meeting and there are 3 people there. They just so happen to be the greatest players to ever play the game: Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr.

Which club would you consider more exclusive? Which one would you be more impressed to be invited to join?

Shit on the analogy all you want, but that's what it comes down to for me. One is more impressive than the other.

 

[TheStatican]

I'm talking about this;

more players have had 35 goals after 41 games than have had 50 assists after 41 games

But you obviously don't have that data.

 

[Grifter3511]

I'm talking about this;

But you obviously don't have that data.

I'm sorry, did you take something different away from @klefbombs shoulder or are you being purposefully obtuse because he said 'minimum 41 games' and I said 'after 41 games?'

 

[GrumpyKoala]

7 goals or 10 assists?

0.7 goal or 1 assist?

 

[TheStatican]

I'm sorry, did you take something different away from @klefbombs shoulder or are you being purposefully obtuse because he said 'minimum 41 games' and I said 'after 41 games?'

I'm sorry, but you're completely out to lunch since for example, EXACTLY the same number of players have scored 61 goals as have players who've gotten 87 assists(the exact same ratio of goals to assists) over the course of an entire season, never mind some random number of games. But the next 13 assists beyond that are suddenly worth oh so much more than the next 9 goals.

 

[Grifter3511]

I'm sorry, but you're completely out to lunch since for example, EXACTLY the same number of players have scored 61 goals as have players who've gotten 87 assists(the exact same ratio of goals to assists) over the course of an entire season, never mind some random number of games. But the next 13 assists beyond that are suddenly worth oh so much more than the next 9 goals.

Now you're getting it! Pleasure discussing with you.

 

[Dfence033]

Not to interrupt the love fest between Leaf and Oiler fans, but in absolute terms in a vacuum where you can  only have 70 goals or 100 assists, it's goals.

However, with the added context, I think it swings heavily the other way. If the question was asked: "Which is more impressive: scoring 70 goals in a season or a player beating a 70 goal scorer in points in a season while only counting his assists?"

That is one of the most quoted stats about Gretzky for a reason. And much to the apparent disappointment of one group of fans, we aren't that far off of this reality in the "Matthews > McDavid" debate this was clearly intended to be.

Despite his goals, Matthews has 78 points. In three less games played (and the obvious injury he'd been playing through when he returned), McDavid has 72 assists. That's a completely different context of domination against the field.

 

[WalterLundy]

41 games is a laughable sample size and easily proven to be meaningless for the purpose of extrapolated totals. For instance Mike Bossy was on pace to score 70 or more goals 4 times at or shortly after the 41 game mark in a season. And how many times did he actually score 70 goals? Zero.

I’m of the opinion that extrapolated totals are even more meaningless than any arbitrary games played cutoff to project from. It’s really impossible to predict. I made a list at the end of last season of the best points per game all time for a single season a player reached with at least 70% of an 82 games played mark (57 GP). I think that’s “better” than 41 games but at the end of the day it’s hard to pick one. If I picked 80% of 82 games played then ‘93 Lemieux and other phenomenal seasons wouldn’t make the cut so I thought close to 60 games as the cutoff made sense.

The question I’m asking you is what do you think? What sample size do you think is sufficient? I genuinely am interested what you think so I’ll defer to you here.

 

[Grifter3511]

Not to interrupt the love fest between Leaf and Oiler fans

Hey, I would just like to make it clear, for the record, that although I have posted a decent amount in this thread I am neither an Oilers or Leafs fan. Both those teams can suffer miserably and neither McDavid or Matthews can hit these arbitrary numbers for all I care (in fact if I'm being honest I'd prefer neither of them did).

 

[bucks_oil]

So you don’t think Adam Oates gets 10 more assists in 19 games the season he had 90 in 61? Not everything has to be so black and white and oversimplified here. There have been pages of legitimate arguments why 70 goals could be viewed as good or better than 100 assists. I personally think they are roughly equal and there’s not really a wrong answer but I chose goals as a general preference, and looks like the majority seems to agree.

You are moving the goalposts. Adam Oates didn't do it though, did he... and if you asked me about the top 5 playmakers of all time Adam Oates probably makes my list, so he certainly wouldn't greatly diminish the exclusivity of that club. Same could be said for Thornton or Lafontaine.

Do Nichols, Mogilny or Selanne (with much respect to each) make your list of all time greatest goalscorers? It's tough to say right? Selanne's in the top 12 all time, but that was more longevity than anything else... Neither Mogilny or Nichols are in the top 50 all time.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's not close... they are both amazing accomplishments. My original comment is that I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided given all of the evidence says 100 assists is far more rare as an individual accomplishment.

And I stand by that statement 100%. It is a rare hockey mind (skill talent etc) that can sniff 100 assists. Only three guys did it and only another 3-4 ever got even close.

As for the results of poll, I reiterate my surprise... There is a bit of a hive mind going on here which is blinded to the facts.

 

[authentic]

You are moving the goalposts. Adam Oates didn't do it though, did he... and if you asked me about the top 5 playmakers of all time Adam Oates probably makes my list, so he certainly wouldn't greatly diminish the exclusivity of that club. Same could be said for Thornton or Lafontaine.

Do Nichols, Mogilny or Selanne (with much respect to each) make your list of all time greatest goalscorers? It's tough to say right? Selanne's in the top 12 all time, but that was more longevity than anything else... Neither Mogilny or Nichols are in the top 50 all time.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's not close... they are both amazing accomplishments. My original comment is that I am surprised that the poll is so lopsided given all of the evidence says 100 assists is far more rare as an individual accomplishment.

And I stand by that statement 100%. It is a rare hockey mind (skill talent etc) that can sniff 100 assists. Only three guys did it and only another 3-4 ever got even close.

As for the results of poll, I reiterate my surprise... There is a bit of a hive mind going on here which is blinded to the facts.

You don’t know what moving the goal posts means do you?

The point is that he wouldn’t have been anywhere close to a top 5 player if he had done it and he was more than capable of it in less than 70 games, and would’ve 100% reached it if he played the remaining 19 games in 1990-91 as he only needed 10 assists, basically 1/3 of his pace the entire season. It’s really not any more complicated than that.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

Not sure what Crosby has to do with anything in this thread, but ok? Is this an attempted shot at me because of my team allegiance? For the record I don't personally project Crosby as scoring exactly 64 goals had he played out the '11 season, I think a total around 55, give or take a few would have been the end result.

I mentioned Crosby as people often extrapolate out his shortened seasons, particularly 2011-12 as some of the best in the cap era. But as you stated small sample sizes can be problematic.

 

[AuraSphere]

lmao bardown/tsn on hfboards - they just copied this poll and posted it on ig.