fanaticV3.0 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 the ppg stat often comes up when guys who missed a lot of time due to injury are brought up. Isn't it a weak argument to say that if he played more he would have HOF numbers? You really can't make that assumption. If you go to this website, the top names are quite different when you sort it by games played vs. ppg. More games doesn't always mean more points and in some of those cases, you can see the guys averages likely went down because of how long they played. Plus, is it really fair to compare guys who played 500, 600, 700+ games to players who played 1,000 games? I think the stat can only be applied to the past or present (if he's still active). So and so did___ or is on pace to do ____ this season. But to take that and project it over 100s of games never played? That is not a strong case for hockey immortality imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Yeah, it can create problems -"What if" isn't a great place to begin the HOF arguments for a player, and ends up having more to do with the skills of the arguer than it does the player's objective qualifications.-Comparing raw PPG can be extremely era-sensitive.-Comparing the PPG of a 28-year old player against a player who played a full career can be very unfair to the older player, since the younger player's PPG haven't yet been affected by the decline phase of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Yeah, it can create problems -"What if" isn't a great place to begin the HOF arguments for a player, and ends up having more to do with the skills of the arguer than it does the player's objective qualifications.-Comparing raw PPG can be extremely era-sensitive.-Comparing the PPG of a 28-year old player against a player who played a full career can be very unfair to the older player, since the younger player's PPG haven't yet been affected by the decline phase of his career. Agreed and I would say the same for point totals too. The true greats are in a league of their own, but the 80s and parts of the 90s are loaded with guys who have a sh-t ton of points because of who they played with and the era they played in. Kurri, Robataille, Francis, guys like that. I'm not saying they are bad players, but without their teammates or the eras they are in, no way they put up the numbers they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Agreed and I would say the same for point totals too. The true greats are in a league of their own, but the 80s and parts of the 90s are loaded with guys who have a sh-t ton of points because of who they played with and the era they played in. Kurri, Robataille, Francis, guys like that. I'm not saying they are bad players, but without their teammates or the eras they are in, no way they put up the numbers they did.Surprisingly enough, Robitaille's career high in points (125) was actually a year when Gretzky only played 45 games and has 65 points.Although those 125 points were only good enough for 9th in points...goes to show the early 90s were just as high in scoring as the rest of the 80s.Only from 1996, is when it really became a low scoring era Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 the ppg stat often comes up when guys who missed a lot of time due to injury are brought up. Isn't it a weak argument to say that if he played more he would have HOF numbers? You really can't make that assumption. If you go to this website, the top names are quite different when you sort it by games played vs. ppg. More games doesn't always mean more points and in some of those cases, you can see the guys averages likely went down because of how long they played. Plus, is it really fair to compare guys who played 500, 600, 700+ games to players who played 1,000 games? I think the stat can only be applied to the past or present (if he's still active). So and so did___ or is on pace to do ____ this season. But to take that and project it over 100s of games never played? That is not a strong case for hockey immortality imo. It all depends on who you are talking about. If it's Mario, it's safe to assume that he would have scored at the same rate he always did....2nd best ppg ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 Surprisingly enough, Robitaille's career high in points (125) was actually a year when Gretzky only played 45 games and has 65 points.Although those 125 points were only good enough for 9th in points...goes to show the early 90s were just as high in scoring as the rest of the 80s.Only from 1996, is when it really became a low scoring era The early 90s were definitely as high scoring as the 80s. Robataille was such an odd player. All his best seasons came in LA, regardless of whether it was the early 90s or who he played with. Dude had a mental block whenever he left that team, but when he came back, BAM, he'd play better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 It all depends on who you are talking about. If it's Mario, it's safe to assume that he would have scored at the same rate he always did....2nd best ppg ever. It's easy (and safe) to assume that when a guy has played 917 games and scored 1723 points. His stats are so disproportionate to the games he played, he's shown he truly is one of the best ever. It gets tougher-to-impossible though with guys who had shortened careers or were products of a certain team/era. I am not even sure you can put the guys who have played 500-700 or so games in the same conversation as the 1000+ guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The early 90s were definitely as high scoring as the 80s. Offense was well above today's totals, but that's still almost 30 goals per team difference between the 80s and early 90s. It wasn't a tough scoring environment, but definitely not as rich as the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 The early 90s were definitely as high scoring as the 80s. Well that was enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I edited my post. Don't know why it wasn't showing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.