Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

WordsOfWisdom

Should the NHL "Pro-rate" The Stats for This Season (if it's lost)? - Matthews Fantastic Season (Merged)

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

See, this is all the more reason for the NHL to pro-rate the stats this season. The integrity of various records depends on it.  People still want to put an asterisk next to the New Jersey Devils for winning in 1995 because it was a shortened season. So that's fine, put a "*" next to the team W-L records and player stats, but pro-rate everything to 82 games (so all teams have the same number of games played) and make those the official numbers. Bump the player stats based on how many games were remaining for their respective team and bump them based on their per-game averages for this season. 

 

 

 

 

I think that the integrity of these matters depends on us NOT awarding records to people that haven't actually broken them.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

See, this is all the more reason for the NHL to pro-rate the stats this season.

 

No...as I said before...it opens a Pandora's Box you do not want to open.  So player A gets a $$ contract bonus if he achieves "X" amount of points / goals / assists / etc .....  If the player does not achieve said standards in according to his contract he does not get paid. Period. You cannot pro-rate stats to get contract bonus incentives.  First it would have to be in the NHLPA CBA and ratified by both the owners and players.  The owners would never approve this....never.....

 

Example.... I am a pharmacist at a pharmacy and could get a bonus if I achieve X dollars in a fiscal year.  Due to natural disasters I am forced to closed the store for x days and I fall short of my bonus goals.....my company WILL NOT prorated my dollars .... I did not achieve it. PERIOD. END OF STORY....  Therefore no bonus....

 

Same applies here..... I get you are board and there is no hockey....but the NHL  should NEVER  pro-rate stats.....  IT is a bummer I get it...but that is the way life goes .... time to move on.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Maybe they could prorate totals for teams too. Like say you're playing in a crappy division that has the likes of Detroit/Ottawa/Buffalo/Montreal/Florida, heck even Toronto in it, maybe make goals you scored against those teams only worth half a goal and team points worth maybe 2/3 of a point. Waddaya think?

 

🥺

 

Pro-rating (is it prorating, pro rating, or pro-rating?) the stats is important for another reason too: the NHL player awards for this season. Who wins the various trophies if teams don't have the same number of games played?  The only fair thing to do is pro-rate/pro rate/prorate the stats to put everyone on a level playing field. 

 

No other season in NHL history has ever ended with teams playing a different number of games, correct? This is unprecedented and I think it calls for unique action on the part of the league. 

 

All I'm saying is just use simple extrapolation to fill in the gaps. Nothing fancy. Award playoff positions, player trophies, and everything else based off of that. Ditto for bonuses to player contracts. 

 

I know I'm alone on this one, and the ointment is soothing, but is it really so crazy?

 

(FYI: This is my one thread to hide from Coronavirus and talk hockey.)

Edited by WordsOfWisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I thought this warranted a spot in the general discussion area......

 

My thoughts are yes! The NHL should extrapolate the team and player stats based on the games remaining for each team and the per-game averages for each player. It's simple and easy to do. Nothing fancy needed here.

 

This would be used to determine:

  • Playoff seeds (if we do get a playoff)
  • Player awards
  • Team awards
  • Player bonuses for performance
  • NHL and team records (if any)

 

The Rationale:  

No other season in NHL history has ever ended with teams playing a different number of games, correct? This is unprecedented and I think it calls for unique action on the part of the league. 

 

This is not the same as a lockout. This is not the same as the league playing a schedule of fewer than 82 games. This is not the same as a player being injured. This is different from those.

 

Other have said you can't open Pandora's box, can't make exceptions, and can't violate the integrity of those records, but do those records have any integrity if they were clearly broken if not for you-know-what? I say no. Records that stand only on account of a technicality should not be the official records. 

 

(FYI: This is an excuse to hide from Coronavirus and talk hockey. So yes, priorities I know, but I want to talk hockey for a bit.)  :) 

Edited by WordsOfWisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No.

 

If you want to credit players with accolades, feel free. Certainly everyone will consider Matthews to have been on pace for 55 and Ovechkin to tie Gretzky for 50 goal seasons. But it will not go on recordbooks anywhere.

 

Should we be prorating Gordie Howe as the first 100 point player because the NHL only played 70 games the season he set the record with 95? We don't need to. We all know how amazing a feat it was back in the day of all the best players in the league concentrated on 6 teams who knew player habits.

 

Should we adjust Joe Thornton's total to reflect that if he played in the 80's he likely is at worst 4th all time on the all time points list? I mean jesus he's 14th all time now and not a single player ahead of him started in the dead puck era like he did(Gordie Howe played in a worse era for scoring tho). In fact, he likely would be easily #2 all time in assists behind only Gretzky. He lost a full prime season to the 05 lockout and a half season to the 13 lockout and he is still close to 2nd all time in assists, less than 200 assists short.

 

Point being, we know Matthews was having an amazing season and we don;t need to stencil it on paper to say so :)

Edited by J0e Th0rnton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

No.

 

I'm glad you expanded on that.  :) 

 

4 hours ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

If you want to credit players with accolades, feel free.

 

That's exactly what the purpose of this pro-rating of stats would do. It would be an acknowledgement by the NHL that the players did it. It would be the NHL's way of giving these players the accolades they deserve.

 

4 hours ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

Certainly everyone will consider Matthews to have been on pace for 55 and Ovechkin to tie Gretzky for 50 goal seasons. But it will not go on recordbooks anywhere.

 

That's the problem. People won't look at Matthews total this season because they'll assume he missed 12 games due to injury and write it off as the final total. It won't crack any of the top lists for best seasons on the Leafs or anywhere else. People don't deep dive into the stats to understand why something turned out the way it did. All it will say is: 70 GP, 47 G. People will say: "D@mn, that Auston Matthews sure was an injury prone player". 

 

Just as people are going to say Gretzky was just a bit better than Ovechkin because he had one more 50-goal season than Ovie did. 

 

The league can put a "*" next to the season and say the data was pro-rated to 82 games on account of the Coronavirus pandemic. Leaving it the way it is now makes the league look broken.  :( 

 

4 hours ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

Should we be prorating Gordie Howe as the first 100 point player because the NHL only played 70 games the season he set the record with 95? We don't need to. We all know how amazing a feat it was back in the day of all the best players in the league concentrated on 6 teams who knew player habits.

 

I'm not advocating mass changes to stats based on what era someone played in or how long their season was. I'm advocating a change to the data for THIS season only, to put every team at 82 GP and to pro-rate the players stats accordingly. (Not bumping every player up to 82 games but bumping every player's CURRENT stat line by the production rate they were doing and multiplying that by the number of games THEIR TEAM had remaining.) 

 

4 hours ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

Should we adjust Joe Thornton's total to reflect that if he played in the 80's he likely is at worst 4th all time on the all time points list? I mean jesus he's 14th all time now and not a single player ahead of him started in the dead puck era like he did(Gordie Howe played in a worse era for scoring tho). In fact, he likely would be easily #2 all time in assists behind only Gretzky. He lost a full prime season to the 05 lockout and a half season to the 13 lockout and he is still close to 2nd all time in assists, less than 200 assists short.

 

See above.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Puck_Pun said:

Is imaginary statistics the new 'booking a spot on the parade route'

 

Can we agree that this is a unique situation?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Can we agree that this is a unique situation?

 

 

Yes... it is unique BUT no different when the 2012-13 season was delayed from its original October 11, 2012 start date due to a lockout imposed by the NHL franchise owners after the expiration of the league's collective bargaining agreement (CBA). After a new labor agreement was reached between the owners and the NHLPA (National Hockey League Players Association, training camps opened on January 13, 2013 and a 48-game season (reduced from 82 games) started on January 19.

 

Similar to the 1994–95 season, the shortened regular season was limited to intra-conference competition

 

Back then NO ONE was arguing for pro-rated stats and the league moved forward.  There is absolutely NO precedent to pro-rate stats as there shouldn't be.  As I have mentioned many times before...it opens a whole Pandora's Box that should not be opened.  Players are not arguing for it, player's agents are not arguing for it and certainly the GM's and NHL front office is not arguing for it ....... Time to move on........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

no different when the 2012-13 season was delayed from its original October 11, 2012 start date due to a lockout imposed by the NHL franchise owners after the expiration of the league's collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

 

That was self-inflicted.

 

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

Back then NO ONE was arguing for pro-rated stats and the league moved forward.

 

Right because the players and owners did it to themselves.

 

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

it opens a whole Pandora's Box that should not be opened.

 

This is a once-in-100-years event. 

 

Also, unlike in lockout years, the season as scheduled was not played to completion. In the lockout years they eventually agreed upon a reduced length schedule and that schedule was played to completion. Here, the agreement was for an 82-game schedule and it was only about 90% completed. That's the first time in NHL history that a schedule did not run to completion. That's why I say this is different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

That's why I say this is different.

 

 

 Come on...you're saying it's different because, for once, since the invention of colour TV, a Leaf player is involved in a conversation about good players. :thumbsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

 Come on...you're saying it's different because, for once, since the invention of colour TV, a Leaf player is involved in a conversation about good players. :thumbsu:

 

Purely coincidence. :angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the NHL doesn't give in on this season. It's one month left. They could play one month in June and then have four rounds of playoffs that are best-of-3 in July to finish by end of July.  :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 3
      Post
      I really shouldn't be entertaining this, because I think that calling this a half--baked plan is an insult to half-baked plans everywhere, but..... What's the magic cut-off number for when we don't pro-rate a player's stats? 70 games? 60? 50? Do we create a sliding scale for these arbitrary cut-offs? Do we pro-rate them based on minutes played or games played? Do we re-write the record book for some butthurt Leafs fans? Or do we just accept that sh|t happens and allow the rec
    • 3
      Post
      The technicality being that he actually did it.  That's a big technicality.
    • 3
      Post
      I think that the integrity of these matters depends on us NOT awarding records to people that haven't actually broken them.    
    • 2
      Post
      Great season by Matthews, but no, the NHL should not pro-rate anybody's stats any more than they should say that Leon Draisaitl scored 127 points.  
    • 2
      Post
      He could have broke his leg next game. He could go on another 7 game stretch with no goals.     You can consider him having accomplished those goals. I'm sure there's other Leafs fans, along with Mrs. Mathews and Gramma Mathews who also do. And nobody else. Including the NHLs 50 goal club.
    • 2
      Post
      Technically speaking.

Game Room 1

Please enter your display name

×
×
  • Create New...