Do that stats include wood or composite sticks? And are they with or without legal 2-line passes?
- jmatchett383

Good points, but I still think this is a good way to get a timeless stat.

Alright so while I don't want to beat a dead horse, out of curiosity I took my "timeless" baseline (The Red Wings all-time goals for per game average) and adjusted some iconic and modern hockey players to this baseline, to get an idea of how they might do in their primes if they were all on an even playing field. It basically adjusted stats that occur due to circumstance (i.e, Gretzky playing on a team with Coffey, Messier, Anderson, and Kurri obviously caused him to have off the chart stats, while Stamkos played on a non-playoff contender who were one of the worse teams in the league, and he still led the league in goal scoring.)

NOTE: these don't necessarily show who is a better or worse player, i.e with Gretzky, who despite having inflated numbers in some part due to playing on the mid-80s Oilers, is still obviously one of the top 2 to ever play, and still put up amazing numbers on worse teams in lower-scoring times. These were just curious to me and I found it interesting.

In all of their highest-scoring seasons:
Mike Bossy - 48 goals/80 games - 0.6 G/G
Steven Stamkos - 65 goals/82 games - 0.79 G/G
Maurice Richard - 34 goals/50 games - 0.68 G/G
Jean Béliveau - 46 goals/70 games - 0.66 G/G
Gordie Howe - 48 goals/70 games - 0.69 G/G
Bernie Geoffrion - 43 goals/64 games - 0.67 G/G
Wayne Gretzky - 55 goals/80 games - 0.69 G/G
Alex Ovechkin - 67 goals/82 games - 0.82 G/G
Mario Lemiuex - 61 goals/76 games - 0.80 G/G
Steve Yzerman - 52 goals/80 games - 0.65 G/G
Sidney Crosby - 51 goals/81 games - 0.63 G/G

So what I'm getting from this is our more 1 dimensional goal scorers of today (Stamkos, Ovechkin) have goal scoring ability that can compare to great scorers of the past. They just lack the 2nd dimension of playmaking like those great players all had.
- JAKEw1234

I appreciate your effort, but what you're trying to do is pretty much impossible

And achieving those team goals can certainly assist Laughton's development.
- johndewar

Not as much as playing 10 minutes a game in the NHL would in my opinion.

Not sure why you posted this in this thread. I'm not going to get involved in carrying this over to this thread. But I'll be glad to continue to discuss this in the other thread.
- MJL

Believe it or not I didnt post this to continue an argument I did it out of personal curiosity mostly, and thought I'd share the results of what I found.

http://www.ontariohockeyleague.com/article/ohf-announces-exceptional-player-status-for-connor-mcdavid/119258
- jmatchett383

I think that's great. They're doing what it best for the player, and allowing him to play at a level where the competition level is best for him.

Believe it or not I didnt post this to continue an argument I did it out of personal curiosity mostly, and thought I'd share the results of what I found.
- JAKEw1234

i'm just saying that the other thread is where that conversation is taking place.

Believe it or not I did't post this to continue an argument I did it out of personal curiosity mostly, and thought I'd share the results of what I found.
- JAKEw1234

I did a breakdown a few years ago. It took a team's total goals compared to the league total goals for a season. Within that, we were able to factor in (not straight division) a specific player's contribution. Gretzky was still the best.

Why didn't anybody else think of this?
- BulliesPhan87

i have no idea !

Good points, but I still think this is a good way to get a timeless stat.
- JAKEw1234

Too many variables... it's virtually impossible to compare numbers between eras.

I think the key word here is he "can" play on the 4th line.

They don't NEED him to burn a year right now to play on the 4th line.
- johndewar

They don't NEED to bring him up next year, or the year after. Don't see the sense in that.

I did a breakdown a few years ago. It took a team's total goals compared to the league total goals for a season. Within that, we were able to factor in (not straight division) a specific player's contribution. Gretzky was still the best.
- jmatchett383

Well I mean my breakdown there only accounts for goals. Gretzky's playmaking and vision was arguably the meat and potatoes of his game. He was a goal guy, and an assist guy, but he still tended to put up more assists than goals. That's something Stamkos and Ovechkin just don't have.

Too many variables... it's virtually impossible to compare numbers between eras.
- Tomahawk

Yup you're right, but I can try!

i'm just saying that the other thread is where that conversation is taking place.
- MJL

Let's keep it all on one thread

Well I mean my breakdown there only accounts for goals. Gretzky's playmaking and vision was arguably the meat and potatoes of his game. He was a goal guy, and an assist guy, but he still tended to put up more assists than goals. That's something Stamkos and Ovechkin just don't have.
- JAKEw1234

I blame Matt Carle for Ovechkin's shortcomings.

Alright so while I don't want to beat a dead horse, out of curiosity I took my "timeless" baseline (The Red Wings all-time goals for per game average) and adjusted some iconic and modern hockey players to this baseline, to get an idea of how they might do in their primes if they were all on an even playing field. It basically adjusted stats that occur due to circumstance (i.e, Gretzky playing on a team with Coffey, Messier, Anderson, and Kurri obviously caused him to have off the chart stats, while Stamkos played on a non-playoff contender who were one of the worse teams in the league, and he still led the league in goal scoring.)

NOTE: these don't necessarily show who is a better or worse player, i.e with Gretzky, who despite having inflated numbers in some part due to playing on the mid-80s Oilers, is still obviously one of the top 2 to ever play, and still put up amazing numbers on worse teams in lower-scoring times. These were just curious to me and I found it interesting.

In all of their highest-scoring seasons:
Mike Bossy - 48 goals/80 games - 0.6 G/G
Steven Stamkos - 65 goals/82 games - 0.79 G/G
Maurice Richard - 34 goals/50 games - 0.68 G/G
Jean Béliveau - 46 goals/70 games - 0.66 G/G
Gordie Howe - 48 goals/70 games - 0.69 G/G
Bernie Geoffrion - 43 goals/64 games - 0.67 G/G
Wayne Gretzky - 55 goals/80 games - 0.69 G/G
Alex Ovechkin - 67 goals/82 games - 0.82 G/G
Mario Lemiuex - 61 goals/76 games - 0.80 G/G
Steve Yzerman - 52 goals/80 games - 0.65 G/G
Sidney Crosby - 51 goals/81 games - 0.63 G/G

So what I'm getting from this is our more 1 dimensional goal scorers of today (Stamkos, Ovechkin) have goal scoring ability that can compare to great scorers of the past. They just lack the 2nd dimension of playmaking like those great players all had.
- JAKEw1234

Gretzky scored 92 in his highest scoring season

I blame Matt Carle for Ovechkin's shortcomings.
- jmatchett383

Thats hard to believe considering they play against each other 6 times a year

Gretzky scored 92 in his highest scoring season
- griouxmvp2012

When you think about, it's really not that much. I mean, I've shot a 92 in golf before

Thats hard to believe considering they play against each other 6 times a year
- PhillySportsGuy

Oh...it goes much deeper than that.

When you think about, it's really not that much. I mean, I've shot a 92 in golf before
- PhillySportsGuy

#humblebrag

Oh...it goes much deeper than that.
- jmatchett383

#6DegreesOfMattCarlesFault

When you think about, it's really not that much. I mean, I've shot a 92 in golf before
- PhillySportsGuy

That's just craziness 212 points wow

#humblebrag
- johndewar

on a 9 hole course...

I've read this alot here, with respect to Laughton.

There is a lot that Laughton can still do at the junior hockey level. He can be given a bigger role and get more of a bite offensively. He can actually make the Canadian National team this year and play internationally in World Juniors (he didn't last year). He can go back and try to win a Memorial Cup, etc.

It's not like the kid achieved everything there is to achieve at the junior hockey level and needs a new challenge.

I'm fine with it if he can help the Flyers now and make the team, but don't really understand the rush at all.
- johndewar

In my humble opinion you get better by playing against tougher competition. I would want laughton to go up against the best competion that he could before stepping up to the nhl. Plus the flyers can train him as they see fit. In the CHL the flyers have no control over his development.

on a 9 hole course...
- PhillySportsGuy

In my humble opinion you get better by playing against tougher competition. I would want laughton to go up against the best competion that he could before stepping up to the nhl.
- PhillaBully

I agree. I think he's accomplished everything, in terms of growth, that he can in Juniors.