stawns Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Great, now we are comparing Virtanen to arguably the greatest goal scorer ever. Way to keep expectations realistic. Ovie is not even a top 5 goal scorer ever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Ovie is not even a top 5 goal scorer ever I said arguably the greatest. I guess it all depends on how you define "greatest". I would put him in the top 5 for sure. Here is a chart of era adjusted goals for players in their 20s (age 20-29): Here is a list of era adjust goal season: http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_adjusted_season.html Edited September 18, 2015 by baumerman77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyoung Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I said arguably the greatest. I guess it all depends on how you define "greatest". I would put him in the top 5 for sure. Here is a chart of era adjusted goals for players in their 20s (age 20-29): Here is a list of era adjust goal season:http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_adjusted_season.htmllot of respect for the guys who turned it up to wards the end of their careers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I said arguably the greatest. I guess it all depends on how you define "greatest". I would put him in the top 5 for sure. Here is a chart of era adjusted goals for players in their 20s (age 20-29): Here is a list of era adjust goal season:http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_adjusted_season.htmlThose numbers are essentially meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Those numbers are essentially meaningless. Personally, I think they more accurately capture the concept of "goal scoring" than non-adjusted numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Who here likes Virtanen wearing #77? I really like him with that number. Hope he gives it a try in pre season lol. It made him look so graceful out there. Curious what number he will wear when it becomes time for pre season. Will he go for his 18 or will he go for something different. im curious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Sedin, Sedin, Burrows Higgins, Sutter, Vrbata/Hansen Baertschi, Horvat, Hansen/Vrbata Prust, Vey, Dorsett Those are the locks. We have room for two more forwards. We all want Virtanen to be one of them. Time will tell if he is physically ready. I think the 14th forward will probably be a center. Benning said that he brought Sutter in to be a matchup center. It makes most sense to play him with other good matchup guys. This should take pressure off of Horvat and even the Sedins. My main point was that these players are pretty much locks which leaves two spots for forwards. Virtanen will get a look, but is not a lock. OUch! If Higgins is the best we can do for the second line, our prospects suck. I like Chris but he is a third liner at best who can fill in for short periods on the 2nd line. I already addressed that. I think putting Vrbata with Sutter would be a waste of Vrbata's talent as Sutter's line will be used as a matchup line against the opponent's top line. I hope to see Baertschi-Horvat-Vrbata Higgins-Sutter-Hansen Horvat will be given every opportunity to hit 40-50 points this season. And I think he will if he is playing with Baertschi and Vrbata. I guess you missed the Vrbata/Hansen. If you had noticed that then you would see that the lines are pretty much what I wrote. I think people are getting hung up on line numbers. The Sutter line will be used to match up against top lines; therefore the Sutter line will be expected to play big minutes. I also think that Vrbatas defensive play is under-rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Personally, I think they more accurately capture the concept of "goal scoring" than non-adjusted numbers. Fiction is entertaining I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 As for Ehlers, I think he'll carve out a nice little NHL career as well and doubt he'll be in Europe anytime soon. But I don't see the superstar that some others see either. Modern-day Hemsky at best, which is probably 45-55 points and lots of time on IR. In that case, relieved we let him pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Chart above seems inaccurate. Recalling Richard had 544 total, doesn't add up.edit: After a 2nd look(clicked link), now understand the 'adjusted' concept..interesting. Edited September 18, 2015 by Nuxfanabroad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I said arguably the greatest. I guess it all depends on how you define "greatest". I would put him in the top 5 for sure. Here is a chart of era adjusted goals for players in their 20s (age 20-29): Here is a list of era adjust goal season:http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_adjusted_season.html Era adjusted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Era adjusted? Yup. Those are adjusted numbers. I think we can all agree scoring a goal in the mid 80s was easier than in the late 90s dead puck era. The methodology is here: http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/adjusted_stats.html Edited September 19, 2015 by baumerman77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyoung Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Its not a science but it is definitely fun to look at. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Yup. Those are adjusted numbers. I think we can all agree scoring a goal in the mid 80s was easier than in the late 90s dead puck era. The methodology is here:http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/adjusted_stats.html Ah, so fake numbers. Gotcha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nave Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Who here likes Virtanen wearing #77? I really like him with that number. Hope he gives it a try in pre season lol. It made him look so graceful out there. Curious what number he will wear when it becomes time for pre season. Will he go for his 18 or will he go for something different. im curious. When I was watching I was like, "77 is actually a dope number." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Ah, so fake numbers. Gotcha When contextual factors change over time raw data needs to be refined and controlled to account for these circumstantial changes. This is norm in statistics. I suppose one could call all statistics "fake" nevertheless it doesn't deminish the nature of their insights. Regarding NHL goals. I believe adjusting for changes in era is crucial for comparing goal scorers over the history of the NHL. And by looking only at the raw data one is biasing goal scorers in specific eras such as the 1980s and early 90s. Edited September 19, 2015 by baumerman77 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyoung Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 When contextual factors change over time raw data needs to be refined and controlled to account for these circumstantial changes. This is norm in statistics. I suppose one could call all statistics "fake" nevertheless it doesn't deminish the nature of their insights. Regarding NHL goals. I believe adjusting for changes in era is crucial for comparing goal scorers over the history of the NHL. And by looking only at the raw data one is biasing goal scorers in specific eras such as the 1980s and early 90s. I agree to a point, they are fun numbers to look at but you can't read to much into it, honestly though I agree ovechkin is top 5. Might end up the best ever though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I accept that you feel my observation is based upon ignorance. Time will show that Jake is a beauty, and Ehlers is too soft for our league. If that's how you feel about Ehlers you must think Jasek and Zhukenov are busts as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I agree to a point, they are fun numbers to look at but you can't read to much into it, honestly though I agree ovechkin is top 5. Might end up the best ever though Ovie's great, no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Why would they do that? Play him or send him back to junior to play. Playing 10 games in 2 1/2 months is not how to develop a player but it sure can help ruin one. That's exactly what they did with Horvat. And it was more than 10 games. He played 5 games in Utica as well. Practising and travelling with the team, watching them play from the press box and getting a few games in is good education. More valuable than straight playing more games in Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now