2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs - Leading Scorer(s)Edit
Deadman, let's discuss because I am more than happy to admit I am mistaken if there is a rule stipulating that there is a tie breaker in place, but to my knowledge there is none. Can you site that for playoffs? Like I said, it makes sense if we were talking an award, but the designation is "Leading Scorer(s)" and both players ended up with 23 points regardless of goals and assists (or games played though you don't seem to be arguing that point). I've cited both the Commissioner's quote naming him to co-leader in the playoffs while awarding the Conn Smythe (in the edits - I'm not savvy enough to add that to the page itself), and the fact that it does not have to be a singular distinction as it is not a singular award. Again, I'll be happy to cede to the distinction if a tiebreaker can be cited, but stating "that's the way it is" does not meet the criteria being displayed. The fact of the matter is that both players tied for the most amount of points in the playoffs thus both deserve to have the distinction (unless of course, as I have said, "Leading Scorer(s) is a unique distinction given by the NHL rather than the general term).
(Also, I am sorry about the double IP. One was from home and one from work - again not savvy enough to realize that probably came off as sock-puppety, and I'm not at a point where I think it's worth making a screen name for yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the double IP, you're not the only person on here that edits from more than one location. I understand that the commissioner's statement is misleading but in this case, he is of no authority and his statements are pretty much useless. You are completely right that two players are tied in points, however in all levels of hockey if two or more players are tied in points the player with more goals is always ranked ahead of the other players. If you want examples of this, all you have to do is go all the way down to the bottom of the 2019 playoff article and look at the scoring leaders table to see this in practice and you can do that in any other season and find the same thing. This is what every league and championship event anywhere in the world uses to determine these ties. So a player with 8G, 15A is always going to be less than a player with 9G, 14A even though the point total is the same and when you're talking about a leading scorer that distinction makes all the difference. Deadman137 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Back on the work computer so it's the other IP here (I don't even know how to tag that at the end, but it's me regardless), also back from vacation so I didn't ghost you on the conversation (just no time or computer). I agree with you wholeheartedly if this was a singular title or award, but we are again talking about "Leading Scorer(s)" which should designating who had the most points of which both had 23. It's not something like "Most Prolific Scorer" or something with a superlative that requires a single person on a mountaintop. Again, there can be many players tied for the league lead in points, thus they would all have the "most points in the league," however only one could win the singular award that comes with that (the Art Ross, as you know). I'm, of course, talking semantically, but that's the point of Wikipedia to put info at face value. Therefore, I still believe both are entitled to the distinction, or the field name needs to be changed to justify why both aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Leading scorer is a singular award unless the players involved are tied in both goals and points, which is not the case here. You're more than welcome to your own viewpoints, but the opinions that you are arguing for carry no weight in the hockey world and as a result are completely inconsequential. Deadman137 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Deadman! I don't know why I had it in mind that we were including the originating team for every pick, in the pick-only trades. A quick check to pages-past would've proven that theory wrong, but I took it for granted! Also, thanks for switching over to the new page... full disclosure, was lowkey trying to slip it under the radar ;) –uncleben85 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Uncleben85: I kind of figured that you were up to something when the current article was still a redirect, but I know why you did it. No worries on the team name stuff, even two editors that have been around as long as we have can still occasionally make mistakes. Deadman137 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)