Best "half seasons"

[livewell68]

It wasn't the best season though, not even close. Maybe the best half season, but not close to the best season.

Not even the best half season of the last 15 years. In 1999-00, Jagr had 71 Pts (32 goals and 39 assists) in his first 39 games. This was during the "Dead Puck Era" and the Penguins' second leading scorer finished the whole season in 82 games with 66 Pts and this player was Kovalev.

Jagr's linemates were a combination of Beranek, Kip Miller and Hrdina in that season. Not your legitimate 1st liners. In fact Jagr made those guys 1st liners in Pittsburgh.

He was leading the league in goals, assists and points and would have been the first player since Gretzky to lead the league in both goals and assists outright in the same season. That 71 Pts in 39 games was a pace of 150 Pts over 82 games.

That to me is the most impressive half season of the last 15 years.

Not to mention the half seasons Jagr had in 2000-01, 1995-96 and even 1998-99.

In 2000-01 Jagr had 84 Pts in his last 45 games which is a 1.87 PPG.

If you actually look at his 1998-99 season and his first 39 games from 1999-00 he had 198 Pts in just 120 games which is a PPG of 1.65 PPG or a pace of 135 Pts over a full season.

Crosby had a great half season but nowhere near the half seasons that Jagr, Lemieux or Gretzky had.

 

[livewell68]

Crosby has 123 points in his last 71 games for a PPG of 1.73

Jagr averaged 1.82 PPG in 1995-96 over a whole 82 game season.

Crosby has mostly had a Forsbergesque type PPG effect. What I mean by this is that they both sit out long stretches of games, they both play on teams with centermen just as capable as them of being the 1# center and they both don't play games hurt. Sure Crosby's concussion and Forsberg's foot and spleen problems are tough to play with but at the same it's much easier to maintain a higher PPG.

I will give an example of what I'm trying to explain.

Player A finishes a season (82 full games) with 123 Pts (1.50 PPG).


Player B has 66 Pts in 41 games in season 1, 20 Pts in 12 games in season 2 and 30 Pts in 16 games in season 3.

Player B finishes with 116 Pts in 69 games total. (1.68 PPG).


Obviously player B has a much better PPG, but which player was truly more impressive?


When you play a full season, you're bound to have highs and lows, streaks and slumps and injuries, so to maintain a high PPG throughout the entire season is much harder to have than a high PPG in sporadic stretches.

Forsberg benefited from this in his career, especially post-2000 and Crosby seems to be benefiting from this over the last 3 seasons.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Not even the best half season of the last 15 years. In 1999-00, Jagr had 71 Pts (32 goals and 39 assists) in his first 39 games. This was during the "Dead Puck Era" and the Penguins' second leading scorer finished the whole season in 82 games with 66 Pts and this player was Kovalev.

Why did you use 39 games? Half a season is 41 games, and Jagr had 73 points through those games.

"Dead Puck Era" or not, the average NHL goals-per-game was 5.49 that season, and the average in Crosby's season was virtually identical at 5.59: http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx.

Jagr's linemates were a combination of Beranek, Kip Miller and Hrdina in that season. Not your legitimate 1st liners. In fact Jagr made those guys 1st liners in Pittsburgh.

Miller was only there in '99-'00 for 44 games, and Beranek for 13. So presumably Jagr played a good period of time with some of Pittsburgh's higher quality forwards at even-strength that year too.

His linemates are pretty comparable to what Crosby had to work with in '10-'11. It's outstanding that both Jagr and Crosby could score at that rate with that calibre of players.

He was leading the league in goals, assists and points and would have been the first player since Gretzky to lead the league in both goals and assists outright in the same season. That 71 Pts in 39 games was a pace of 150 Pts over 82 games.

73 in 41.

And yes, it's very impressive. But when you consider that Jagr was a relatively one-dimensional offensive winger while Crosby was elite in other aspects of the game, it becomes clear why some people would prefer his half-season when the raw offensive numbers are as close as they are.

 

[Czech Your Math]

And yes, it's very impressive. But when you consider that Jagr was a relatively one-dimensional offensive winger while Crosby was elite in other aspects of the game, it becomes clear why some people would prefer his half-season when the raw offensive numbers are as close as they are.

Personally, I think the "overall game" vs. "one dimensional" argument is a bit misleading. First, it's quite subjective, at least to the degree to which any perceived difference exists. Second, and one reason for that, is that a player may be as or more effective playing a less "overall game" than one who does. I'm going to sort of merge some frequent examples:

Player A has the same or better offensive skills and often has some combination of size and/or possession game. Size (and therefore reach) and physicality (the ability to deliver hits to get the puck or absorb hits to keep the puck) often contribute to the possession game.

Player B has very good offensive skills, but may be above avg. at more facets of the game.

Player A plays the superior possession game, and between that and his equal or better offensive skills, plays a highly effective game: generating scoring chances and not allowing opponents as much possession to generate their own.

Player B is not maintaining significantly less possession, which often generates fewer scoring chances, and allows the opponents more possession to create their own. Their may be more loose pucks which Player B has to help try to track down ("he goes in the corners more") and more opponent possession causes forces him to play more defense ("he plays more of a two way game"), which creates an illusion to some extent. All that may be remembered is Player A concentrating more on offense, even though he still creates as much or more of an overall advantage, while Player B seems to be doing more of the "little things" which are necessary when his team is unable to keep possession as much. There are other differences as well: a center and wing have different responsibilities... playing "good defense" is not the same as being a potential shutdown forward. It's easy to miss the forest for the trees at times.

 

[MrFunnyWobbl]

Well done in finding all that data.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Personally, I think the "overall game" vs. "one dimensional" argument is a bit misleading. First, it's quite subjective, at least to the degree to which any perceived difference exists. Second, and one reason for that, is that a player may be as or more effective playing a less "overall game" than one who does. I'm going to sort of merge some frequent examples:

Something like faceoffs is about as objective as a stat gets, and it is crucial in terms of possession.

Player A has the same or better offensive skills and often has some combination of size and/or possession game. Size (and therefore reach) and physicality (the ability to deliver hits to get the puck or absorb hits to keep the puck) often contribute to the possession game.

Player B has very good offensive skills, but may be above avg. at more facets of the game.

Player A plays the superior possession game, and between that and his equal or better offensive skills, plays a highly effective game: generating scoring chances and not allowing opponents as much possession to generate their own.

Player B is not maintaining significantly less possession, which often generates fewer scoring chances, and allows the opponents more possession to create their own. Their may be more loose pucks which Player B has to help try to track down ("he goes in the corners more") and more opponent possession causes forces him to play more defense ("he plays more of a two way game"), which creates an illusion to some extent. All that may be remembered is Player A concentrating more on offense, even though he still creates as much or more of an overall advantage, while Player B seems to be doing more of the "little things" which are necessary when his team is unable to keep possession as much. There are other differences as well: a center and wing have different responsibilities... playing "good defense" is not the same as being a potential shutdown forward. It's easy to miss the forest for the trees at times.

If you're trying to insinuate that Crosby comes up short in terms of maintaining possession against anyone, you're mistaken. It's his calling card. Speed, edge-work, leg strength, low center of gravity.

But again, hard to quantify, so probably not the argument for this forum.

 

[Czech Your Math]

If you're trying to insinuate that Crosby comes up short in terms of maintaining possession against anyone, you're mistaken. It's his calling card. Speed, edge-work, leg strength, low center of gravity.

But again, hard to quantify, so probably not the argument for this forum.

Yes, we can endlessly debate subjective aspects which aren't quantifiable. It's been stated by some that Crosby's 41 game stretch in 2010-11 season was better than anyone since Lemieux or Gretzky at their peak. However, there are many other player-seasons since in which a player had a similar or better adjusted PPG during a streak of 41+ games. Many of those player-seasons also had similar or better estimated ESGF/GA ratios and/or On/Off ratios, even though that data is only available over a full season. So using the best overall measures of offensive production and overall even strength effectiveness, Crosby had a great half season, but it doesn't seem nearly as unique as some claim.

 

[livewell68]

Something like faceoffs is about as objective as a stat gets, and it is crucial in terms of possession.



If you're trying to insinuate that Crosby comes up short in terms of maintaining possession against anyone, you're mistaken. It's his calling card. Speed, edge-work, leg strength, low center of gravity.

But again, hard to quantify, so probably not the argument for this forum.

Something that Jagr had down pat. He is bigger, stronger than Crosby and in his prime was also faster than Crosby.

Everything Crosby could offensively, Jagr could do better.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Yes, we can endlessly debate subjective aspects which aren't quantifiable. It's been stated by some that Crosby's 41 game stretch in 2010-11 season was better than anyone since Lemieux or Gretzky at their peak. However, there are many other player-seasons since in which a player had a similar or better adjusted PPG during a streak of 41+ games. Many of those player-seasons also had similar or better estimated ESGF/GA ratios and/or On/Off ratios, even though that data is only available over a full season. So using the best overall measures of offensive production and overall even strength effectiveness, Crosby had a great half season, but it doesn't seem nearly as unique as some claim.

Purely offensive totals, however, are not the only statistics we have available, nor are they the only measure worth considering when trying to decide the quality of a player's season.

The widely-held opinion that Crosby was better in 2010 than he was in the first half of the '06-'07 season obviously supports that.

Something that Jagr had down pat. He is bigger, stronger than Crosby and in his prime was also faster than Crosby.

I don't share your opinion.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Purely offensive totals, however, are not the only statistics we have available, nor are they the only measure worth considering when trying to decide the quality of a player's season.

The widely-held opinion that Crosby was better in 2010 than he was in the first half of the '06-'07 season obviously supports that.

That's why I mentioned overall ES effectiveness (adjusted plus-minus).

Crosby '07 1.45 GF/GA ratio at ES, 1.64x team's ratio w/o him on ice
Crosby '11 1.79 On, 1.82 On/Off

 

[livewell68]

Purely offensive totals, however, are not the only statistics we have available, nor are they the only measure worth considering when trying to decide the quality of a player's season.

The widely-held opinion that Crosby was better in 2010 than he was in the first half of the '06-'07 season obviously supports that.



I don't share your opinion.

It's not opinion is pretty much a fact.

Jagr in his prime was 6'3. 225-245 lbs and could beat you with his size, reach, strength, stickhandling and or speed.

ASSETS: Possesses two of the strongest legs ever seen on a hockey player. Has incredible instincts. Is equally strong setting up linemates or finishing. Is amazing along the wall when in control of the puck. Still a scorer after all these years.

Jagr didn't win 5 Art Ross trophies for no reason.

... back on topic, Crosby had 2 great half seasons stretches but not even top 10.

Jagr, Gretzky and Lemieux have all enjoyed better half season stretches.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

That's why I mentioned overall ES effectiveness (adjusted plus-minus).

Crosby '07 1.45 GF/GA ratio at ES, 1.64x team's ratio w/o him on ice
Crosby '11 1.79 On, 1.82 On/Off

1. Where do you get your data? Just asking so we're all speaking the same language.

2. ES effectiveness is not a comprehensive stat. There are other relevant stats and context to consider. Because Crosby was an elite faceoff man (a stat worth considering) on a team lacking in good faceoff men, he was needed for defensive draws and had a very low offensive start percentage for a star (47%, lowest on the Pens), which would certainly seem to make it more difficult to produce.

It's not opinion is pretty much a fact.

Jagr in his prime was 6'3. 225-245 lbs and could beat you with his size, reach, strength, stickhandling and or speed.

No, it's exactly an opinion.

 

[Czech Your Math]

1. Where do you get your data? Just asking so we're all speaking the same language.

It's using the same or very similar methodology as these estimates:

Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-Minus

2. ES effectiveness is not a comprehensive stat. There are other relevant stats and context to consider. Because Crosby was an elite faceoff man (a stat worth considering) on a team lacking in good faceoff men, he was needed for defensive draws and had a very low offensive start percentage for a star (47%, lowest on the Pens), which would certainly seem to make it more difficult to produce.

It's about as reliable of a "comprehensive" stat as there is, at least for even strength play. It's not perfect, and it's reliability decreases as the sample size of game decreases, but it gives a good idea of the general effectiveness of a player at even strength. There are other factors which can influence it and these would have to be considered more subjectively.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

It's using the same or very similar methodology as these estimates:

Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-Minus

It'd be useful to see Crosby's '10-'11 numbers and those of each of the players who had better seasons according to this metric, and how they fared relative to their next-best teammate.

I don't mean to send you on a statistical goose-chase, I just have very little practical knowledge of this sort of thing.

It's about as reliable of a "comprehensive" stat as there is, at least for even strength play. It's not perfect, and it's reliability decreases as the sample size of game decreases, but it gives a good idea of the general effectiveness of a player at even strength. There are other factors which can influence it and these would have to be considered more subjectively.

That's why it's beneficial to incorporate other stats into the conversation, I'd say. Especially when they add value and context, such as faceoffs and zone starts.

 

[Czech Your Math]

It'd be useful to see Crosby's '10-'11 numbers and those of each of the players who had better seasons according to this metric, and how they fared relative to their next-best teammate.

I don't mean to send you on a statistical goose-chase, I just have very little practical knowledge of this sort of thing.

Here's the top 56 "half seasons" in terms of adjusted PPG from '94 to '12. ES GF/GA ratio with player on the ice and On/Off ratios are also listed. For comparison with Crosby's 2010-11 half season, it's important to remember that those ratios are for the full season, so in each player's best 41+ game stretch that season, it's very likely that their ratios were often significantly higher as well. Amazingly, Crosby's 2011 is the 18th best of the 55 player-half seasons in adjusted PPG and also both 18th/55 in ES GF/GA ratio and On/Off ratio. Again, considering that the ratios for other players are for full seasons, Crosby's ranking (among these 55 half seasons) would likely be lower if compared to those players' half season ratios. This would seem to contradict the notion that his half season was more outstanding due to "all around" play, rather than pure offensive brilliance (no surprise there, honestly). There are also other factors to consider: quality of linemates, defense/goaltending, off-ice comparisons, and the fact that forwards can control offensive portion more than defensive portion of the ratios. Crosby did not have the best linemates and had Malkin's line as part of off-ice comparison, neither of which helps him much.

| | HS | FS | FS
PLAYER | Year | PPG | GF/GA | On/Off
Lemieux | 1996 | 2.54 | 1.20 | 0.99
Jagr | 2001 | 2.01 | 1.40 | 1.34
Jagr | 1996 | 1.98 | 1.50 | 1.44
Lemieux | 1997 | 1.94 | 1.47 | 1.97
Jagr | 2000 | 1.94 | 1.68 | 2.03
Lemieux | 2001 | 1.90 | 1.51 | 1.39
Lemieux | 2003 | 1.89 | 0.70 | 0.46
Selanne | 1999 | 1.88 | 1.53 | 2.50
Jagr | 1999 | 1.85 | 1.37 | 1.70
Forsberg | 2003 | 1.83 | 2.47 | 2.55
Lindros | 1999 | 1.82 | 2.05 | 2.36
Crosby | 2007 | 1.82 | 1.45 | 1.64
Ovechkin | 2010 | 1.80 | 2.34 | 1.89
Francis | 1996 | 1.80 | 1.46 | 1.33
Lindros | 1997 | 1.76 | 1.85 | 1.64
Jagr | 1998 | 1.76 | 1.56 | 1.63
Ovechkin | 2008 | 1.75 | 1.59 | 1.97
Crosby | 2011 | 1.74 | 1.79 | 1.82
Gretzky | 1994 | 1.74 | 0.76 | 0.88
Malkin | 2012 | 1.73 | 1.46 | 1.42
Sakic | 2001 | 1.70 | 2.28 | 2.10
Jagr | 1997 | 1.69 | 1.47 | 1.88
Malkin | 2008 | 1.68 | 1.44 | 1.44
LeClair | 1999 | 1.67 | 2.27 | 1.78
Thornton | 2003 | 1.66 | 1.32 | 1.39
Alfredsson | 2008 | 1.65 | 1.24 | 1.21
Fedorov | 1994 | 1.64 | 1.77 | 1.60
Lindros | 1995 | 1.63 | 2.11 | 2.66
Crosby | 2010 | 1.62 | 1.31 | 1.45
Thornton | 2006 | 1.62 | 1.78 | 2.63
Kariya | 1997 | 1.61 | 2.06 | 2.57
Thornton | 2007 | 1.61 | 1.60 | 1.78
Malkin | 2009 | 1.61 | 1.46 | 1.44
SedinH | 2010 | 1.59 | 1.62 | 1.61
Selanne | 1997 | 1.58 | 1.67 | 1.96
Forsberg | 2001 | 1.57 | 1.93 | 1.46
Kovalchuk | 2006 | 1.57 | 1.04 | 1.00
Ovechkin | 2009 | 1.57 | 1.28 | 1.22
Bure | 2001 | 1.56 | 1.10 | 1.60
Sakic | 2000 | 1.55 | 1.82 | 1.91
LeClair | 1997 | 1.55 | 1.98 | 2.37
Alfredsson | 2006 | 1.55 | 1.85 | 1.32
Lindros | 1996 | 1.55 | 1.47 | 1.17
Forsberg | 2004 | 1.55 | 2.25 | 2.10
Jagr | 2006 | 1.54 | 1.92 | 1.94
Bure | 2000 | 1.54 | 1.48 | 1.46
Forsberg | 1998 | 1.54 | 1.23 | 1.29
Bure | 1994 | 1.53 | 1.10 | 1.16
St. Louis | 2007 | 1.51 | 1.16 | 1.74
Gretzky | 1998 | 1.51 | 0.97 | 1.34
Iginla | 2007 | 1.51 | 1.26 | 1.03
Selanne | 1996 | 1.50 | 1.22 | 1.43
Jagr | 1995 | 1.50 | 1.71 | 1.78
Elias | 2001 | 1.50 | 2.27 | 1.78
Fedorov | 1996 | 1.49 | 2.44 | 1.77
Forsberg | 1999 | 1.49 | 1.87 | 1.91
MEAN | | 1.68 | 1.60 | 1.67 MEDIAN | | 1.63 | 1.51 | 1.63

That's why it's beneficial to incorporate other stats into the conversation, I'd say. Especially when they add value and context, such as faceoffs and zone starts.

Not sure how far back those stats go, and doubt they would change the On/Off numbers very much for non-shutdown forwards.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Here's the top 56 "half seasons" in terms of adjusted PPG from '94 to '12. ES GF/GA ratio with player on the ice and On/Off ratios are also listed. For comparison with Crosby's 2010-11 half season, it's important to remember that those ratios are for the full season, so in each player's best 41+ game stretch that season, it's very likely that their ratios were often significantly higher as well. Amazingly, Crosby's 2011 is the 18th best of the 55 player-half seasons in adjusted PPG and also both 18th/55 in ES GF/GA ratio and On/Off ratio. Again, considering that the ratios for other players are for full seasons, Crosby's ranking (among these 55 half seasons) would likely be lower if compared to those players' half season ratios. This would seem to contradict the notion that his half season was more outstanding due to "all around" play, rather than pure offensive brilliance (no surprise there, honestly). There are also other factors to consider: quality of linemates, defense/goaltending, off-ice comparisons, and the fact that forwards can control offensive portion more than defensive portion of the ratios. Crosby did not have the best linemates and had Malkin's line as part of off-ice comparison, neither of which helps him much.

| | HS | FS | FS
PLAYER | Year | PPG | GF/GA | On/Off
Lemieux | 1996 | 2.54 | 1.20 | 0.99
Jagr | 2001 | 2.01 | 1.40 | 1.34
Jagr | 1996 | 1.98 | 1.50 | 1.44
Lemieux | 1997 | 1.94 | 1.47 | 1.97
Jagr | 2000 | 1.94 | 1.68 | 2.03
Lemieux | 2001 | 1.90 | 1.51 | 1.39
Lemieux | 2003 | 1.89 | 0.70 | 0.46
Selanne | 1999 | 1.88 | 1.53 | 2.50
Jagr | 1999 | 1.85 | 1.37 | 1.70
Forsberg | 2003 | 1.83 | 2.47 | 2.55
Lindros | 1999 | 1.82 | 2.05 | 2.36
Crosby | 2007 | 1.82 | 1.45 | 1.64
Ovechkin | 2010 | 1.80 | 2.34 | 1.89
Francis | 1996 | 1.80 | 1.46 | 1.33
Lindros | 1997 | 1.76 | 1.85 | 1.64
Jagr | 1998 | 1.76 | 1.56 | 1.63
Ovechkin | 2008 | 1.75 | 1.59 | 1.97
Crosby | 2011 | 1.74 | 1.79 | 1.82
Gretzky | 1994 | 1.74 | 0.76 | 0.88
Malkin | 2012 | 1.73 | 1.46 | 1.42
Sakic | 2001 | 1.70 | 2.28 | 2.10
Jagr | 1997 | 1.69 | 1.47 | 1.88
Malkin | 2008 | 1.68 | 1.44 | 1.44
LeClair | 1999 | 1.67 | 2.27 | 1.78
Thornton | 2003 | 1.66 | 1.32 | 1.39
Alfredsson | 2008 | 1.65 | 1.24 | 1.21
Fedorov | 1994 | 1.64 | 1.77 | 1.60
Lindros | 1995 | 1.63 | 2.11 | 2.66
Crosby | 2010 | 1.62 | 1.31 | 1.45
Thornton | 2006 | 1.62 | 1.78 | 2.63
Kariya | 1997 | 1.61 | 2.06 | 2.57
Thornton | 2007 | 1.61 | 1.60 | 1.78
Malkin | 2009 | 1.61 | 1.46 | 1.44
SedinH | 2010 | 1.59 | 1.62 | 1.61
Selanne | 1997 | 1.58 | 1.67 | 1.96
Forsberg | 2001 | 1.57 | 1.93 | 1.46
Kovalchuk | 2006 | 1.57 | 1.04 | 1.00
Ovechkin | 2009 | 1.57 | 1.28 | 1.22
Bure | 2001 | 1.56 | 1.10 | 1.60
Sakic | 2000 | 1.55 | 1.82 | 1.91
LeClair | 1997 | 1.55 | 1.98 | 2.37
Alfredsson | 2006 | 1.55 | 1.85 | 1.32
Lindros | 1996 | 1.55 | 1.47 | 1.17
Forsberg | 2004 | 1.55 | 2.25 | 2.10
Jagr | 2006 | 1.54 | 1.92 | 1.94
Bure | 2000 | 1.54 | 1.48 | 1.46
Forsberg | 1998 | 1.54 | 1.23 | 1.29
Bure | 1994 | 1.53 | 1.10 | 1.16
St. Louis | 2007 | 1.51 | 1.16 | 1.74
Gretzky | 1998 | 1.51 | 0.97 | 1.34
Iginla | 2007 | 1.51 | 1.26 | 1.03
Selanne | 1996 | 1.50 | 1.22 | 1.43
Jagr | 1995 | 1.50 | 1.71 | 1.78
Elias | 2001 | 1.50 | 2.27 | 1.78
Fedorov | 1996 | 1.49 | 2.44 | 1.77
Forsberg | 1999 | 1.49 | 1.87 | 1.91
MEAN | | 1.68 | 1.60 | 1.67 MEDIAN | | 1.63 | 1.51 | 1.63

Many thanks for doing the legwork. But to be honest, I don't know how your "GF/GA" and "On/Off" are calculated, what they represent, and how they're related to each other. The link you provided for methodology bolded the "AdjEV+/-" over players' entire careers.

I apologize for missing something that's probably completely obvious to the initiated, but this can all be a bit dizzying for a non-statistician, haha.

I would also humbly suggest that the "best 41 games to start a season" might be a more representative comparison, if we're talking about Crosby's feat relative to the best of other superstars.

Not sure how far back those stats go, and doubt they would change the On/Off numbers very much for non-shutdown forwards.

A face-off win is in and of itself an integral part of the game though, as a direct way to gain possession. I think it's relation to On/Off number is irrelevant. There's an inherent bias against wingers in including that stat when determining value, but centers do generally have more responsibilities, and it seems irresponsible to ignore an elite, quantifiable facet of a player's game.

As for zone starts, territorial advantage plays a pretty big part in the rules (penalties, icing), with the goal being to penalize the offending team with better scoring opportunities for their opponent. I would think that would be a significant factor in a player's production. But if there are no stats for it, it's not really worth discussing in this forum. Just some potential context.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Many thanks for doing the legwork. But to be honest, I don't know how your "GF/GA" and "On/Off" are calculated, what they represent, and how they're related to each other. The link you provided for methodology bolded the "AdjEV+/-" over players' entire careers.

I apologize for missing something that's probably completely obvious to the initiated, but this can all be a bit dizzying for a non-statistician, haha.

1. ESGF/GA ratio- what is the ratio of GF to GA when the player is on the ice at even strength (with no numerical advantage/disadvantage)?

2. On/Off ratio- what is the ratio of the player's ESGF/GA ratio to the that of the team without him on the ice? I.e., how much better is the team's ESGF/GA ratio with him on the ice than without him.

For an alternative and perhaps a better explanation, refer to the link previously posted on Adjusted Plus-Minus.

I would also humbly suggest that the "best 41 games to start a season" might be a more representative comparison, if we're talking about Crosby's feat relative to the best of other superstars.

I understand wanting to compare "apples to apples", which is why I included a separate list of best PPG to start the season. However, I don't see why a 41+ game streak later in the season is not worthy of comparison. I would guess the last half of the season is tougher than the first half, at least for players who play most/all of the season. Teams and players are hitting on all cylinders and fighting that much harder for playoff berths, so the games tend to be more intense and difficult on average IMO.

Besides Lemieux and Jagr's multiple seasons, some 41+ game streaks to start the season which you might look at are:

Lindros '95
Selanne '99
Ovechkin '10

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

1. ESGF/GA ratio- what is the ratio of GF to GA when the player is on the ice at even strength (with no numerical advantage/disadvantage)?

2. On/Off ratio- what is the ratio of the player's ESGF/GA ratio to the that of the team without him on the ice? I.e., how much better is the team's ESGF/GA ratio with him on the ice than without him.

For an alternative and perhaps a better explanation, refer to the link previously posted on Adjusted Plus-Minus.

Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for the lateness of my reply here.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting the numbers, but wouldn't they suggest that Crosby's '11 ESGF/GA ratio and On/Off ratio were better than several of the names at the top of that list, including Lemieux and Jagr in '96?

If that's true, it wouldn't necessarily be the most accurate indicator of the best seasons, would it?

I understand wanting to compare "apples to apples", which is why I included a separate list of best PPG to start the season. However, I don't see why a 41+ game streak later in the season is not worthy of comparison. I would guess the last half of the season is tougher than the first half, at least for players who play most/all of the season. Teams and players are hitting on all cylinders and fighting that much harder for playoff berths, so the games tend to be more intense and difficult on average IMO.

It seems cherry-picked to me. We aren't picking the best "__" game segment to choose from Crosby, we're using all of the games he played that season. Using a streak of all the games a particular star played from the start of the season would be the best way to put everyone on a level playing field, I would think.

Besides Lemieux and Jagr's multiple seasons, some 41+ game streaks to start the season which you might look at are:

Lindros '95
Selanne '99
Ovechkin '10

All great years. But it is instructive to note that Lindros and Selanne both had First-Team All-Stars on their line (and still scored at lesser paces), and Ovechkin's center was 4th in league scoring. Crosby's linemates were Dupuis and Kunitz, who wouldn't be mistaken for First Team All-Stars or Top 5 scorers by a blind man in a dark alley.

Scoring at the pace he did with what he had to work with was always a big part of what made it so impressive.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for the lateness of my reply here.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting the numbers, but wouldn't they suggest that Crosby's '11 ESGF/GA ratio and On/Off ratio were better than several of the names at the top of that list, including Lemieux and Jagr in '96?

If that's true, it wouldn't necessarily be the most accurate indicator of the best seasons, would it?

I'm uncertain which list you mean, but Crosby's ESGF/GA ratio and On/Off ratio were better than some players with higher PPG, just as some players with lower PPG than Crosby had better ES data. There's a couple of things to keep in mind:

1. The ESGF/GA and On/Off ratios are only available for a full season. Since most players have a substantially higher PPG during their best 41+ games than they do over the same full season, it would stand to reason they would have substantially higher ES ratios during their "half seasons" than over the same full seasons.

2. In the case of Lemieux & Jagr in '96, the "Off" part of their On/Off ratios were comprised in large part by the other's line. Suffice it to say that a prime Jagr or Lemieux is a much tougher comparison than an injured Malkin having an off year.

Is (adjusted) PPG the best indicator of which player had the best "half season"? Certainly other factors can and should be considered (such as the ES data), but if one was allowed only one stat with which to gauge the quality of a forward's half season, PPG seems the best one. It's the most direct measure of the player's offensive contribution, as the others are influenced by additional factors (quality of defense/goaltending, quality of other lines) which are outside the player's control.

It seems cherry-picked to me. We aren't picking the best "__" game segment to choose from Crosby, we're using all of the games he played that season. Using a streak of all the games a particular star played from the start of the season would be the best way to put everyone on a level playing field, I would think.

It's a matter of interpretation. Some, such as yourself, may believe that using any 41+ game stretch in comparison with the first 41 games is cherry-picking. Others, such as myself, would say that 41+ consecutive games is basically apples to apples, especially as the games seem to be as tough or tougher in the second half as the first half. Also, even restricting it to 41+ games, rather than a full season is somewhat artificial. Players are generally judged on at least a full season basis, as the schedule balances out over a full season and the larger sample means the "luck" factor is less of an influence (which is one reason why multiple seasons are even more reliable than a single season). At some point, restricting it not just to 41+ games, but only the first 41+ games of the season is reminiscent of "only N players have X goals, Y assists and a PPG of Z or better." It's not that it isn't impressive for the player to be part of such an exclusive list, but that the more the criteria are arbitrarily tailored to meet that player's stats, the less impressive it becomes.

All great years. But it is instructive to note that Lindros and Selanne both had First-Team All-Stars on their line (and still scored at lesser paces), and Ovechkin's center was 4th in league scoring. Crosby's linemates were Dupuis and Kunitz, who wouldn't be mistaken for First Team All-Stars or Top 5 scorers by a blind man in a dark alley.

Scoring at the pace he did with what he had to work with was always a big part of what made it so impressive.

2010 Ovechkin scored at a higher rate (both raw and adjusted) to start the 2010 season and doing so for 52 games makes it all the more impressive. 1999 Selanne (on an adjusted basis) and 1995 Lindros scored at lower rates, but not that much lower. They did have better linemates than Crosby, but they also had better ES data that was at least similar and often much better during those years.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I'm uncertain which list you mean, but Crosby's ESGF/GA ratio and On/Off ratio were better than some players with higher PPG, just as some players with lower PPG than Crosby had better ES data.

That's my point. The ESGF/GA and On/Off ratios vary so wildly relative to what most every reasonable hockey observer would consider better seasons (check out Elias '01 or LeClair '97 relative to the best of Jagr and Lemieux) that it's hard not to question their validity in this debate.

1. The ESGF/GA and On/Off ratios are only available for a full season. Since most players have a substantially higher PPG during their best 41+ games than they do over the same full season, it would stand to reason they would have substantially higher ES ratios during their "half seasons" than over the same full seasons.

How would one then rationalize the ESGF/GA ratios of Lemieux and Jagr in their best seasons relative to the all the other players who had played full seasons and had much better results?

2. In the case of Lemieux & Jagr in '96, the "Off" part of their On/Off ratios were comprised in large part by the other's line. Suffice it to say that a prime Jagr or Lemieux is a much tougher comparison than an injured Malkin having an off year.

That makes sense. However, it should cut both ways. If you believe that a very productive player playing on a different line would likely be a considerable disadvantage to one's On/Off ratio, doesn't it follow that a very productive player on the same line would likely be a considerable advantage to one's production?

Is (adjusted) PPG the best indicator of which player had the best "half season"? Certainly other factors can and should be considered (such as the ES data), but if one was allowed only one stat with which to gauge the quality of a forward's half season, PPG seems the best one. It's the most direct measure of the player's offensive contribution, as the others are influenced by additional factors (quality of defense/goaltending, quality of other lines) which are outside the player's control.

I do think it's the best single indicator for all the reasons you mention. After seeing the results, it's hard to give much credence to the ESGF/GA data.

It's a matter of interpretation. Some, such as yourself, may believe that using any 41+ game stretch in comparison with the first 41 games is cherry-picking. Others, such as myself, would say that 41+ consecutive games is basically apples to apples, especially as the games seem to be as tough or tougher in the second half as the first half. Also, even restricting it to 41+ games, rather than a full season is somewhat artificial. Players are generally judged on at least a full season basis, as the schedule balances out over a full season and the larger sample means the "luck" factor is less of an influence (which is one reason why multiple seasons are even more reliable than a single season). At some point, restricting it not just to 41+ games, but only the first 41+ games of the season is reminiscent of "only N players have X goals, Y assists and a PPG of Z or better." It's not that it isn't impressive for the player to be part of such an exclusive list, but that the more the criteria are arbitrarily tailored to meet that player's stats, the less impressive it becomes.

I completely disagree. Beginning at the player's first game of the season is the least arbitrary point possible - everyone has the exact same starting line.

2010 Ovechkin scored at a higher rate (both raw and adjusted) to start the 2010 season and doing so for 52 games makes it all the more impressive. 1999 Selanne (on an adjusted basis) and 1995 Lindros scored at lower rates, but not that much lower. They did have better linemates than Crosby, but they also had better ES data that was at least similar and often much better during those years.

I'm not sure who based an argument for Crosby on ES production, but it wasn't me. It seems reasonable that superstars with superstar linemates would fare better at ES than superstars with blunt instrument linemates.

 

[Czech Your Math]

That's my point. The ESGF/GA and On/Off ratios vary so wildly relative to what most every reasonable hockey observer would consider better seasons (check out Elias '01 or LeClair '97 relative to the best of Jagr and Lemieux) that it's hard not to question their validity in this debate.

.

Your point is a good one, as those ratios do vary wildly. I think that's because there's much more luck (factors outside the player's control) than there is in points/PPG. The player has much more direct influence over points/PPG than he does over those ratios. They do give us some important additional info, but the context must be considered and they are most useful over multiple seasons.

How would one then rationalize the ESGF/GA ratios of Lemieux and Jagr in their best seasons relative to the all the other players who had played full seasons and had much better results?

As stated, the ratios are much less in the player's control than points/PPG and there is much more luck involved. The quality of linemates is always part of the context and, in the case of superstars, may influence the ratios much more than those superstars' points/PPG. The quality of the defense and goaltending directly influence the ESGF/GA ratios to a large degree, while the quality of other lines on the team directly influence the On/Off ratios to a large degree. On a single season basis, they are particularly useful for demonstrating that a player did not have an effective possession game and/or abandoned defense to a large degree (see Gretzky '94 or Lemieux '03). Over multiple seasons the ES data has much more validity IMO.

That makes sense. However, it should cut both ways. If you believe that a very productive player playing on a different line would likely be a considerable disadvantage to one's On/Off ratio, doesn't it follow that a very productive player on the same line would likely be a considerable advantage to one's production?

There's context to consider for each category of data. Again, the context tends to matter less for superstars' points/PPG than it does for the ES ratio, especially for single seasons or less.

I do think it's the best single indicator for all the reasons you mention. After seeing the results, it's hard to give much credence to the ESGF/GA data.

I understand your position and agree that ES data has much less validity on a single season basis. However, all data requires context. Points/PPG may be substantially affected by the player's role on the power play and the quality of teammates on that PP. That doesn't invalidate points/PPG, but it's something to consider

I completely disagree. Beginning at the player's first game of the season is the least arbitrary point possible - everyone has the exact same starting line.

That's true, but remember that players on generally pacing themselves for a full season. We do not know how well Crosby could have or would have maintained his production over a full season, if he had remained mostly/fully healthy. What we do know is that all players also have the exact same finish line, and Crosby dropped out halfway through the race. Anything less than a full season is somewhat artificial, in that it's attributing the characteristics of a full season's production to production in a shorter time frame, when other factors (balanced schedule, luck, etc.) are less likely to even out and present a level playing field.

I'm not sure who based an argument for Crosby on ES production, but it wasn't me. It seems reasonable that superstars with superstar linemates would fare better at ES than superstars with blunt instrument linemates.

I introduced the ES data, in response to claims that Crosby's "overall game" over a half season was particularly unique, even more so than his offensive production. I believe it's probably the best data to at least attempt to measure some degree of the player's "overall game." The data is much less reliable for a single season, let alone a half season, but it suggests that Crosby's "overall game" for that half season was nor more unique than his offensive prodution, perhaps even less so (given that other players' ES ratios were based on full seasons when their PPG were lower than in half season).

 

[Sens Rule]

1995-96 - Esa Tikkanen, 37 points in 38 games w/ VAN.

Wasn't a low-scoring season at all. Half the league averaged at least three goals a game, w/ Pittsburgh getting almost four and a half a game. Mario Lemieux had 161 points. Twelve players topped 100 points, and two more had 99. It was two years later when scoring dropped like a rock.

Tikkanen had some sick playoff runs with the Oiler's post-Gretzky. Where he dominated all over the ice... not just in the points column. He is a HHOF talent in my opinion. A severely underrated player. I would pick him over Glenn Anderson for peak any day of the week. When you consider the fact he was awesome defensively and also was one of the premier pests in all of hockey... he deserves some HHOF consideration. That may sound crazy, but I believe he was that useful of a player. 72 playoff goals! 14th All-time. Every player with more... except Claude Lemieux... is in the HHOF or will be. All the player's in the top 25 are HHOFer's except Bobby Smith and Brian Propp who are tied for 20th. And Propp should get some consideration for the HHOF himself.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Too bad Jagr is old. Now Crosby is the man!

That may sound crazy, but I believe he was that useful of a player. 72 playoff goals! 14th All-time. Every player with more... except Claude Lemieux... is in the HHOF or will be.

Claude Lemieux should be in the Hall as well. Just becouse he's Claude ****ing Lemieux!

 

[livewell68]

Too bad Jagr is old. Now Crosby is the man!



Claude Lemieux should be in the Hall as well. Just becouse he's Claude ****ing Lemieux!

Too bad Crosby hasn't reached Jagr's level and probably never will.

BTW Malkin is the man, he's got 2 Art Ross, 1 Hart and Lindsay/ Pearson to Crosby's 1 Art Ross, 1 Hart and 1 Lindsay/ Pearson.

Malkin also has better scoring finishes than Crosby (3 top 2 finishes for Malkin compared to Crosby who was top 2 twice).

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

I think Chris Kunitz is getting pretty underrated by people propping up Crosby's 2011. At his best, he's a 60 point forward capable of popping 25 while bringing a notable physical game. And it's not like he was toiling in anonymity before coming to Pittsburgh, he was a first liner for three seasons in Anaheim and won a Cup there.