I agree that using PPG is a good indicator...when comparing two or more players. But when looking at a player's individual impact on a team, looking at PPG is not the first thing you should jump to, but rather how many goals, assists and points they scored (we are talking about an offensive forward here).
So my point in all of this was simply stating facts, not twisting or manipulating anythjng. I simply orginally stated that Bobby Ryan never scored as much goals in Ottawa as he did in Anaheim, nor did he out up single season totals matching his production in Anaheim.
Whether his point per game over 2 or 3 seasons is comparable is irrelevant. I would personally like to look at his PPG in his entire time in Anaheim vs his entire time in Ottawa.
The fact that you want to ignore actual important factors like goals scored and points tallied and only focus on PPG is what leads me to believe you are just defending Ryan for the sake of defending him.
Goals scored in Anaheim: 147 g in 348 gp - 0.42ppg
Goals scored in Ottawa: 107 g in 455 gp- 0.23ppg
Points in Anaheim: 289 p in 348 gp- 0.83 ppg
Points in Ottawa: 266 in 455 gp- 0.58 ppg
This is using your method, so now try and convince me that my original statement about Ryan never matching or exceeding his production in Anaheim is false or misleading?
Ok but you know it's really not about being right or wrong here. It's more about the way we analyze things. Personally, my methodology has changed years ago. I used to look at it in a more simplistic way but I eventually realized that point totals just doesn't tell the whole story, so I began to use Pace per 82 games, but eventually realized that PPG was a lot more direct.
Evgeni Malkin is another player that you need to look at PPG to realize how great his impact has been. If you only look at point totals, it's not that impressive but he's another guy that has been over PPG pretty much all his career.
When an offensive forward is not in the line-up, it gives an opportunity to other players to produce more (the better the player, the harder he is to "replace"). So what is important is what this forward does when he is in the line-up. Now if the said player misses too many games and too often, then it's problematic but it's a completely different problem that has nothing to do with his capability of producing, in that case it's capability of staying healthy. In the hockey world, we call these guys "injury prone", like a Marian Havlat and Marian Gaborik for example.
In the particular case we were talking about, we don't necessarily need to look at PPG as Ryan "only" missed 17 games in his first 3 years in Ottawa but if you are not looking at PPG, how do you compare a full season + a lockout season vs 3 full seasons?
And why do you insist that I only use PPG when I DID note the point totals in my post?
"Last 2 years in Anaheim : 0.68 PPG (87 Pts in 128 GP)
First 3 years in Ottawa : 0.69 PPG (158 Pts in 229 GP)"
If the PPG isn't noted, then you are comparing a different number of games and a different number of points. PPG makes you see quickly that it's the same level of production.
That's all PPG means lol
I hope this PPG thing is cleared once and for all. I mean it's only a tool to be able to compare apples with apples (shows you what the production (points) would be for the same number of games)
======================================
As a promoter of language accuracy (who recognizes that it is much easier said than done), I'm sorry but the whole argument didn't start about "goals scoring". This is what I have quoted :
"he joins your team and never matches any of that production"
I simply demonstrated that he did match the trend of his last 2 years in Anaheim, in his first 3 years in Ottawa. It really is
THAT simple.
This whole misconception seems to come from the expectation that Ryan was going to go back to his peak years (21 to 23 y/o) level of production, and not
just the level that he was trending on the last 2 years in Anaheim.
That's the thing, if Ryan didn't have these 2 lower production years in Anaheim, maybe he wouldn't have been traded in the first place and it most likely would have cost significantly more than Silfverberg, a late first (even more likely if Ryan is a 35-35 guy) and a broken down prospect.
======================================
"nor did he out up single season totals matching his production in Anaheim"
So what does this means?
When you take it literally, Ryan had seasons of 10 pts, 30 pts and 57 pts twice in Anaheim
So it's false because Ryan had seasons of 33 pts, 42 pts, 48 pts and 54 pts and 56 pts in Ottawa
And if you DON'T only take it literally, then it's disingenuous because he came 1 single point short of these 57 pts seasons. I could see someone attempting that kind of argument if the difference was 3-4 pts, but 1 pt? lol
======================================
Ok now, where did I IGNORE "actual important factors like goals scored and points tallied"
I'm sorry but I never did... Like I explained above, PPG demonstrates points tallied in relation to Games Played. Now if you want to look at goals, it's called GPG (not PPG like you wrote in your post). There's a lot of info, details, etc very hard to say everything in one single post (or even a few posts lol) but INITIALLY, you did NOT mention goals scored (like demonstrated above)
======================================
It's true that I'm defending Ryan but really against what you think. I'm not saying he should deserve praise, or have a statue erected outside of the rink, but I'm defending him against hyperbole and unfairness. Maybe he wasn't worth his contract anymore after the first 3 years (as I demonstrated before, he did in his first 3 years as it was a different contract for the first 2 years and was top-60 in NHL scoring in year 3) but he was also far from being the crappy useless player he was painted as in many comments (he had that amazing playoffs run and was somewhat productive in years 5 and 6). Do I need to find quotes? There's hundreds and hundreds of them, so I do not wish to do that.
======================================
It's a long debate but in reality it's simple.
In his fist 3 years in Ottawa, he DID match his last 2 years trend in Anaheim
In his whole time in Ottawa, he DID NOT match his peak years in Anaheim.
Yes, sometimes players peak very early in their career and are never able to get back to that level after. But don't forget another argument I mentioned that you didn't comment on. He played with Getzlaf, Perry in their prime (and Selanne). No offense to Turris and MacArthur but it's really not the same level of players...
So maybe it was a bit wishful think to expect that he matched his peak years in Ottawa, rather than his last 2 years trend.
