Fastest to reach milestones from 100 points to 2000 points

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

How are those numbers obfuscating?

And why would introducing the scoring numbers of 500 or so more players be less obfuscating?

That's what I am talking about. What you just provided was a 20-30 player sample (i.e. less than 5% of the league on average in any given year) of 100 point players from each of the 7 years.

 

[daver]

That's what I am talking about. What you just provided was a 20-30 player sample (i.e. less than 5% of the league on average in any given year) of 100 point players from each of the 7 years.

I provided data on the top 50 scorers in the league; Lindros and Crosby's direct peers. League GPG is a faulty metric, most serious posters know this. I am surprised that anyone in the HOH still references it.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I provided data on the top 50 scorers in the league; Lindros and Crosby's direct peers. League GPG is a faulty metric, most serious posters know this. I am surprised that anyone in the HOH still references it.

I think most serious posters also know that the farther you go back in time, the more scoring is concentrated in top 2 lines, meaning zooming in on what the top players were capable of progressively obscures how easy/hard it was for everyone to score as you go backwards.

But enough talk, here are the relative scoring environments (average total goals/game):

Lindros: 7.25, 6.48, 5.97, 6.29, 5.83, 5.28, 5.27 -> avg. 6.05
Crosby: 6.17, 5.89, 5.57, 5.83, 5.68, 5.59, 5.47 -> avg. 5.74

Whopping difference of 0.3 total goals (for AND against) per game on average, or 0.15 goals for, which is roughly equivalent to one more goal to go around every 7 games. And Lindros faced the hardest scoring environment(s) between them in his pursuit of 500 and 600 points (bolded).

 

[daver]

I think most serious posters also know that the farther you go back in time, the more scoring is concentrated in top 2 lines, meaning zooming in on what the top players were capable of progressively obscures how easy/hard it was for everyone to score as you go backwards.

Most also know that the amount of PPs called in any given year has a significant affect on scoring by the elite offensive players. This is why looking at the Top 20 to 50 scorers makes more sense and eliminates these issues.

 

[daver]

But let's eliminate adjusting all together and just go on how they measured up to their peers year by year starting from their rookie seasons to their 7th season (with Mario removed):


After Year 1 Lindros was 67th in points, and 22nd in PPG.

After Year 2 - Lindros 32nd in points, and T10th in PPG

After Year 3 - 18th in points, 3rd in PPG

After Year 4 - 9th in points, 1st in PPG

After Year 5 - 10th in points, 1st in PPG

After Year 6 - 9th in points, T1st in PPG

After Year 7 - 5th in points, 2nd in PPG


Crosby

Year 1 - 6th in points, T6th in PPG
Year 2 - 2nd in points, 2nd in PPG
Year 3 - 3rd in points, 1st in PPG
Year 4 - 3rd in points, 1st in PPG
Year 5 - 3rd in points, 1st in PPG
Year 6 - 3rd in points, 1st in PPG by 0.10
Year 7 - 3rd in points, 1st in PPG by 0.17

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Most also know that the amount of PPs called in any given year has a significant affect on scoring by the elite offensive players. This is why looking at the Top 20 to 50 scorers makes more sense and eliminates these issues.

Well, ignoring how the best players both draw most of the calls and get the chances to capitalize on them, let's look at powerplay opportunities between seasons, then:

443, 407, 209 (357 prorated), 413, 336, 380, 359 (avg. 385)
vs.
480, 398, 351, 341, 304, 291, 271 (avg. 348)

Assuming a conversion rate of ~20%, you've highlighted a potential ~8 point difference if Crosby was involved in every conversion. Of course, we're ignoring who is drawing more penalties between these two guys to get these opportunities in the first place. And we're also ignoring that Crosby has relied on powerplay opportunities to score 37.2% of his points, vs. Lindros' 30.4%, which implies that Lindros was more "immune" to fluctuating PP opportunities with respect to offensive production.

 

[daver]

Well, ignoring how the best players both draw most of the calls and get the chances to capitalize on them, let's look at powerplay opportunities between seasons, then:

443, 407, 209 (357 prorated), 413, 336, 380, 359 (avg. 385)
vs.
480, 398, 351, 341, 304, 291, 271 (avg. 348)

Assuming a conversion rate of ~20%, you've highlighted a potential ~8 point difference if Crosby was involved in every conversion. Of course, we're ignoring who is drawing more penalties between these two guys to get these opportunities in the first place. And we're also ignoring that Crosby has relied on powerplay opportunities to score 37.2% of his points, vs. Lindros' 30.4%, which implies that Lindros was more "immune" to fluctuating PP opportunities with respect to offensive production.

Or we just go with using a direct peer metric to bypass all this questionable adjusting.


For their first 7 seasons (both reached 600 points in their 7th season):

Crosby's PPG finishes - 6th, 1st (by 9%), 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st (by 27%), 1st (in 22 games)

Lindros's PPG Finishes (no Mario) - 22nd, 3rd, 1st (by 4%), 2nd, 5th, 1st (by 1%), 5th

So head to head:

6th vs. 22nd Crosby
1st vs. 3rd Crosby
2nd vs. 1st Lindros
3rd vs. 2nd Lindros
3rd vs. 7th Crosby
1st vs. 1st Crosby
1st vs. 5th Crosby

In the first seven seasons, Crosby was better 5 of the 7 seasons. Lindros had played 431 games, Crosby had played 434 games.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Or we just go with using a direct peer metric...

Yes, you could. And the extent that you could take it from there depends on exactly how comparable everyone featured in these top 10 lists happen to be. Because you didn't seem to notice that Lindros' sample happens to start with a partial season during Selanne's freak rookie year followed by Gretzky's last Art Ross, for examples. Don't know how you rate guys like Lecavalier and Heatley or their career seasons that Sid beat out for his first Art Ross, but I think that kind of thing is 100% relevant to the kind of comparison you've outlined as an alternative.

 

[Plural]

Seems to me that no matter how long people dissect the early careers of Crosby and Lindros, their per-game performances are close enough to be described as "matter of preference".

 

[daver]

Yes, you could. And the extent that you could take it from there depends on exactly how comparable everyone featured in these top 10 lists happen to be. Because you didn't seem to notice that Lindros' sample happens to start with a partial season during Selanne's freak rookie year followed by Gretzky's last Art Ross, for examples. Don't know how you rate guys like Lecavalier and Heatley or their career seasons that Sid beat out for his first Art Ross, but I think that kind of thing is 100% relevant to the kind of comparison you've outlined as an alternative.

It's always interesting how the "well the competition was better back then" card gets played once an argument is shown to be statistically weak. Not going to bother anymore because there is no way to prove this one way or the other.

Their head to head PPG finishes clearly put Crosby ahead. That's good enough for me.

EDIT: For the record, I argue just as strongly against the portrayal that the current NHL is harder than previous eras

 

[daver]

Or we just go with using a direct peer metric to bypass all this questionable adjusting.


For their first 7 seasons (both reached 600 points in their 7th season):

Crosby's PPG finishes - 6th, 1st (by 9%), 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st (by 27%), 1st (in 22 games)

Lindros's PPG Finishes (no Mario) - 22nd, 3rd, 1st (by 4%), 2nd, 5th, 1st (by 1%), 5th

So head to head:

6th vs. 22nd Crosby
1st vs. 3rd Crosby
2nd vs. 1st Lindros
3rd vs. 2nd Lindros
3rd vs. 7th Crosby
1st vs. 1st Crosby
1st vs. 5th Crosby

In the first seven seasons, Crosby was better 5 of the 7 seasons. Lindros had played 431 games, Crosby had played 434 games.

Seems to me that no matter how long people dissect the early careers of Crosby and Lindros, their per-game performances are close enough to be described as "matter of preference".

IDK, one poster throws out the "D" word (DPE)and the assumption that any player who played in the DPE must be given preferential treatment over every other players comes into play. Can you honestly say that based on their respective PPG finishes they are close enough?

FYI, over their seven years, Lindros was 7th in goals, 3rd in GPG. Crosby was 12th in goals, 5th in GPG.

Here is the clincher for me. Over the seven seasons, the average PPG for next seven best scorers was 0.90 for the Flyers, and 0.69 for the Pens. Lindros clearly had more offensive support. I.e. Crosby had to carry the more of the offensive load than Lindros.

 

[Plural]

Valid points and maybe Crosby has stronger case. But it's still close enough in my opinion that one could make it a judgement call. Granted, I haven't exactly looked really carefully on this. Just scratched the surface

Also, I think it's fair point to look at year-by-year league strength. There have been seasons where several high-end hall of fame forwards do great and then there have bees seasons where the absolute top-end talent is lacking in comparison. Not saying that this is necessarily a point that favors Lindros. Just that there are years when the competition is stiffer.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

It's always interesting how the "well the competition was better back then" card gets played once an argument is shown to be statistically weak. Not going to bother anymore because there is no way to prove this one way or the other.

Well, one guy can say that Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux won 4 combined Art Rosses during his first 4 seasons, and the other one certainly can't...

 

[daver]

Valid points and maybe Crosby has stronger case. But it's still close enough in my opinion that one could make it a judgement call. Granted, I haven't exactly looked really carefully on this. Just scratched the surface

Also, I think it's fair point to look at year-by-year league strength. There have been seasons where several high-end hall of fame forwards do great and then there have bees seasons where the absolute top-end talent is lacking in comparison. Not saying that this is necessarily a point that favors Lindros. Just that there are years when the competition is stiffer.

This is where I get frustrated. All of a sudden a 5th place in scoring by a Sakic, or a Selanne, or an Yzerman is deemed automatically better than the 5th place scorer last year, or in 2006, or whatever year Crosby has played just because they are HOFers. We don't have a flipping clue what players in Crosby's era will HOFers. We also don't have a clue that in 20 years time, what Crosby's era will look like in perspective.

How do we get around all of this? By making a reasonable assumption that the Top 20 -50 scorers in each season are at the same talent level except for Wayne and Mario. Is it 100% correct? Of course not, but I haven't seen anything better to try to make these comparisons.

As with any discussion on era strength, you can easily start going back in time and draw some reasonable conclusions about individual players and the scoring environment for the elite offensive players. Unless we believe that all the elite scorers happened to regress simultaneously year after year, the scoring environment has gotten harder since 2005. We saw the same thing during the DPE, it got progressively worse save for a couple of years where more PPs were called than the year before. Similar to the current NHL, at it's absolute height, it seemed to muzzle everyone and created more parity amongst the top scorers.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

IDK, one poster throws out the "D" word (DPE)and the assumption that any player who played in the DPE must be given preferential treatment over every other players comes into play...

Well, '98 and '99 ARE by far the lowest levels of scoring that either guy ever experienced... The only reason it's really brought up though, is to highlight how amazing it is that Lindros, as injured as he was by that point, and despite facing the lowest scoring environment either of them had seen, still beat Crosby to 600 points (and 500, 400, 300, but that's beside the point).

 

[daver]

Well, one guy can say that Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux won 4 combined Art Rosses during his first 4 seasons, and the other one certainly can't...

What part of "Mario is excluded" did you miss"? And was Wayne's '94 Art Ross any more impressive statistically than all of the Art Ross wins in Crosby's era.

But you know what? You obviously are more happy to chime in with your cute little comments than have an objective discussion so we are done.

 

[daver]

Well, '98 and '99 ARE by far the lowest levels of scoring that either guy ever experienced... The only reason it's really brought up though, is to highlight how amazing it is that Lindros, as injured as he was by that point, and despite facing the lowest scoring environment either of them had seen, still beat Crosby to 600 points (and 500, 400, 300, but that's beside the point).

Not for the elite offensive players who were getting tons more PP time. Check out the PP time/game the top scorers got in '99 compared to last year's top scorers, along with the PP point/game each player got and tell us honestly if using league GPG to draw any conclusion is useful.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Not for the elite offensive players who were getting tons more PP time. Check out the PP time/game the top scorers got in '99 compared to last year's top scorers, along with the PP point/game each player got and tell us honestly if using league GPG to draw any conclusion is useful.

You mean, like I showed you in post 56?

 

[daver]

You mean, like I showed you in post 56?

You showed nothing.

Here's the question: Do you think it's reasonable that after adjusting stats using league GPG only 2 out of a total of 30 Top Ten scorers from the past three seasons, Crosby in 2014 and Kane in 2106, would crack the Top Ten in 1999? And despite leading 2nd place by 16 points and 17 points, they both would finish 3rd and 4th, maybe 5th in 1999.

Do you think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw?

 

[Plural]

This is where I get frustrated. All of a sudden a 5th place in scoring by a Sakic, or a Selanne, or an Yzerman is deemed automatically better than the 5th place scorer last year, or in 2006, or whatever year Crosby has played just because they are HOFers. We don't have a flipping clue what players in Crosby's era will HOFers. We also don't have a clue that in 20 years time, what Crosby's era will look like in perspective.

How do we get around all of this? By making a reasonable assumption that the Top 20 -50 scorers in each season are at the same talent level except for Wayne and Mario. Is it 100% correct? Of course not, but I haven't seen anything better to try to make these comparisons.

As with any discussion on era strength, you can easily start going back in time and draw some reasonable conclusions about individual players and the scoring environment for the elite offensive players. Unless we believe that all the elite scorers happened to regress simultaneously year after year, the scoring environment has gotten harder since 2005. We saw the same thing during the DPE, it got progressively worse save for a couple of years where more PPs were called than the year before. Similar to the current NHL, at it's absolute height, it seemed to muzzle everyone and created more parity amongst the top scorers.

I'm not talking so much about era's being stronger (although we have cases where that has happened too) but about individual seasons being stronger and weaker in terms of top-end competition.

For example, 10-11 season compared to 08-09 season. In the first one, Crosby got injured and Ovechkin regressed. Malkin did both. In my opinion, those three were better in 08-09 than Daniel Sedin, Martin St.Louis and Corey Perry were in 10-11.

 

[Felidae]

This milestone list is evidence of Crosby > Jagr

 

[Plural]

This milestone list is evidence of Crosby > Jagr

Most certainly is not.

 

[Felidae]

Most certainly is not.

In every point milestone (excluding the ones Crosby has yet to attain) Crosby achieved the milestone in less games than Jagr. I think that adequately dispels the notion of Jagr being the superior offensive player. Especially considering era and all.

 

[bobholly39]

In every point milestone (excluding the ones Crosby has yet to attain) Crosby achieved the milestone in less games than Jagr. I think that adequately dispels the notion of Jagr being the superior offensive player. Especially considering era and all.

This list is an absolutely amazing read - but it can also be kinda mis-leading when trying to compare head to head of players.


Jagr started out his career really slow (compared to his eventual peak level) whereas Crosby hit the ground running. It's a bit similar to Lemieux vs Gretzky - Lemieux started out much slower, whereas Gretzky hit the ground running. Because Gretzky was so dominant Lemieux barely made up ground on Gretzky over time, but Jagr certainly did make up ground on Crosby.

At 900 points it took Crosby 677 games compared to 681 games to Jagr. That's as closed as it gets - which is impressive for Jagr considering he started out slow.

Basically if you count games 1 to 677 (or 681 in Jagr's case) it's roughly equal.

If you count games 200 to ~680 for both players - I expect Jagr > Crosby
If you count games 0 to 200 for both players - I expect Crosby > Jagr

I think both players are very neck and neck up to Crosby's current place in his career overall. I think Jagr's resume over age 30 is definitely something Crosby can surpass though, so I do expect Crosby to pull ahead, maybe significantly so. But as of now it's very, very close.

 

[Johnny Engine]

In every point milestone (excluding the ones Crosby has yet to attain) Crosby achieved the milestone in less games than Jagr. I think that adequately dispels the notion of Jagr being the superior offensive player. Especially considering era and all.

What it tells you is that Jagr broke out as a superstar at 20, and as an elite quasi-generational player by 21. Crosby hit those levels at 18 and 19, so his first (X) games will look more impressive every time, simply because Crosby has never done anything to set himself back as far as 18/19 year old Jagr did.

Obviously, that's a checkmark in Crosby's column, but it doesn't prove anything about the levels they hit afterwards.