HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[daver]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to say Benn is a superior offensive player to Malkin; that's ludicrous.

What I AM saying is that using Malkin's high rank on the points per game leaderboard in 2016 as some sort of trump card over Sakic's absence from the same in 1993 is a BAD argument. You have seemingly agreed with this already, stating that "listing Art Ross and ppg finishes without context is very misleading". Yes. Yes it is.

Yet in apparent contradiction (and maybe I'm misunderstanding now), you then state the underlined above. Which seems to imply that finishing at X placement in the scoring race has the same degree of difficulty every year. However we've already agreed (or so I thought) that Sakic's 2nd place finish in 2004 was nothing special and lagged behind other seasons where he didn't finish as high. So is every 2nd place finish equal, or does each one need to be evaluated with more context? You seem to be arguing both.

I stated before that the strength of an Art Ross or Art Ross finish can be measured by a performance vs. peers i.e. relative to the league. analysis. A player whose point totals was 20% better than the average point totals of the other Top 20 scorers is an example of this.

Context such as who or who isn't in the HOF is irrelevant IMO ( and quite silly considering no current player is in the HOF). Statistical outliers like Wayne and Mario are relevant.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I stated before that the strength of an Art Ross or Art Ross finish can be measured by a performance vs. peers i.e. relative to the league. analysis. A player whose point totals was 20% better than the average point totals of the other Top 20 scorers is an example of this.

Context such as who or who isn't in the HOF is irrelevant IMO ( and quite silly considering no current player is in the HOF). Statistical outliers like Wayne and Mario are relevant.

Alright, interesting method. But it would still treat every yearly top 20 equally. Which is fine as a starting point, but I still think their needs to be some "common sense", for lack of a better term, applied at some point. This method would indicate that Malkin's 70-point 2015 season scores better than Sakic's 105-point 1993 season. Sure league scoring was a lot higher in 1993, but still, that seems a bit extreme on the surface. A closer look would quickly reveal that a whole bunch of star players just happened to have career years in 1993. And the general feeling was that 2015 just didn't have many great seasons turned in. Other times (2000 comes to mind), a bunch of stars got injured. A mental adjustment needs to be considered in situations like this.

 

[daver]

Alright, interesting method. But it would still treat every yearly top 20 equally. Which is fine as a starting point, but I still think their needs to be some "common sense", for lack of a better term, applied at some point. This method would indicate that Malkin's 70-point 2015 season scores better than Sakic's 105-point 1993 season. Sure league scoring was a lot higher in 1993, but still, that seems a bit extreme on the surface. A closer look would quickly reveal that a whole bunch of star players just happened to have career years in 1993. And the general feeling was that 2015 just didn't have many great seasons turned in. Other times (2000 comes to mind), a bunch of stars got injured. A mental adjustment needs to be considered in situations like this.

I know that these two seasons were brought up by BobHolly to show that Sakic had more "down" seasons than Malkin has based on fuller seasons being outside the Top 15 in points/PPG. I disagree with this angle primarily because Malkin is lacking enough full seasons whether they were "down" or "up" in comparison to Steve and Joe which is why he is behind them from an offensive production standpoint. Sakic playing more games and more full seasons should not be used against him in any way shape or form. It is not as simple as pacing out Malkin's numerous partial seasons to declare him the superior player.

So that being said, I really don't care how these two specific seasons are viewed, I believe that the "closer look" you want simply should not be applied from a statistical standpoint. 1993 was a bit of an anomaly compared to the two seasons before and after but not because a bunch of star players had career years but it was clear that scoring was up by the elite offensive players and PP scoring was up. It was a throwback to the high flying "80s. Therefore, I view Sakic's Art Ross finish as it was. He also had a similar finish the next season, and had two mediocre seasons in 97 and 98 so it was not like his '93 seasons stands out as an anomaly. Malkin also has some mediocre seasons that need to be noted too, and simply cannot be written off because they were partial seasons.

As I said at the beginning, I don't think this angle, or the PPG angle in general, should be used as a prominent metric as it brings way to much hypothetical scenarios into play. I do think that Malkin's case gets significantly better with another Top Art Ross finish on his resume as that is what is notably lacking in comparison to other players in his tier of talent. He would arguably have the best group of 4 seasons which starts to bring him even with Steve and Joe from an offensive production standpoint.

 

[bathdog]

I figured someone would go there with Crosby after my comments

It's a fair point though. It could easily be seen as preferential treatment.

My answer is.....no. I count Crosby's season of 41 games. Because I believe he could have maintained that pace over a longer stretch.

Look at Forsberg in 2002 playoffs. I could be ok with the idea of not counting his playoffs at face value if someone were to say "well he got an unfair advantage by resting all year and being ready for playoffs, and as such playing above what would be normally expected". I don't really think this happened for Crosby. He played 41 games from the start of season. In 2012-2013, he played the first 36 games of the year. If someone were to play 40 games out of 80, and only playing every 2 games with a ton of rest in between - sure, count that a bit less maybe. Like Lemieux in 1996 where he sat out back to back games? Sure - maybe hold that a bit against him when comparing that season of his to other all-time great seasons (though only to a certain extent, since he still did play 70 games overall, it's not like he only played ~40)

Using my logic you can probably extrapolate that if it's ok to give Crosby credit for a 41 game season and assume he would have kept his pace to the end (or at least close to it) - i should be able to apply the same logic to Malkin's bad season and assume he would have played bad all year and so hold it against him. Maybe?

Regression to the mean.

Lets look at how the players, that at the end of the season were top10 ppg, that strongly deviated from their norm went at around the half season mark (Jan 1st each season, high 30s-low 40s GP) between 95/96-16/17 (lockout shortened seasons excluded), and see how each of those players fared.

Players listed bolded below "were clearly on pace" to post their best season ever at 1/1 - around mid season. N/A means player hadn't played 30 games by 1/1

95/96

Player	PPG	1/1 PPG
Lemieux	2.30	2.69
Jagr	1.82	2.19
Lindros	1.58	1.53
Francis	1.55	1.83
Sakic	1.46	1.47
Forsberg	1.42	1.55
Fedorov	1.37	1.19
Selanne	1.38	1.45
Mogilny	1.35	1.34
Messier	1.34	1.31

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Lemiuex -14.5%, Jagr -16.9%, Francis -15.3%.

96/97

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Lemieux	1.61	1.57
Lindros	1.52	N/A
Jagr	1.51	1.50
Kariya	1.44	N/A
Selanne	1.40	1.27
Forsberg	1.32	1.39
Messier	1.18	1.14
Gretzky	1.18	1.32
LeClair	1.18	1.10
Sundin	1.15	1.31

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Sundin dropped -12.2%.

97/98

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Jagr	1.33	1.27
Forsberg	1.26	1.34
Selanne	1.18	1.10
Modano	1.14	1.27
Turgeon	1.13	N/A
Lindros	1.13	1.21
Bure	1.10	1.18
Gretzky	1.10	0.86
Hull	1.09	0.95
Francis	1.07	1.07

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Modano by -11.2%.

98/99

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Jagr	1.57	1.28
Selanne	1.43	N/A
Sakic	1.32	N/A
Lindros	1.31	1.26
Forsberg	1.24	1.14
Fleury	1.24	1.06
Kariya	1.23	1.26
LeClair	1.18	1.19
Yashin	1.15	1.15
Demitra	1.09	1.13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nobody.

99/00

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Jagr	1.52	1.89
Sakic	1.35	N/A
Bure	1.27	N/A
Turgeon	1.27	1.36
Kariya	1.16	1.00
Recchi	1.11	1.26
Nolan	1.08	1.27
Selanne	1.08	0.92
Lindros	1.07	1.12
Demitra	1.06	1.06

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Jagr -19.6%, Nolan -15.0%.

00/01

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Lemieux	1.77	N/A
Jagr	1.49	1.16
Sakic	1.44	1.32
Forsberg	1.22	1.07
Palffy	1.22	1.44
Kovalev	1.20	1.05
Fleury	1.19	1.38
Elias	1.17	1.03
Allison	1.16	1.24
Straka	1.16	1.05

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Palffy -15.3%, Allison -7.5%. Fleury could be debated.

01/02

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Bertuzzi	1.18	0.78
Iginla	1.17	1.18
Jagr	1.15	1.06
Kovalev	1.13	N/A
Naslund	1.11	0.88
Thornton	1.03	1.00
Tkachuk	1.03	0.97
Bure	1.02	0.87
Lindros	1.01	1.05
Allison	1.01	0.93

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nobody.

02/03

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Forsberg	1.41	1.13
Lemieux	1.36	1.71
Thornton	1.31	1.30
Naslund	1.27	1.26
Hejduk	1.20	0.95
Demitra	1.19	1.12
Bertuzzi	1.18	1.11
Heatley	1.16	1.11
Murray	1.12	1.05
Palffy	1.12	1.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Lemieux -22.4%, not on pace to hit his best season but it's probably reasonable to think it was unsustainable (albeit very impressive) at that stage of his career.

03/04

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Forsberg	1.41	N/A
Savard	1.16	1.37
St Louis	1.15	0.83
Lang	1.15	1.16
Tanguay	1.15	1.09
Naslund	1.08	1.16
Kovalchuk	1.07	1.15
Sakic	1.07	1.14
Alfredsson	1.04	0.97
Hossa	1.01	1.09

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Savard -15.3%.

05/06

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Thornton	1.54	1.50
Jagr	1.50	1.56
Alfredsson	1.34	1.53
Spezza	1.32	1.57
Ovechkin	1.31	1.22
Crosby	1.26	1.14
Kovalchuk	1.26	1.40
Heatley	1.26	1.50
Forsberg	1.25	1.66
Staal	1.22	1.34

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Alfredsson -12.4%, Spezza -15.9%, Kovalchuk -10.0%, Heatley -16.0%, Forsberg -24.7%, Staal -9.0%.

06/07

Players	PPG	PPG 1/1
Crosby	1.52	1.71
Thornton	1.39	1.15
Iginla	1.34	1.41
Lecavalier	1.32	1.21
Spezza	1.30	1.22
Heatley	1.28	1.22
St Louis	1.24	1.26
Hossa	1.22	1.30
Sakic	1.22	1.08
Gaborik	1.19	N/A

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Crosby -11.1%.

07/08

Players	PPG	PPG 1/1
Ovechkin	1.37	1.23
Crosby	1.36	1.37
Malkin	1.29	1.08
Alfredsson	1.27	1.38
Zetterberg	1.23	1.43
Spezza	1.21	1.53
Iginla	1.20	1.32
Datsyuk	1.18	1.23
Thornton	1.18	1.17
Heatley	1.16	1.37

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Alfredsson -8.0%, Zetterberg -14.0%, Spezza -20.9%, Heatley -15.3%.

08/09

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Ovechkin	1.39	1.36
Malkin	1.38	1.59
Crosby	1.34	1.35
Semin	1.27	N/A
Datsyuk	1.20	1.14
Kovalchuk	1.15	0.97
Parise	1.15	1.22
Getzlaf	1.12	1.14
Iginla	1.09	1.22
Green	1.07	N/A

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Malkin -13.2%, Parise -5.7%.

09/10

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Ovechkin	1.51	1.56
H. Sedin	1.37	1.29
D. Sedin	1.35	N/A
Crosby	1.35	1.20
Backstrom	1.23	1.15
Stamkos	1.16	0.93
Semin	1.15	0.93
Malkin	1.15	1.12
St Louis	1.15	1.10
B. Richards	1.14	1.24

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Ovechkin -5.0%, B. Richards -8.1%.

10/11

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Crosby	1.61	1.67
D. Sedin	1.27	1.31
St Louis	1.21	1.32
Perry	1.20	1.05
H. Sedin	1.15	1.36
Getzlaf	1.13	0.93
Stamkos	1.11	1.47
Selanne	1.10	1.06
Ovechkin	1.08	1.08
B. Richards	1.07	1.08

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Crosby N/A obviously only played an additional 2 games, Stamkos -24.5%.

11/12

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Malkin	1.45	1.39
Giroux	1.21	1.41
Stamkos	1.18	1.16
Kovalchuk	1.08	0.94
Spezza	1.05	0.97
Lupul	1.02	1.05
Neal	1.01	0.95
Kessel	1.00	1.16
H. Sedin	0.99	1.18
Tavares	0.99	0.86

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Giroux -14.2%.

13/14

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Crosby	1.30	1.40
Malkin	1.20	1.28
Getzlaf	1.13	1.21
Tavares	1.12	1.13
Hall	1.07	1.09
Seguin	1.05	1.05
Giroux	1.05	0.93
Neal	1.03	N/A
Ovechkin	1.01	1.08
Perry	1.01	1.02

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nobody.

14/15

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Crosby	1.09	1.12
Seguin	1.09	1.22
Benn	1.06	0.89
Kane	1.05	1.08
Tavares	1.05	0.86
Datsyuk	1.03	N/A
Malkin	1.01	1.11
Ovechkin	1.00	0.83
Voracek	0.99	1.27
Hudler	0.97	0.97

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Seguin -10.7%, Voracek -22.0%, Hudler +/- 0%.

15/16

Player	PPG	PPG 1/1
Kane	1.29	1.44
Benn	1.09	1.33
Crosby	1.06	0.75
Malkin	1.02	0.92
Seguin	1.01	1.28
Karlsson	1.00	1.08
Thornton	1.00	0.72
Gaudreau	0.99	1.05
Panarin	0.96	0.87
Pavelski	0.95	1.06
Wheeler	0.95	1.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Kane -10.4%, Benn -18.0%, Seguin -21.1%.

16/17

Players	PPG	PPG 1/1
McDavid	1.22	1.13
Crosby	1.19	1.31
Malkin	1.16	1.13
Kucherov	1.15	1.13
Kane	1.09	0.95
Marchand	1.06	0.79
Backstrom	1.05	0.86
Scheifele	1.04	0.92
Getzlaf	0.99	0.83
Draisaitl	0.94	0.87

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nobody.

-----

So among these 20 season's top 10 ppg lists (201 player seasons), about halfway through their season, 34 players stood (imo) out as being on pace to become the best season, by a noticeable margin, any of these players posted during their career. Obviously there are other explanations (injuries, change of opportunity/roles) for some of these regressions, but 6 of the 34 dropped off by more than 20%, 21 by 10-20%, 6 by 5-10%, and only one retained his furious pace (Jiri Hudler!). That is, 97% of the players that displayed an unusually high PPG halfway through the season regressed towards the mean.

Of the many players that, at the half season mark, maintained a pace that could've matched our expectations, that didn't really deviate far from what they had done, or would proceed to do during their career, notice how reasonably close a large portion of them are at the mid-season mark compared to the their final number (think I counted 97 seasons that differed less than 10%).

Then there are also ones below expectations half way through, for example, Gretzky 97/98 pacing for his worst PPG ever at 0.86 went on to increase it by 27.9%, Forsberg 02/03 on pace for the 2nd worst PPG of his prime at 1.13 went on to increase it by 24.7%, Crosby 15/16 on pace for career worst PPG at 0.75 went on to increase it by 41.3%.

-----

I think it's fully reasonable to think that Crosby would've come down to earth during his 11-13 seasons rather than maintaining the pace (and very unlikely increasing his pace). In most instances it seems to even out reasonably well over the course of an entire season.

I also think this was his true peak, and he also generally saw high offensive TOI during this stretch. I think he very likely could've posted his best full season during this stretch, but probably not maintained his PPG.

But I think over an 80 game season, it's more likely that a player whose never had a bad season manages to start scoring closer to his average scoring rate, and raises his numbers.

It's possible unless something was bothering him, but probably not enough to go from bad season to good season either way.

Sticking to Crosby he had 19 points in his first 30 games in 2016. Then 66 in his last 50.

Back to the mean. Goes both ways though, not only when he's under performing. (I understand there was a coaching change magnifying the issue)

So yeah I don't hold 2011 against Malkin too much, because of small sample size.
But I do count 2011 as a plus for Crosby (and 2013, and even somewhat 2012 since it was in consecutive years).
I feel a lot stronger about the latter than the first for what it's worth. So if you want to hold 2011 against Malkin - I'm less bothered by it. I just don't in my own assessment of a player

It should probably be the reverse. But either way being of both these opinions simultaneously seems like preferential treatment.

 

[daver]

Any explanation for Sakic's drop in play in 92/93 and 93/94? Prior to that, he was a Top 3 to 5 forward (no Wayne or Mario) over the previous three seasons on a horrible Quebec team and then from 94/95 to 00/04 is arguably the 2nd best forward after Jagr.

 

[daver]

Over their best 11 season stretch, Sakic (94/95 to 03/04) is a solid 2nd in points and 3rd in PPG (among the Top 20 scorers). Malkin (07/08 to 17/18) is 3rd in points and is a solid 2nd in PPG.

To me that is a tossup. Edge to Sakic in raw points, edge to Malkin for PPG superiority.

Add in Sakic's four other Top Ten scoring/PPG finishes, the edge in playoff resumes, and some notable defensive play and Sakic is comfortably ahead.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Any explanation for Sakic's drop in play in 92/93 and 93/94? Prior to that, he was a Top 3 to 5 forward (no Wayne or Mario) over the previous three seasons on a horrible Quebec team and then from 94/95 to 00/04 is arguably the 2nd best forward after Jagr.

Pierre Page. This has been explained many times.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Any explanation for Sakic's drop in play in 92/93 and 93/94? Prior to that, he was a Top 3 to 5 forward (no Wayne or Mario) over the previous three seasons on a horrible Quebec team

if we're talking just about the '90 and '91 seasons, at the time i would have had him 100% behind hull, messier, oates, yzerman, and lafontaine. i'd put him in a tier behind those guys with recchi, fleury, robitaille, turgeon, and i think probably roenick too though it's a little early for roenick.

but i think while sakic's points total is very high if you average the two seasons, the individual highs by fleury and recchi are solidly ahead of him at that point. and then there are legendary peak performances by veterans like tikkanen, neely, and larmer.

 

[daver]

if we're talking just about the '90 and '91 seasons, at the time i would have had him 100% behind hull, messier, oates, yzerman, and lafontaine. i'd put him in a tier behind those guys with recchi, fleury, robitaille, turgeon, and i think probably roenick too though it's a little early for roenick.

but i think while sakic's points total is very high if you average the two seasons, the individual highs by fleury and recchi are solidly ahead of him at that point. and then there are legendary peak performances by veterans like tikkanen, neely, and larmer.

Wasn't trying to position him necessarily in the 90 to 92 period as being a Top whatever, moreso looking for opinions on his surprising drop in 93 and 94. Or like most players save for a very few, I guess he had peaks and valleys throughout his prime.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wasn't trying to position him necessarily in the 90 to 92 period as being a Top whatever, moreso looking for opinions on his surprising drop in 93 and 94. Or like most players save for a very few, I guess he had peaks and valleys throughout his prime.

well i think his stats were inflated before '93 because he was the main guy on a very very bad team, getting all the opportunities to have the team's offense run through him. as the team got better, sundin's emergence, the addition of ricci, sharing the load (nolan was on his line, but kamensky wasn't), his production leveled off. i don't remember him being any worse, just he was never there yet, in '91 or '94, as a truly elite guy even though the numbers made it seem like he was.

i think to some degree, though i don't remember his all-round game very clearly at all, he also no longer needed to try to score every shift for his team to win and began to start doing other things on the ice. and the team started to win.

also, as for '94 itself, i think he missed training camp holding out. that might have played a role in him seeming to wear down as the season wore off.

then in '95 he hits his level as a HHOF-calibre franchise player.

 

[daver]

well i think his stats were inflated before '93 because he was the main guy on a very very bad team, getting all the opportunities to have the team's offense run through him. as the team got better, sundin's emergence, the addition of ricci, sharing the load (nolan was on his line, but kamensky wasn't), his production leveled off. i don't remember him being any worse, just he was never there yet, in '91 or '94, as a truly elite guy even though the numbers made it seem like he was.

i think to some degree, though i don't remember his all-round game very clearly at all, he also no longer needed to try to score every shift for his team to win and began to start doing other things on the ice. and the team started to win.

also, as for '94 itself, i think he missed training camp holding out. that might have played a role in him seeming to wear down as the season wore off.

then in '95 he hits his level as a HHOF-calibre franchise player.

Makes sense. Cheers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

well i think his stats were inflated before '93 because he was the main guy on a very very bad team, getting all the opportunities to have the team's offense run through him. as the team got better, sundin's emergence, the addition of ricci, sharing the load (nolan was on his line, but kamensky wasn't), his production leveled off. i don't remember him being any worse, just he was never there yet, in '91 or '94, as a truly elite guy even though the numbers made it seem like he was.

i think to some degree, though i don't remember his all-round game very clearly at all, he also no longer needed to try to score every shift for his team to win and began to start doing other things on the ice. and the team started to win.

also, as for '94 itself, i think he missed training camp holding out. that might have played a role in him seeming to wear down as the season wore off.

then in '95 he hits his level as a HHOF-calibre franchise player.

Marc Crawford replaced Pierre Page and the franchise performed much better.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Wasn't trying to position him necessarily in the 90 to 92 period as being a Top whatever, moreso looking for opinions on his surprising drop in 93 and 94. Or like most players save for a very few, I guess he had peaks and valleys throughout his prime.

Did he really drop off in 93 and 94 though? I mean, his production was down a little compared to the start of the decade, but those horrendous plus/minus numbers had improved by leaps and bounds. I notice that his shooting percentage in 94 was significantly lower than previous years. Assist numbers were still consistent with the rest of his career though. Maybe he was just plain old snake-bitten around the net that year?

 

[daver]

Did he really drop off in 93 and 94 though? I mean, his production was down a little compared to the start of the decade, but those horrendous plus/minus numbers had improved by leaps and bounds. I notice that his shooting percentage in 94 was significantly lower than previous years. Assist numbers were still consistent with the rest of his career though. Maybe he was just plain old snake-bitten around the net that year?

Statistically he dropped off. From 89/90 to 91/92, he was 4th in points and 7th in PPG (non Wayne and Mario). The next two seasons he was 15th in points and 20th in PPG.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Statistically he dropped off. From 89/90 to 91/92, he was 4th in points and 7th in PPG (non Wayne and Mario). The next two seasons he was 15th in points and 20th in PPG.

I suspect we will disagree on how to interpret it, but it is a fact that an inordinate number of players experienced career years in 93 or 94. Of the 16 players ahead of Sakic in 93, 13 had their highest career point total, with several of them seeing a production spike that they never even came close to before or after. All things considered, I'd say 9 of them stick out as a career year. Not quite as pronounced in 94, but still 9 of 19 ahead of Sakic were having either their best or co-best career season from a production standpoint.

Contrast to 91. Six players in the top 20 had their highest career point total, and really only two of them could be described as a spike season. 92 saw just three players in the top 20 experience their highest career output. Kevin Stevens stands out as the lone spike season.

I guess the question is, is there some reason that Sakic specifically didn't spike in 93 or 94 like so many others? I'm more inclined to accept that a statistically anomalous number of outlier seasons turned in by other players made Sakic look worse, moreso than him having a notable drop-off in performance.

 

[Staniowski]

As vadim mentioned, the emergence of Sundin was a very big factor, I think. They were both young guys, Sundin 2 years younger, 21 yrs old in 1992. I remember watching some Nords games in that period. We shouldn't forget how good Sundin was, he was just as good as Sakic during those years, and he outscored Sakic in 92-93, and wasn't far behind the following year. (Sundin was then traded to the Leafs where he immediately outscored Gilmour). And Sundin's plus/minus was significantly better than Sakic's both years.

The emergence of someone - like Sundin - can really change the dynamic in such a situation.

Those were the years Sundin really became a star.

 

[Staniowski]

I suspect we will disagree on how to interpret it, but it is a fact that an inordinate number of players experienced career years in 93 or 94. Of the 16 players ahead of Sakic in 93, 13 had their highest career point total, with several of them seeing a production spike that they never even came close to before or after. All things considered, I'd say 9 of them stick out as a career year. Not quite as pronounced in 94, but still 9 of 19 ahead of Sakic were having either their best or co-best career season from a production standpoint.

Contrast to 91. Six players in the top 20 had their highest career point total, and really only two of them could be described as a spike season. 92 saw just three players in the top 20 experience their highest career output. Kevin Stevens stands out as the lone spike season.

I guess the question is, is there some reason that Sakic specifically didn't spike in 93 or 94 like so many others? I'm more inclined to accept that a statistically anomalous number of outlier seasons turned in by other players made Sakic look worse, moreso than him having a notable drop-off in performance.

You have to remember, it's debatable whether Sakic was even the best centre on his own team during those 2 years.

 

[daver]

I suspect we will disagree on how to interpret it, but it is a fact that an inordinate number of players experienced career years in 93 or 94. Of the 16 players ahead of Sakic in 93, 13 had their highest career point total, with several of them seeing a production spike that they never even came close to before or after. All things considered, I'd say 9 of them stick out as a career year. Not quite as pronounced in 94, but still 9 of 19 ahead of Sakic were having either their best or co-best career season from a production standpoint.

Contrast to 91. Six players in the top 20 had their highest career point total, and really only two of them could be described as a spike season. 92 saw just three players in the top 20 experience their highest career output. Kevin Stevens stands out as the lone spike season.

I guess the question is, is there some reason that Sakic specifically didn't spike in 93 or 94 like so many others? I'm more inclined to accept that a statistically anomalous number of outlier seasons turned in by other players made Sakic look worse, moreso than him having a notable drop-off in performance.

80 games to 84 games should be a factor. More PP points by the elite scorers is another.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

So among these 20 season's top 10 ppg lists (201 player seasons), about halfway through their season, 34 players stood (imo) out as being on pace to become the best season, by a noticeable margin, any of these players posted during their career. Obviously there are other explanations (injuries, change of opportunity/roles) for some of these regressions, but 6 of the 34 dropped off by more than 20%, 21 by 10-20%, 6 by 5-10%, and only one retained his furious pace (Jiri Hudler!). That is, 97% of the players that displayed an unusually high PPG halfway through the season regressed towards the mean.

Of the many players that, at the half season mark, maintained a pace that could've matched our expectations, that didn't really deviate far from what they had done, or would proceed to do during their career, notice how reasonably close a large portion of them are at the mid-season mark compared to the their final number (think I counted 97 seasons that differed less than 10%).

Then there are also ones below expectations half way through, for example, Gretzky 97/98 pacing for his worst PPG ever at 0.86 went on to increase it by 27.9%, Forsberg 02/03 on pace for the 2nd worst PPG of his prime at 1.13 went on to increase it by 24.7%, Crosby 15/16 on pace for career worst PPG at 0.75 went on to increase it by 41.3%.

-----

I think it's fully reasonable to think that Crosby would've come down to earth during his 11-13 seasons rather than maintaining the pace (and very unlikely increasing his pace). In most instances it seems to even out reasonably well over the course of an entire season.

I also think this was his true peak, and he also generally saw high offensive TOI during this stretch. I think he very likely could've posted his best full season during this stretch, but probably not maintained his PPG.



It's possible unless something was bothering him, but probably not enough to go from bad season to good season either way.



Back to the mean. Goes both ways though, not only when he's under performing. (I understand there was a coaching change magnifying the issue)



It should probably be the reverse. But either way being of both these opinions simultaneously seems like preferential treatment.

Crosby did maintain his pace though. He played at a 130 point pace for 160 straight games (2 seasons worth).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

We shouldn't forget how good Sundin was, he was just as good as Sakic during those years,

You have to remember, it's debatable whether Sakic was even the best centre on his own team during those 2 years.

i would disagree with both of those assertions. from what i remember, sakic was clearly the number one option and would be the guy you put out there against the other team's best, hence the lower +/- numbers.

not to say sundin wasn't a good player but i don't think many people at the time considered him sakic's equal.

 

[blogofmike]

Crosby did maintain his pace though. He played at a 130 point pace for 160 straight games (2 seasons worth).

Don't think that counts. Paces are more easily maintained over shorter stretches. You can catch a hot streak without any annoying laws of averages bringing your pace down.

Hence Sidney Crosby's three best PPG years are in partial years. He never surpassed those marks before or since, and only approached them once, in a higher scoring year (2007).

During the longest stretch of that 130 point pace, Crosby couldn't hit 110 when they were strung together.

 

[Staniowski]

i would disagree with both of those assertions. from what i remember, sakic was clearly the number one option and would be the guy you put out there against the other team's best, hence the lower +/- numbers.

not to say sundin wasn't a good player but i don't think many people at the time considered him sakic's equal.

When you have 2 great centres, it changes. Look at Crosby and Malkin. Malkin looks pretty good this season. And Sakic and Forsberg.

If Sakic was any better than Sundin during those 2 seasons, it certainly wasn't by much.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Don't think that counts. Paces are more easily maintained over shorter stretches. You can catch a hot streak without any annoying laws of averages bringing your pace down.

Hence Sidney Crosby's three best PPG years are in partial years. He never surpassed those marks before or since, and only approached them once, in a higher scoring year (2007).

During the longest stretch of that 130 point pace, Crosby couldn't hit 110 when they were strung together.

He couldn't hit 110 because he got injured...

Crosby was 23-25 when he was putting up 1.6+ PPG, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

 

[Staniowski]

i would disagree with both of those assertions. from what i remember, sakic was clearly the number one option and would be the guy you put out there against the other team's best, hence the lower +/- numbers.

not to say sundin wasn't a good player but i don't think many people at the time considered him sakic's equal.

Sundin outscored Sakic over those 2 years. Just like Forsberg outscored Sakic over the next 5 years after that.

 

[blogofmike]

He couldn't hit 110 because he got injured...

Crosby was 23-25 when he was putting up 1.6+ PPG, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

That does tend to be peak scoring age, but scoring at 1.5 PPG for 80 games over three discrete shorter periods is different from scoring 1.5 PPG over one continuous season long stretch of 80 games where regression to the mean is more likely.