It's a fair point though. It could easily be seen as preferential treatment.
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.
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.
Thank you for your reply and for taking the time to put together all this data - I wanted to respond to your post just hadn't had the time until now. The data certainly puts some things into perspective. I will however still counter you with a few points that I believe it maybe overlooks. And I apologize in advance, but I have no fancy tables in my post, so it maybe won't look as neat as yours.
The 2 arguments I had made that you responded to were:
1. Malkin's "bad" seasons maybe shouldn't be held against him too much due to small sample size (2011 - 43 games, 2013 - 31 games), in the same way as I hold "fuller bad seasons" against Sakic (1994 as example) or Yzerman. Malkin hasn't had a "full" "bad" season yet - both Sakic and Yzerman had a few in their careers.
2. Crosby's "partial seasons" should be given credit they deserve - despite small sample size. (to be clear - i never once said his partial seasons count for as much as a full season would count - so if he had played all 82 games in 2011 at the same pace it would count for more. What i am saying though, is that the pace he had for that year, and the following 2, should absolutely count as a big plus in his overall career assessment). Furthermore - I said it's absolutely realistic to expect that Crosby would have maintained his PPG in more games those years - and possibly even raised it slightly.
Let's look at Malkin first. Your data seems to support the idea that his 43 game season - had he played it through to 82 games instead - there's a good chance his numbers go back to the mean and he raises higher. Does it turn his bad season into a "good" season? As you say - probably not, as he was far back. So if you want to hold 2011 against Malkin and call it a "bad" season in the same sense that I am holding 1994 against Sakic and calling it a "bad" season - you can do so. I myself tend to give him a bit more the benefit of the doubt because of small sample size and try to concentrate on fuller seasons before labeling them bad.
in 1995 - Yzerman only scored 38 points in 47 games. It's a "bad" season for him offense-wise. But because it's a short season of only 47 games (lockout year) - i don't hold it against him as much as I might call 1996 a bad offensive season, where he finished 25th in PPG over 80 games (to be clear i only said bad offensive season - I know he finished high in Selke that year).
But sure - if your argument is that you feel very strongly about the fact that you should be holding a 43 games (2011) or even 31 game (2013) season where he had bad numbers against Malkin, and that they should be seen as a "negative" or a "-1" on his resume - go ahead. I personally try to give the benefit of the doubt when looking at shorter seasons that were bad, and try to pick out full seasons before counting them as negatives.
It's not that a "healthy" sakic playing 84 games in 1994 is less valuable than an injured Malkin missing 39 games in 2011. Sakic playing is of course more useful to the team than Malkin not playing even if Sakic somehow scores 0 points. But when evaluating each player's career (which is what we're doing here, we're not comparing impact and value to his team) - I find it a bit more underwhelming that Sakic had a full 84 game stretch in 1994 where he wasn't able to raise himself towards the top of scoring in the league, finishing way back. I give Malkin a bit more of a pass for being underwhelming over a 43 game sample size because I give him the benefit of the doubt that over a full 82 games he might have done better and maybe looked better compared to other top scorers that he did after only 43 games.
So 1994 Sakic bugs me when looking at his resume.
2011 Malkin doesn't bug me as much.
If your deadset on also holding 2011 and 2013 against Malkin despite short sample size - that's fine, you can. Doing it this way doesn't hurt Sakic much - but there are a few shorter seasons in Yzerman's career where he also performed bad, and that we therefore also should count as bad seasons for him. Doesn't move the needle much in the Yzerman/Malkin comparison, but it does make Sakic look slightly better vs Malkin.
Switching to Crosby, and his pace in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Your data fails to take a very important consideration into account. 2011-2013 are Crosby's "peak" - where he was at his best (eye test, numbers and even Crosby haters tend to generally agree this was his peak/best). You yourself said in your post you agree that it's Crosby's peak.
I'm going to pick 5 random players that can be said to be somewhat comparable to Crosby in terms of offensive peak/prime/career. Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr and Lindros and Yzerman. Those 5 players are players whose peak offensive seasons happened in a row, and where it's rather easy to extrapolate 3 consecutive "best" seasons from their resume. (remember - we are going under the assumption 2011, 2012 and 2013 should have been Crosby's peak, and trying to determine how his PPG would have been impacted in a full season).
Lindros. His 3 best years are 95, 96 and 97. His PPG finishes those years are 1.52 1.58 and 1.52
Ovechkin. His 3 best years are 2008, 09 10. His PPG finishes those years are 1.37, 1.39 and 1.51
Jagr. His 3 best years are 98, 99 00. His PPG finishes those years are 1.32, 1.57 and 1.52 (maybe you disagree with those 3 years and you can pick different years, i don't think it would change much and I also wanted to avoid the Lemieux effect)
Yzerman. His 3 best years are 1989, 90 91. His PPG finishes those years are 1.94, 1.61 and 1.35
My argument is. 2011, 2012 and 2013 were Crosby's best seasons. His peak. He would have maintained (or slightly raised, or slightly lowered) his PPG by end of season. But they weren't a fluke that would have gone down significantly in either year as you seem to imply.
Ovechkin.
In 2008, on Jan 1st he had 1.23 PPG, by end year 1.37 PPG.
In 2009, on Jan 1st he had 1.36 PPG, by end year 1.39 PPG.
in 2010, on Jan 1st he had 1.56 PPG, by end year 1.51 PPG.
So his "peak". His best 3 years. He was mostly consistent, throughout the year. Some years his numbers went up at Jan 1st, some they went down, but in no year does it show that his numbers through half the season are unsustainable and he would have come crashing down to earth after Jan 1st (ie - he didn't).
Overall 2 years his PPG went up past Jan 1st vs 1 it went down. Overall it went up by .12 PPG past Jan 1st over 3 years.
Jagr.
In 1998. On Jan first he had ppg of 1.27, by end year 1.33 PPG
In 1999. On Jan 1st he had ppg of 1.28, by end year 1.57 PPG.
In 2000. On Jan 1st he had ppg of 1.89, by end year 1.52 PPG.
I tried to use 3 years without Lemieux - since Lemieux is an x-factor all on his own. I also think those 3 years are fairly representative of Jagr's peak or best years, but maybe you disagree. In 1999 his pace went significantly up past Jan 1st, whereas in 2000 it's the other way around. 2000 wasn't a full season, as he only played 63 games. He played a mostly full schedule by Jan 1st (35 games) - but less after that when his ppg dropped in the last 28 games of year over a smaller sample size. Maybe he still had a bit of nagging injuries/or took a bit of time to get back in synch to explain the drop, who knows. But if anything - it seems to show that he was doing better when he played every game before injury, so maybe if he misses no games his ppg stays closer to 1.89 - though that's just a guess of course. Regardless, let's take numbers exactly as is:
Overall, 2 years his ppg went up past Jan 1st, and 1 it went down. Overall it went down by 0.02 past Jan 1st over 3 years.
Lindros.
In 1995. At half the season (game 23 - lockout year) his PPG was 1.48. by year end, 1.52
In 1996, on Jan 1st his ppg was 1.53, by end year it was 1.58
In 1997, on Jan 1st his ppg was 1.44. By year end it was 1.52.
Lindros also had no problem raising his ppg as the year went on in his best years. It certainly didn't drop. To make the Crosby parallel - if his "peak seasons" follow a similar path, he either maintains his ppg in 2011, 12 and 13, or slightly raise it each year.
Overall, all 3 years Lindros raised his PPG by end year. Overall, his ppg went up by .17 over 3 years past Jan 1st.
Yzerman.
In 1989, on Jan 1st his ppg was 2.1, by end year it was 1.94
In 1990, On Jan 1st his ppg was 1.43, by end year it was 1.61
In 1991, on Jan 1st his ppg was 1.3, by end year it was 1.35
Overall, in two years his PPG went up past Jan 1st, and one year it went down. Overall his ppg past Jan 1st went up .07 over 3 years.
2011, 2012 and 2013 were Sidney's Crosby's peak seasons. After looking at Ovechkin, Lindros, Jagr and Yzerman - I think it's safe to say that Sidney Crosby's 2011, 2012 and 2013 were not flukes that would have averaged out over time. They were his best seasons - and it's more likely that he would have raised his ppg slightly in some years than it is that he would have lowered them.
So - yes, I have no issues whatsoever giving Crosby credit for his level of play during his partial seasons. +1 Crosby.
I don't count Crosby's 2011 season as much as I would have had he maintained his pace over 82 games (82 games > 41 games) - but I absolutely do still count the 41 games. And the 22 games of the following year, and the 36 of the following year, where he was the best player by a significant gap over the field. Having been a significant step above the competition for a few years in a row is in my opinion a big plus in someone's career, so yes I do give him credit for that because I don't see them as flukes that would have lowered over time. I see them as his best years that he would have maintained over time (or even raised).