2010-2013 Stamkos vs 2016-2019 Kane

[slapKing]

During these time frame, which of the two were the better player.

This of course is Stamkos pre leg injury who was as close to the big 3, and some years better than at least 2 of them when looking at years individually.

Then we have Kane who's career is as close to the big three, more so than anyone. Even more so during his peak years.

Who is the better player?

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

Kane.

Stamkos looked fantastic, and he looked primed and ready to take that next step....and then he didn't. Great player, fantastic career - but Kane simply did better. And that's without even looking at playoffs

 

[JaegerDice]

Kane has roughly a 10-point per season advantage over Stamkos in his four years, but his underlying numbers and relative numbers are so much worse, I'm not sure 10 points makes up the difference in play-driving and possession that Stamkos has.

Kane.

Stamkos looked fantastic, and he looked primed and ready to take that next step....and then he didn't. Great player, fantastic career - but Kane simply did better. And that's without even looking at playoffs

I'm not sure how you argue Kane's 2016-2019 playoff performance is better than Stamkos' 2010-2013 playoff performance. If we were looking at 2010-2013 for both of them then, yes, obviously, Kane has a huge advantage, but Kane was hardly a world beater in either 2016 or 2017 in the post-season.

 

[jetsforever]

Why did you pick those Kane years?

 

[The Moose is Loose]

Peak Stamkos was absolutely unreal, he reached a height that parallels Crosby/Malkin/Ovi, his peak was short but it was impressive

 

[slapKing]

Why did you pick those Kane years?

Those are Kane's best years. I chose his 4 year best stretch vs Stamkos' 4 year best stretch.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Stamkos back then was more dynamic than Kane ever has been. The thing that makes Kane amazing and his career so damn good is his consistent greatness, something Stamkos just won't have. Since this poll was about a 3 year stretch, it's the guy who was scoring at Ovi rates.

 

[Regal]

Those are Kane's best years. I chose his 4 year best stretch vs Stamkos' 4 year best stretch.

Probably makes more sense to go backward for Kane to include his better playoff seasons. This stretch includes one of his worst regular seasons, and while the 110 point year was very good, it looks better due to the scoring increase.

 

[slapKing]

Probably makes more sense to go backward for Kane to include his better playoff seasons. This stretch includes one of his worst regular seasons, and while the 110 point year was very good, it looks better due to the scoring increase.

I guess that's fair. I made sure that the comparison was really more so for the regular season, hence the time period.

 

[authentic]

I figured Kane would easily win this, but the more I think about it it's really close. Shouldn't Kane's 2015-16 put him ahead though? He was 17 points ahead of Crosby who was 2nd place that season.

 

[Gurglesons]

Kane was the best player in the league in 2016. Stammer wasn't ever.

 

[nowhereman]

Peak Stamkos was absolutely unreal, he reached a height that parallels Crosby/Malkin/Ovi, his peak was short but it was impressive

Woah, pumps the brakes there. That 60 goal season was impressive but not Crosby/OV/Malkin-impressive.

 

[ClydeLee]

Kane has roughly a 10-point per season advantage over Stamkos in his four years, but his underlying numbers and relative numbers are so much worse, I'm not sure 10 points makes up the difference in play-driving and possession that Stamkos has.



I'm not sure how you argue Kane's 2016-2019 playoff performance is better than Stamkos' 2010-2013 playoff performance. If we were looking at 2010-2013 for both of them then, yes, obviously, Kane has a huge advantage, but Kane was hardly a world beater in either 2016 or 2017 in the post-season.

Kinda amazed you still haven't caught up to like everyone I see in the stats community understand that Kane will always be a key outlier. And it's not a mystery why for Blackhawks fans like you are what about Kane causes that.

He could easily put so many more shots on net and have better numbers, that wouldn't make him better, it would produce probably less points than his playmaking of holding and finding the cross the ice or in tight pass that sets up an open net shot.

 

[leafsfan5]

Kane was the best player in the league in 2016. Stammer wasn't ever.

To be fair Stammer's peak coincided with Crosby and Malkin's. Kane wouldn't be the best player in the league either in that situation.

 

[Dr Salt]

Kinda amazed you still haven't caught up to like everyone I see in the stats community understand that Kane will always be a key outlier. And it's not a mystery why for Blackhawks fans like you are what about Kane causes that.

He could easily put so many more shots on net and have better numbers, that wouldn't make him better, it would produce probably less points than his playmaking of holding and finding the cross the ice or in tight pass that sets up an open net shot.

Yeah pretty much, models will always undervalue Kane's value as a passer, but that could be seen in GF stats or just straight-up scoring. He's always the outlier to xGF and relation to production, overperforming it in all but two seasons of his career I believe.

 

[Gurglesons]

To be fair Stammer's peak coincided with Crosby and Malkin's. Kane wouldn't be the best player in the league either in that situation.

Crosby and Malkin won back to back in 16 and 17?

 

[leafsfan5]

Crosby and Malkin won back to back in 16 and 17?

That's their peak for team success. Individually they dominated moreso in the early 2010's. Malkin's best season was 11-12 and Crosby had the ridiculous 66 in 41 during 10-11. Kane didn't compete with that level of competition for the top spot

 

[Gurglesons]

That's their peak for team success. Individually they dominated moreso in the early 2010's. Malkin's best season was 11-12 and Crosby had the ridiculous 66 in 41 during 10-11. Kane didn't compete with that level of competition for the top spot

neither did Stammer. Kane was closer to McDavid than Stamkos was to Crosby and once again was the best player in the league for a year.

NHL Stats

NHL Stats

 

[leafsfan5]

neither did Stammer. Kane was closer to McDavid than Stamkos was to Crosby and once again was the best player in the league for a year.

NHL Stats

NHL Stats

What do you mean by neither did Stammer? Stamkos' peak was from 2010-2013 so he literally competed against Crosby/Malkin's peak for the top spot (and came up short obviously as Crosby/Malkin peaked ridiculously high). That's much tougher competition than a McDavid breaking into the league and establishing himself like he was in 15-16. The timeframe we're looking at for Kane doesn't coincide with McDavid's peak like it does for Stamkos and Crosby/Malkin.

 

[Gurglesons]

What do you mean by neither did Stammer? Stamkos' peak was from 2010-2013 so he literally competed against Crosby/Malkin's peak for the top spot (and came up short obviously as Crosby/Malkin peaked ridiculously high). That's much tougher competition than a McDavid breaking into the league and establishing himself like he was in 15-16. The timeframe we're looking at for Kane doesn't coincide with McDavid's peak like it does for Stamkos and Crosby/Malkin.

2010 - 2013 Crosby and Malkin were both recovering from multiple injuries.

Crosby has a PPG of 1.49 to Stamkos having a PPG of 1.16. Sedin, Ovechkin and Malkin are all in that realm. So is Stamkos's line mate.

McDavid had a PPG of 1.30 to Kane's PPG of 1.17. Crosby and Malkin are in that realm and Kucherov is above Kane.

Kane's peak of being the best player in the year outdoes what Stamkos did in those years. Kane's raw production outdoes what Stamkos did in those years. Kane's PPG outdoes what Stamkos did in those years.

Points

Stamkos -
2009 - 10 - 5th
2010 - 11 - 5th
2011 - 12 - 2nd
2012 - 13 - 2nd

Kane
2015-16 - 1st
2016-17 - 2nd
2017-18 - Not top ten.
2018-19 - 3rd

PPG
Stamkos -
2009 - 10 - 6th
2010 - 11 - 7th
2011 - 12 - 3rd
2012 - 13 - 3rd

Kane
2015-16 - 1st
2016-17 - 5th
2017-18 - Not top ten.
2018-19 - 3rd

 

[JaegerDice]

Kinda amazed you still haven't caught up to like everyone I see in the stats community understand that Kane will always be a key outlier. And it's not a mystery why for Blackhawks fans like you are what about Kane causes that.

He could easily put so many more shots on net and have better numbers, that wouldn't make him better, it would produce probably less points than his playmaking of holding and finding the cross the ice or in tight pass that sets up an open net shot.

Yeah pretty much, models will always undervalue Kane's value as a passer, but that could be seen in GF stats or just straight-up scoring. He's always the outlier to xGF and relation to production, overperforming it in all but two seasons of his career I believe.

I'm well aware that Kane has made a career out of being a statistical outlier when it comes to his own production. It's true that prediction models for production don't really work with him, simply because he's constantly scoring more than his possession, shot and chance generation would suggest. That's great for him, and makes him a dangerous weapon, as he can consistently score against the grain.

But I'm NOT arguing that Kane's underlying numbers suggest that he's not going to score as much. We're discussing a fixed window of performance, not a projection of future performance based on predictive measures. And even if I were making a projection, I wouldn't argue that Kane's individual production would suffer significantly due to him being underwater. He's proven he can overcome that.

I'm talking about on-ice impact as far as shot and chance generation (and ultimately goal-scoring) both ways. It's great that Kane can continue to generate even when he's underwater, but it doesn't change the fact that the team is consistently under-water when he's on the ice. That means more shots and chances against, and inevitably that means more goals against, m especially against elite players that can make the lop-sided shots and chances in their favor count more often.

We Blackhawks fans know this, we know that's why Kane was deployed on a 2nd line almost exclusively in the offensive zone against weaker competition, while the 1st line took on the top competition and 4th line (really 3rd) took on the defensive zone duty. That left Kane to get the most out of his offensive upside, and kept the guys that would have the best chance to use the lop-sided shots and chances the other way against him off the ice.

As far as career vs career, I'd obviously rather have Kane, predominantly for the playoff performances he's provided. But between these two, fixed, somewhat arbitrary time periods, I'd rather take the guy that doesn't need to be insulated as much because he drives play better, and only loses 10 points of raw production in the process.

 

[authentic]

I'm well aware that Kane has made a career out of being a statistical outlier when it comes to his own production. It's true that prediction models for production don't really work with him, simply because he's constantly scoring more than his possession, shot and chance generation would suggest. That's great for him, and makes him a dangerous weapon, as he can consistently score against the grain.

But I'm arguing that Kane's underlying numbers suggest that he's not going to score as much. We're discussing a fixed window of performance, not a projection of future performance based on predictive measures. And even if I were making a projection, I wouldn't argue that Kane's individual production would suffer significantly due to him being underwater. He's proven he can overcome that.

I'm talking about on-ice impact as far as shot and chance generation (and ultimately goal-scoring) both ways. It's great that Kane can continue to generate even when he's underwater, but it doesn't change the fact that the team is consistently under-water when he's on the ice. That means more shots and chances against, and inevitably that means more goals against, m especially against elite players that can make the lop-sided shots and chances in their favor count more often.

We Blackhawks fans know this, we know that's why Kane was deployed on a 2nd line almost exclusively in the offensive zone against weaker competition, while the 1st line took on the top competition and 4th line (really 3rd) took on the defensive zone duty. That left Kane to get the most out of his offensive upside, and kept the guys that would have the best chance to use the lop-sided shots and chances the other way against him off the ice.

As far as career vs career, I'd obviously rather have Kane, predominantly for the playoff performances he's provided. But between these two, fixed, somewhat arbitrary time periods, I'd rather take the guy that doesn't need to be insulated as much because he drives play better, and only loses 10 points of raw production in the process.

Sort of off topic, but how do these underlying numbers of Stamkos compare to Matthews these past few seasons? Pretty much equal goal scorers but I believe Matthews now to be the better overall player. I didn't realize Stamkos was anything special in this regard compared to Kane.

 

[JaegerDice]

Sort of off topic, but how do these underlying numbers of Stamkos compare to Matthews these past few seasons? Pretty much equal goal scorers but I believe Matthews now to be the better overall player. I didn't realize Stamkos was anything special in this regard compared to Kane.

As far as xGF%, SF%, CF% and GF%, Matthews underlying numbers for the last two seasons compare favorably to Stamkos. Stamkos' 2011 season is the only one on par with Matthews 20 or 21 seasons. His current season is on track to be the best season between either player.

Stamkos isn't actually a standout play-driver amoung elite players, particularly centers. As an example, I did a quick search for all seasons from Stamkos, Crosby, Toews, Bergeron and Kopitar from 2008 to 2021, and Stamkos best xGF% season is 24th on the list. Kane has had some very good seasons as far as underlying numbers too, just not during the 4-year window specified.

 

[ClydeLee]

I find this odd because I always took St Louis has a bigger factor and better still for more of those years. How was Stamkos close to thr best in the league when he wasn't really beyond St. Louis on his own team?

Is st Louis previously overrated or what? Cause it also seemed pretty clear the dynamic rate of a Stamkos dropped as St Louis was gone after 13.

 

[Connor McConnor]

I'm well aware that Kane has made a career out of being a statistical outlier when it comes to his own production. It's true that prediction models for production don't really work with him, simply because he's constantly scoring more than his possession, shot and chance generation would suggest. That's great for him, and makes him a dangerous weapon, as he can consistently score against the grain.

But I'm arguing that Kane's underlying numbers suggest that he's not going to score as much. We're discussing a fixed window of performance, not a projection of future performance based on predictive measures. And even if I were making a projection, I wouldn't argue that Kane's individual production would suffer significantly due to him being underwater. He's proven he can overcome that.

I'm talking about on-ice impact as far as shot and chance generation (and ultimately goal-scoring) both ways. It's great that Kane can continue to generate even when he's underwater, but it doesn't change the fact that the team is consistently under-water when he's on the ice. That means more shots and chances against, and inevitably that means more goals against, m especially against elite players that can make the lop-sided shots and chances in their favor count more often.

We Blackhawks fans know this, we know that's why Kane was deployed on a 2nd line almost exclusively in the offensive zone against weaker competition, while the 1st line took on the top competition and 4th line (really 3rd) took on the defensive zone duty. That left Kane to get the most out of his offensive upside, and kept the guys that would have the best chance to use the lop-sided shots and chances the other way against him off the ice.

As far as career vs career, I'd obviously rather have Kane, predominantly for the playoff performances he's provided. But between these two, fixed, somewhat arbitrary time periods, I'd rather take the guy that doesn't need to be insulated as much because he drives play better, and only loses 10 points of raw production in the process.

/thread