Are the Regular Season and Playoffs 50/50 for you when evaluating a player’s rank/legacy?

[Varan]

How much do you weigh both sides of the season when evaluating a player?

Is it 50/50?

75/25?

60/40?

Click to read more...

 

[filinski77]

Regular season is worth more from an individual player standpoint. 82GP max, vs. 28GP max. You could have a player who is great in the playoffs, but will be viewed poorly if their TEAM can't progress far every year.

Let's say a player has a bad 5 games and his team gets eliminated, that should not even come close to overshadowing what that player would have done in 82GP. For example, McDavid and Crosby this year in the RS vs. in the playoffs. Both very subpar showings vs. what they did in the regular season, but I'm not going to act like what they did in 4-6 games will erase how good they were in 56GP during the season.

 

[Varan]

Regular season is worth more from an individual player standpoint. 82GP max, vs. 28GP max. You could have a player who is great in the playoffs, but will be viewed poorly if their TEAM can't progress far every year.

Let's say a player has a bad 5 games and his team gets eliminated, that should not even come close to overshadowing what that player would have done in 82GP. For example, McDavid and Crosby this year in the RS vs. in the playoffs. Both very subpar showings vs. what they did in the regular season, but I'm not going to act like what they did in 4-6 games will erase how good they were in 56GP during the season.

This is a good way to put it

 

[Nadal On Clay]

The regular season resume is worth more overall since it’s a bigger sample size, but ultimately, legacy is built by great playoff performances.

 

[JaegerDice]

With the caveat that the sample size of each player’s playoff resume is a factor, playoff performance is more important.

Beyond the fact that winning the playoffs and earning the Stanley Cup is the ultimate goal of any team and the vast majority of players - and therefore great playoff performers are inherently more valuable to the end goal - the simple fact is that quality of competition and level of intensity increases in the playoffs.

You’ve eliminated the ‘free points’ from the bottom half of the league, you’ve eliminated the half-interested tuesday night game efforts from the good teams, you've eliminated any semblance of 'saving your energy' or distraction. You’re playing higher quality teams where every player is legitimately giving everything they have, mentally and physically, every shift. Everything from physical exertion, to decision making, to attention to detail, to internal and external pressure is more pronounced, every single shift.

If you consistently succeed in that environment, you’re a better player.

You don't even necessarily have to win the ultimate prize either. You can be a great playoff performer and come up short. Ovechkin put up great point totals in the playoffs for over a decade before he finally won the thing. Winning it checks a box on the last thing missing from his trophy case, but he was already a playoff performer before he won.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Regular season is worth more.
But a great regular season player can hurt his legacy by multiple bad playoffs. One or two bad playoffs is not a huge deal imo. But if it starts to become a pattern then it’s hard to overlook.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Regular season is worth more.
But a great regular season player can hurt his legacy by multiple bad playoffs. One or two bad playoffs is not a huge deal imo. But if it starts to become a pattern then it’s hard to overlook.

IMO, no way. Most regular season games are largely meaningless. What’s so special about putting up a bunch of points against some random bottom feeder on a Tuesday night in November?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Regular season is worth more from an individual player standpoint. 82GP max, vs. 28GP max. You could have a player who is great in the playoffs, but will be viewed poorly if their TEAM can't progress far every year.

Let's say a player has a bad 5 games and his team gets eliminated, that should not even come close to overshadowing what that player would have done in 82GP. For example, McDavid and Crosby this year in the RS vs. in the playoffs. Both very subpar showings vs. what they did in the regular season, but I'm not going to act like what they did in 4-6 games will erase how good they were in 56GP during the season.

I think it depends on sample sizes. When one evaluates a player based on a solitary playoff series or a couple of playoff seasons, then the sample size could lead to really bad takes. But I think over the course of a player's career, the "good" playoff series will offset the "bad" ones if that player truly is a playoff performer.

Take a player like Crosby from your example. The reason his latest playoff run doesn't completely tarnish his overall value as a player is because he's also got playoff years where he was very productive. However, if after 170+ career playoff games Crosby's production was always like it's been the past playoffs, then you *would* start to question him as a player who performs when it matters.

Now, as for the OP question I don't really know what percentage value I'd attribute to the playoffs versus regular season. But I do think that, over a large sample size, their playoff performances can matter when evaluating that player's overall worth or value.

 

[Albatros]

The regular season is about getting there and the playoffs about going all the way.

Therefore playoffs by a mile.

 

[JaegerDice]

OOC, can anybody think of a player generally considered 'great' or even 'elite', who wasn't good in the playoffs?

I think the truth is that given a large enough sample, playoff performance and RS performance generally get pretty close in aggregate.

For example, Patrick Kane is held up as 'clutch' by a lot of people. Yet his production/60, including when the score is close, is pretty much even in both the regular season and playoffs.

He's a great offensive player, and given a large playoff sample, that comes through. Even though there were extended periods in deep runs (multi-game slumps in both 2013 and 2015), or entire short runs (2011, 2012) when he was basically kept off the board. He just got enough games in the post season for everything to come out in the wash and for his consistent offensive impact to come through.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

OOC, can anybody think of a player generally considered 'great' or even 'elite', who wasn't good in the playoffs?

I think the truth is that given a large enough sample, playoff performance and RS performance generally get pretty close in aggregate.

For example, Patrick Kane is held up as 'clutch' by a lot of people. Yet his production/60, including when the score is close, is pretty much even in both the regular season and playoffs.

He's a great offensive player, and given a large playoff sample, that comes through. Even though there were extended periods in deep runs (multi-game slumps in both 2013 and 2015), or entire short runs (2011, 2012) when he was basically kept off the board. He just got enough games in the post season for everything to come out in the wash and for his consistent offensive impact to come through.

Joe Thornton? At his peak, he was recording 100+ point seasons, but he doesn't have even a single playoff run that was over a point per game.

 

[bobholly39]

Regular season worth more than playoffs. Probably close to ~75-25, but it depends. No exact formula. I'm all for counting playoffs more for a player who shines particularly bright there. Example in a vacuum I might say 75/25 - but when I look at Patrick Roy, maybe I consider his playoffs a bit more. (never 50 though, that's too much. Maybe up to ~60).

It's all about trying to reward really great playoff performances, while also understanding regular season is where the majority is played.

So I'd say playoffs to me are worth ~25-40%, and regular season ~60-75%.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

OOC, can anybody think of a player generally considered 'great' or even 'elite', who wasn't good in the playoffs?

I think the truth is that given a large enough sample, playoff performance and RS performance generally get pretty close in aggregate.

For example, Patrick Kane is held up as 'clutch' by a lot of people. Yet his production/60, including when the score is close, is pretty much even in both the regular season and playoffs.

He's a great offensive player, and given a large playoff sample, that comes through. Even though there were extended periods in deep runs (multi-game slumps in both 2013 and 2015), or entire short runs (2011, 2012) when he was basically kept off the board. He just got enough games in the post season for everything to come out in the wash and for his consistent offensive impact to come through.

Thornton, Stamkos from today. Naslund, Nash, Dionne examples from the past.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Regular season is definitely worth more. Take any great player (Crosby, OV, whoever) and compare regular season GP vs playoffs GP (for these 2, playoff GP represent 15% and 10% of their total career games). Yes the cup is the goal, blah blah. 10-15% of a career will never outweigh 90% of it. Gretzky is the GOAT because of his ridiculous regular season dominance/awards. Orr wasn't anything special in the playoffs, he's ranked where he is because of his regular seasons. Lemieux barely hit 100 playoff GP, but he's a guaranteed top 4 player ever. OV is argued as the GOAT goal scorer because of his regular seasons. Hasek is the best goalie ever because of his Vezinas and harts, not because he was some legendary playoff performer. When we think Jagr, we think 5 rosses. Lidstrom/Bourque we think Norris wins. Etc, etc. If a player shits the bed every playoffs then yeah it means something. If a player elevates their game in the playoffs that means something too. But regular season is worth more.

 

[Varan]

I think it depends on sample sizes. When one evaluates a player based on a solitary playoff series or a couple of playoff seasons, then the sample size could lead to really bad takes. But I think over the course of a player's career, the "good" playoff series will offset the "bad" ones if that player truly is a playoff performer.

Take a player like Crosby from your example. The reason his latest playoff run doesn't completely tarnish his overall value as a player is because he's also got playoff years where he was very productive. However, if after 170+ career playoff games Crosby's production was always like it's been the past playoffs, then you *would* start to question him as a player who performs when it matters.

Now, as for the OP question I don't really know what percentage value I'd attribute to the playoffs versus regular season. But I do think that, over a large sample size, their playoff performances can matter when evaluating that player's overall worth or value.

Your post beg the question of how big enough of a sample size in the playoffs is enough to determine a percentage of weight

 

[filinski77]

I think it depends on sample sizes. When one evaluates a player based on a solitary playoff series or a couple of playoff seasons, then the sample size could lead to really bad takes. But I think over the course of a player's career, the "good" playoff series will offset the "bad" ones if that player truly is a playoff performer.

Take a player like Crosby from your example. The reason his latest playoff run doesn't completely tarnish his overall value as a player is because he's also got playoff years where he was very productive. However, if after 170+ career playoff games Crosby's production was always like it's been the past playoffs, then you *would* start to question him as a player who performs when it matters.

Now, as for the OP question I don't really know what percentage value I'd attribute to the playoffs versus regular season. But I do think that, over a large sample size, their playoff performances can matter when evaluating that player's overall worth or value.

Totally fair, and compiling all post-season runs overall does add extra value since you have a larger sample size. But the issue is you are going from comparing 82GP vs. 4-28GP to 1,000GP vs. 170GP. Still a huge discrepancy.

The way I see it is that you can't ignore playoffs, if someone was a terrible (or amazing) player in the playoffs, then of course you have to consider that, but it's still such a small sample size vs. the RS, that for me it's maybe a 80-20 split, more in-line with the total GP that a player has. If you want to add a little extra emphasis on PO, then maybe 75-25?

Take Crosby and Ovi's GP breakdown. Both are some of the top playoff performers of this generation, and neither were much better or worse in the playoffs than they were in the RS. Even if you place twice as much importance on the playoffs than the RS, that's a 70-30 split for Crosby, and almost 80-20 for Ovechkin.

Crosby
1039	86%
174	14%
1213
Ovechkin
1197	89%
141	11%
1338

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It brings me back to the opinion that the playoffs should really only be a huge factor if a player is way better or way worse in the PO than they are in the RS (Couture and Matthews could be good examples). Crosby and Ovechkin both have similar and smaller decreases in post-season production, but someone like Matthews has a huge decrease in playoff performance, while someone like Couture has a large increase when playing in the playoffs (signs I used are backwards - ie. positive number indicates PO decrease). In a radical situation like Matthews/Couture, it would be fair to have a larger focus on the playoffs. But for other players who have normal slight decreases in production once the playoffs hit, I don't see why it matters much at all - and at that point you may as well just go with the bigger sample size.

	RS P/GP inc	RS G/GP inc
Ovechkin	13%	19%
Crosby	16%	18%
Matthews	40%	47%
Couture	-14%	-14%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Gurglesons]

Regular season is most important when it comes to establishing yourself as a star player. Playoffs are where star players cement their legacy though.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Totally fair, and compiling all post-season runs overall does add extra value since you have a larger sample size. But the issue is you are going from comparing 82GP vs. 4-28GP to 1,000GP vs. 170GP. Still a huge discrepancy.

The way I see it is that you can't ignore playoffs, if someone was a terrible (or amazing) player in the playoffs, then of course you have to consider that, but it's still such a small sample size vs. the RS, that for me it's maybe a 80-20 split, more in-line with the total GP that a player has. If you want to add a little extra emphasis on PO, then maybe 75-25?

Take Crosby and Ovi's GP breakdown. Both are some of the top playoff performers of this generation, and neither were much better or worse in the playoffs than they were in the RS. Even if you place twice as much importance on the playoffs than the RS, that's a 70-30 split for Crosby, and almost 80-20 for Ovechkin.

Crosby
1039	86%
174	14%
1213
Ovechkin
1197	89%
141	11%
1338

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It brings me back to the opinion that the playoffs should really only be a huge factor if a player is way better or way worse in the PO than they are in the RS (Couture and Matthews could be good examples). Crosby and Ovechkin both have similar and smaller decreases in post-season production, but someone like Matthews has a huge decrease in playoff performance, while someone like Couture has a large increase when playing in the playoffs (signs I used are backwards - ie. positive number indicates PO decrease). In a radical situation like Matthews/Couture, it would be fair to have a larger focus on the playoffs. But for other players who have normal slight decreases in production once the playoffs hit, I don't see why it matters much at all - and at that point you may as well just go with the bigger sample size.

	RS P/GP inc	RS G/GP inc
Ovechkin	13%	19%
Crosby	16%	18%
Matthews	40%	47%
Couture	-14%	-14%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For clarification, my initial response to you was more in terms of determining when a player's playoff performance can be properly evaluated versus when the small sample size makes evaluation useless. It was less in regards to comparing the importance between a player's regular season stats and playoff stats.

In other words, determining that a player doesn't perform (or does perform well) in the playoffs after a 6 game sample size is incredibly faulty. But determining whether a player performs or not in the playoffs after they've played a big chunk of playoff games over multiple seasons has merit.

 

[Varan]

Regular season is most important when it comes to establishing yourself as a star player. Playoffs are where star players cement their legacy though.

for once I agree with you

 

[wetcoast]

Regular season worth more than playoffs. Probably close to ~75-25, but it depends. No exact formula. I'm all for counting playoffs more for a player who shines particularly bright there. Example in a vacuum I might say 75/25 - but when I look at Patrick Roy, maybe I consider his playoffs a bit more. (never 50 though, that's too much. Maybe up to ~60).

It's all about trying to reward really great playoff performances, while also understanding regular season is where the majority is played.

So I'd say playoffs to me are worth ~25-40%, and regular season ~60-75%.

I use the same baseline of 75-25 regular to playoffs but everything needs context.

All players get to play all games in the regular season. Even the best player in the world can only go as far as his team can take him so it's a false equivalency in rating the playoffs too highly IMO.

Playoffs are more a measurement of team success plus the game is different in the playoffs which helps some players type of game and hurts others.

Often that context is either ignored or really minimized for no concrete reasons other than a person likes or dislikes a particular player or so it seems.

 

[wetcoast]

Regular season is definitely worth more. Take any great player (Crosby, OV, whoever) and compare regular season GP vs playoffs GP (for these 2, playoff GP represent 15% and 10% of their total career games). Yes the cup is the goal, blah blah. 10-15% of a career will never outweigh 90% of it. Gretzky is the GOAT because of his ridiculous regular season dominance/awards. Orr wasn't anything special in the playoffs, he's ranked where he is because of his regular seasons. Lemieux barely hit 100 playoff GP, but he's a guaranteed top 4 player ever. OV is argued as the GOAT goal scorer because of his regular seasons. Hasek is the best goalie ever because of his Vezinas and harts, not because he was some legendary playoff performer. When we think Jagr, we think 5 rosses. Lidstrom/Bourque we think Norris wins. Etc, etc. If a player shits the bed every playoffs then yeah it means something. If a player elevates their game in the playoffs that means something too. But regular season is worth more.

Agree with alot here but Orr was really special in the playoffs.

NHL Stats

Take special not of that +60 in the plus/minus column as he lapped the field literally in that department.

If that's not special I don't know what is to be frank.

 

[Regal]

The majority of players, especially elite players, who are the ones we're generally evaluating, end up with similar playoff performances to their regular season performances. This means the bigger sample size of the regular season is usually more important imo. To me, the playoffs is more about a player proving that he can or can't perform at that similar level than about the playoff resume itself. So if one player is a clearly better regular season player than another and had a great playoff run while winning the cup once, I wouldn't put extra weight on it if that other player had multiple cup runs where he was great. Similar to say, Ovechkin and Kane. Ovechkin's proven himself in the playoffs at this point and has a much better regular season record, so I wouldn't put Kane on the same level as a player for having a similar playoff scoring record with better team success. With someone like Thornton, who wasn't as bad as his reputation, but generally underperformed in the playoffs over his career, despite a decent sample size, I would be more open to someone like Kane with a worse regular season resume being ahead due to playoffs. The regular season is still the base though for who a player is, and then the playoffs can give some leeway to that ranking.

 

[aufheben]

Most players don’t play enough playoff games for a comparable sample size. Even if they play 100 playoff games, that isn’t much more than a single regular season. Honestly, I consider it rare for players to genuinely step-up during the playoffs with any sort of consistency (and vice versa) so I probably wouldn’t even separate regular season and post-season games to begin with.