Art Ross: McDavid or the field?

[Regal]

Pointing out that the Oilers horrid PP is unlikely to continue while McDavid's ES production seems sustainable is not giving him imaginary credit, it's acknowledging all the factors that go into play in trying to predict who wins the Art Ross next year.

Pointing out that MacKinnon's metrics behind his production appear unsustainable is also not taking credit away from his season, it is trying to predict the future by taking into account all the different variables.

Thank you. The talk of McDavid getting undue "credit" for what he didn't do makes my head hurt. It has nothing to do with ranking his season higher and everything to do with predicting the future

 

[Regal]

you're seriously comparing someone who has played 13 seasons and has won practically everything in hockey to a guy who is entering just his 4th season?

this post reeks of insecurity

He was comparing him to Ovi. MJ is a Caps fan

 

[silkyjohnson50]

At this point I'd be borderline shocked if McDavid didn't win (assuming he plays 75 games.) I think he's that talented offensively.

 

[daver]

Thank you. The talk of McDavid getting undue "credit" for what he didn't do makes my head hurt. It has nothing to do with ranking his season higher and everything to do with predicting the future

So isn't it reasonable to point out that if the PP was better last year perhaps his ES production is not as high? This was the case in 16/17.

This isn't about giving him undue credit but rather framing a speculative discussion. Past offensive greats seem to have produced in all types of scenarios so why should McDavid be any different? McDavid produced despite a weak PP. This doesn't automatically mean he produces more if the PP is better. Maybe his icetime gets lowered if the PP is better and he isn't needed to be on the ice as much later in the game because the Oilers are behind. I find the assumption that you add more PP points to his ES points from last year too simplistic.

And the fact he stepped it up after the Oilers were eliminated from the playoffs cannot be ignored either. Maybe it was just timing that he really hit his stride after being sick when the Oilers were done for the year but we will never know.

Pointing out that he did not have a statistically stronger Art Ross win than he did in 16/17 should not cause any heads to be hurt.

 

[daver]

Pointing out that the Oilers horrid PP is unlikely to continue while McDavid's ES production seems sustainable is not giving him imaginary credit, it's acknowledging all the factors that go into play in trying to predict who wins the Art Ross next year.

Pointing out that MacKinnon's metrics behind his production appear unsustainable is also not taking credit away from his season, it is trying to predict the future by taking into account all the different variables.

Presenting an opinion that something is unsustainable or sustainable doesn't remove the appearance that you are giving imaginary credit or taking credit away.

 

[The Nuge]

So isn't it reasonable to point out that if the PP was better last year perhaps his ES production is not as high? This was the case in 16/17.

Why would it? It’s not like if he scores on the PP, he’s going to take it easy at ES. It’s easy to explain his ES production going up. He was 20 last year. Players develop, and are almost always better at 20 than 19. Being the best player in the world doesn’t mean he’s not also going to continue to progress

 

[Dondini]

Early prediction I know but I think mcdavid will bump gordie howe out of the top 4 when it’s all said and done, and I’m a huge gordie fan and have done lots of research and watched a lot of games. It’s no knock on him I just think mcdavid is that good. I think the next 5 years mcdavid will average 120 points over 82

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Early prediction I know but I think mcdavid will bump gordie howe out of the top 4 when it’s all said and done, and I’m a huge gordie fan and have done lots of research and watched a lot of games. It’s no knock on him I just think mcdavid is that good. I think the next 5 years mcdavid will average 120 points over 82

So you're saying McDavid will be the 3rd best player ever after Gretzky and Orr?

 

[Nadal On Clay]

So you're saying McDavid will be the 3rd best player ever after Gretzky and Orr?

No, He is saying he is gonna bump out Gordie Howe for McDavid. McDavid would still be below Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

No, He is saying he is gonna bump out Gordie Howe for McDavid. McDavid would still be below Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux.

Howe > Lemieux

But it's irrelevant anyway because as great as McDavid is, the chances of him breaking into the big 4 are like 1%.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Howe > Lemieux

But it's irrelevant anyway because as great as McDavid is, the chances of him breaking into the big 4 are like 1%.

Debatable

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Mcdavid will never surpass Lemieux. Howe it’s oossuble

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Howe > Lemieux

But it's irrelevant anyway because as great as McDavid is, the chances of him breaking into the big 4 are like 1%.

That’s your opinion. Very debatable. In fact Howe usually loses to Lemieux in polls

 

[daver]

Why would it? It’s not like if he scores on the PP, he’s going to take it easy at ES. It’s easy to explain his ES production going up. He was 20 last year. Players develop, and are almost always better at 20 than 19. Being the best player in the world doesn’t mean he’s not also going to continue to progress

Turning 20 doesn't automatically mean they are going to have better seasons. Many players have peaks and valleys even when when they are theoretically reaching their prime. As for your first point, of course the score would dictate how a player does at ES whether a team is in the lead or tied, they may be less apt to be as aggressive at ES. If you want to to open the door to speculation, I can easily speculate that McDavid doesn't turn it up when he did if the Oilers are still battling for a playoff spot over their last 20 to 25 games.

 

[Dondini]

Howe > Lemieux

But it's irrelevant anyway because as great as McDavid is, the chances of him breaking into the big 4 are like 1%.

Assuming 1% is the number, how many people have had that good of a chance? He’s got a real shot at it. I’ve never seen a player like him before. In today’s day where money is so high it has created so much parity that it blows my mind how much better his skill level and speed is than everyone else. Tbh I never seen a player like this coming. I honestly think he will top 140 points in his peak season. A theory of mine as well is that Crosby is still in his prime and he gets a lot of respect (and deservingly so) but due to that mcdavids hype if anything has been watered down. The next 5 years is going to be ridiculous

 

[BeastoftheEast85]

Poll is basically what are the chances McDavid losses significant time to an injury.

 

[Beukeboom]

Seeing him play in a game like today, I really don't know why he would not be able to get two points a game. He has all the tools for a 2ppg.

 

[authentic]

Seeing him play in a game like today, I really don't know why he would not be able to get two points a game. He has all the tools for a 2ppg.

That's always what I think when watching him, but he is human and won't play his best every game, plus some games he will be unlucky and the team he's on doesn't help either. It would take a lot to go right and a very good team/linemates for McDavid to hit 130 I think, nevermind 160+.

 

[Healthy DiPietro]

Poll is basically what are the chances McDavid losses significant time to an injury.

I think MacKinnon can give a healthy McDavid a run this season if his line keeps going.

 

[Regal]

So isn't it reasonable to point out that if the PP was better last year perhaps his ES production is not as high? This was the case in 16/17.

This isn't about giving him undue credit but rather framing a speculative discussion. Past offensive greats seem to have produced in all types of scenarios so why should McDavid be any different? McDavid produced despite a weak PP. This doesn't automatically mean he produces more if the PP is better. Maybe his icetime gets lowered if the PP is better and he isn't needed to be on the ice as much later in the game because the Oilers are behind. I find the assumption that you add more PP points to his ES points from last year too simplistic.

And the fact he stepped it up after the Oilers were eliminated from the playoffs cannot be ignored either. Maybe it was just timing that he really hit his stride after being sick when the Oilers were done for the year but we will never know.

Pointing out that he did not have a statistically stronger Art Ross win than he did in 16/17 should not cause any heads to be hurt.

It should when it's not the basis for the discussion yet you insist on trying to frame it that way anway, and are unwilling to consider how well underlying numbers work for future prediction, instead relying on tired tropes about stars scoring regardless, and ignoring the fact that star player scoring will routinely fluctuate and can frequently be tied to those numbers.

His ES scoring was worse in '17 because he produced fewer chances. His on-ice shooting percentage has remained the same throughout his career at a reasonable number for a player of his ability. This suggests sustainability and growth in terms of his ES play. You want to look at past players and how their ES and PP numbers frequently even out, with a spike in one often balanced by a decrease in the other, and this switching or balancing in future years. But you either ignore or are unwilling to pay attention to the fact that this can usually be seen in high percentages in one and low in the other. And career years will often show a spike in one and usual numbers in the other or spikes for both. This isn't the case for McDavid last year. His numbers suggest sustainability at even strength and and that the PP was an aberration. This is why there is a greater likelihood of him improving his numbers than most players who have put up similar uneven splits in the past. His underlying numbers suggest it was a down year. The fact he still won the Art Ross is a testament to his ability.

You bring up reasons for why he might not improve and they're valid. There is no guarantee. But the stats tell me that it's more likely he will see an increase, and that's a lot more meaningful than the same old regurgitation of potential negative scenarios from someone who so obviously has skin in the game.

 

[Beukeboom]

That's always what I think when watching him, but he is human and won't play his best every game, plus some games he will be unlucky and the team he's on doesn't help either. It would take a lot to go right and a very good team/linemates for McDavid to hit 130 I think, nevermind 160+.

Of course. But still, he had a half decent game and got two points. He should have a few four point games to offset any zero one. It just feels so possible for him.

 

[Regal]

Turning 20 doesn't automatically mean they are going to have better seasons. Many players have peaks and valleys even when when they are theoretically reaching their prime. As for your first point, of course the score would dictate how a player does at ES whether a team is in the lead or tied, they may be less apt to be as aggressive at ES. If you want to to open the door to speculation, I can easily speculate that McDavid doesn't turn it up when he did if the Oilers are still battling for a playoff spot over their last 20 to 25 games.

This is literally a speculation thread about the Art Ross winner this year, and yet you criticize reasonable, statistical speculation as if it's throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks. This is where your bias is so painfully evident. You're so concerned with people giving credit for things McDavid hasn't accomplished that you lose sight of the entire point of the thread. Yet I'm pretty sure you've predicted Crosby to improve his totals this year based on the idea that he was coasting in the regular season last year. Even though that type of speculation is far more subjective

 

[b in vancouver]

I'll take the field.
My somewhat dark horse pick was Marchand to win it this year so - I'll stick with that.

 

[authentic]

Of course. But still, he had a half decent game and got two points. He should have a few four point games to offset any zero one. It just feels so possible for him.

If anyone could do it, it's him by far.

 

[34]

Matthews.