Better Art Ross win for McDavid: 16/17 or 17/18 based on points and PPG?

[daver]

Based on how much McDavid beat the field in points and PPG, which Art Ross win was the stronger one; this year or last year.

I think they are pretty much the same.

Click to read more...

 

[bathdog]

17/18.

 

[La Bamba]

16/17

He got 100 when no one hit 90. This year 2 other guys got 100 so it's not as special even if he got 108 IMO

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

2017-18 was the stronger one because:

1-He was better this year than last
2-He scored more points this year than last

This notion that you judge the quality of a point total based on his next closest competitor is kind of dumb. If McDavid scores 150 points this coming season, it'll be more impressive than his previous two, even if someone finishes with 148 points as well.

 

[daver]

2017-18 was the stronger one because:

1-He was better this year than last
2-He scored more points this year than last

This notion that you judge the quality of a point total based on his next closest competitor is kind of dumb. If McDavid scores 150 points this coming season, it'll be more impressive than his previous two, even if someone finishes with 148 points as well.

A look at the Top 5 scorers and PPG confirms the same thing. He was about as far ahead of his peers as he was in 16/17.

Looking at raw point totals and PPGs from different seasons without context doesn't make sense. If he was better than last year,why didn't he beat his competition by more points?

 

[authentic]

2017-18 was the stronger one because:

1-He was better this year than last
2-He scored more points this year than last

This notion that you judge the quality of a point total based on his next closest competitor is kind of dumb. If McDavid scores 150 points this coming season, it'll be more impressive than his previous two, even if someone finishes with 148 points as well.

Not really, that would indicate a huge jump in scoring. Unless everyone else is around or below 100.

 

[authentic]

IIRC McDavid was dealing with illness for about a month of the season, if not for that he likely would've broken 115. Both seasons all things considered are close, but he did break 40 goals this season and still outscored his competition by putting on one of the best even strength scoring displays of the past 25 years.

 

[Laineux]

About the same, but this season is more impressive for me considering it can be argued that McDavid was personally in a more difficult position to score than last year.

 

[Regal]

2017-18 was the stronger one because:

1-He was better this year than last
2-He scored more points this year than last

This notion that you judge the quality of a point total based on his next closest competitor is kind of dumb. If McDavid scores 150 points this coming season, it'll be more impressive than his previous two, even if someone finishes with 148 points as well.

League scoring was up to 5.95 GPG last year from 5.54 GPG the season before. Based on Hockey References adjusted points, this puts both seasons at 110 points.

And it wasn't just a couple guys at the top, the increase in scoring is evident throughout the league scoring leaders. 9 players over 90 points last year compared to just McDavid the year before. 21 players at 80 points or more compared to 7. 36 players at 70 points or more compared to 19. 75 players at 60 points or more compared to 42. And on and on. It was plain as day that scoring was up last year.

Despite that, I would still consider McDavid better last year than the year before even if he wasn't more dominant relative to his peers. More goals and even strength points, with neither at unsustainable rates. His PP numbers were way down, but the Oilers PP was a mess all year and also got a historically low number of opportunities. While he deserves some of the blame being the best player on that PP, poor coaching and personnel decisions as well as plain bad luck were more to blame. So I think McDavid's '17 was slightly better simply from a point production standpoint, but his '18 was a better season in terms of play level and ability. Under better circumstances he probably could have put up 115-120 points.

 

[Connor McConnor]

His 5-5 stats from this past season were ridiculous. Then you combine that with the fact his wingers all took massive steps back from '16-17 and I think it's this year by a fairly significant margin. I expect him to hit atleast 115 next year, hopefully 50 goals.

 

[GlitchMarner]

League scoring was up to 5.95 GPG last year from 5.54 GPG the season before. Based on Hockey References adjusted points, this puts both seasons at 110 points.

And it wasn't just a couple guys at the top, the increase in scoring is evident throughout the league scoring leaders. 9 players over 90 points last year compared to just McDavid the year before. 21 players at 80 points or more compared to 7. 36 players at 70 points or more compared to 19. 75 players at 60 points or more compared to 42. And on and on. It was plain as day that scoring was up last year.

Despite that, I would still consider McDavid better last year than the year before even if he wasn't more dominant relative to his peers. More goals and even strength points, with neither at unsustainable rates. His PP numbers were way down, but the Oilers PP was a mess all year and also got a historically low number of opportunities. While he deserves some of the blame being the best player on that PP, poor coaching and personnel decisions as well as plain bad luck were more to blame. So I think McDavid's '17 was slightly better simply from a point production standpoint, but his '18 was a better season in terms of play level and ability. Under better circumstances he probably could have put up 115-120 points.

I agree. I think he was a better player in 2017-2018 but that his 2016-2017 season looks more impressive from the daver standpoint of evaluating scoring performances - in terms of the point gaps between him and the next five highest scorers and the PPG gaps between him and the next five highest scorers who played at least 41 games, he did better in 2017 than in 2018.

However, in terms of adjusted points, he scored at the same rate but did better in terms of goal scoring.

He was in a worse team situation last season than in his Hart-winning season. You can say blaming a lack of PPOs for the fact that he didn't score more points is an excuse, but the reality is that having an extremely low number of PPOs to work with when you play for a team with a terrible PP just isn't conducive to the kind of PP production that would have made his 2017-2018 season look better than his Hart-winning season from an offensive standpoint.

The answer to the OP is '16/'17, but to me the fact that he expanded his offensive game by improving as a goal scorer and the fact that won the Art Ross playing on a team with such a low number of PPOs indicate that he improved as a player.

 

[Future GOAT]

How was McDavid's team doing in scoring, in comparison to the previous year?

 

[daver]

League scoring was up to 5.95 GPG last year from 5.54 GPG the season before. Based on Hockey References adjusted points, this puts both seasons at 110 points.

And it wasn't just a couple guys at the top, the increase in scoring is evident throughout the league scoring leaders. 9 players over 90 points last year compared to just McDavid the year before. 21 players at 80 points or more compared to 7. 36 players at 70 points or more compared to 19. 75 players at 60 points or more compared to 42. And on and on. It was plain as day that scoring was up last year.

Despite that, I would still consider McDavid better last year than the year before even if he wasn't more dominant relative to his peers. More goals and even strength points, with neither at unsustainable rates. His PP numbers were way down, but the Oilers PP was a mess all year and also got a historically low number of opportunities. While he deserves some of the blame being the best player on that PP, poor coaching and personnel decisions as well as plain bad luck were more to blame. So I think McDavid's '17 was slightly better simply from a point production standpoint, but his '18 was a better season in terms of play level and ability. Under better circumstances he probably could have put up 115-120 points.

I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment except that this context should reasonably be applied to the previous season. Should we give him 100% credit for his 100 point season in 16/17 or can we state that it was inflated due to an unusually good PP and team performance?

It just seems to be a very unusual scenario with McDavid that his team and the PP sucked so bad. I cannot think of another level of talent that had a season affected by these types of things. The great ones have produced regardless of team talent levels or performance; I would expect that McDavid would do the same if he is in that class, which I think he is.

With that in mind, I don't think you can say with 100% certainty that he was that much better this year without bringing the value of his 16/17 season into question.

 

[bobbyking]

Ppl keep forgetting that Crosby wouldve been very close to McDavid in the 16-17 toss race had he not missed 7 games

 

[daver]

Ppl keep forgetting that Crosby wouldve been very close to McDavid in the 16-17 toss race had he not missed 7 games

The same can be said for McKinnon last year.

 

[Laineux]

Speaking of powerplay opportunities: MacKinnon's Colorado had 86 more PPOs than Edmonton last year. More than an extra powerplay every game.

 

[tony d]

I went with 2017-2018.

 

[Regal]

I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment except that this context should reasonably be applied to the previous season. Should we give him 100% credit for his 100 point season in 16/17 or can we state that it was inflated due to an unusually good PP and team performance?

It just seems to be a very unusual scenario with McDavid that his team and the PP sucked so bad. I cannot think of another level of talent that had a season affected by these types of things. The great ones have produced regardless of team talent levels or performance; I would expect that McDavid would do the same if he is in that class, which I think he is.

With that in mind, I don't think you can say with 100% certainty that he was that much better this year without bringing the value of his 16/17 season into question.

In '17, the Oilers PP was 5th in the league in conversion percentage, 15th in terms of opportunities, and 6th in the league in goals, while McDavid was in a 4-way tie for 8th in PP points and had a point on less than half his team's PP goals. There's absolutely nothing about it that suggests it was inflated.

And in his rookie year he paced for 26 PP points, which would have tied him for 11th in the league, and in the 45 games he played the Oilers they were 31 for 146 (21.2%) while in the other 37 they were 12 for 91 (13.2%).

Basically, McDavid showed himself to be among the elite PP producers, but not stand out among the pack in his first season and a half on a PP that was nothing out of the ordinary for other elite PP producers. It makes no sense to assume he put up inflated numbers as a rookie and second year player then suddenly showed his true colours on the PP in his 3rd season despite being a far better ES player, nor does it make sense to assume a multiple Art Ross level talent isn't capable of putting up at least average numbers for an elite player on the PP.

And it wasn't like he just had an underwhelming year on the PP. His 20 PP points were only 62nd in the league, and the Oilers had the least number of PPOs for a team since the 70s. It was truly unprecidented and any reasonable conclusion would point that this is the outlier, not his previous production. You keep claiming that these level stars produce regardless. Well, he won the Art Ross, so he did produce regardless. But that doesn't mean their totals don't fluctuate due to the circumstances surrounding their teams. You mention 100% certainty, but that seems like an unreasonable standard. We all make tons of assertions about players that we're not 100% certain on. But all logical interpretation of the data we have suggests that this is the outlier.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

League scoring was up to 5.95 GPG last year from 5.54 GPG the season before. Based on Hockey References adjusted points, this puts both seasons at 110 points.

And it wasn't just a couple guys at the top, the increase in scoring is evident throughout the league scoring leaders. 9 players over 90 points last year compared to just McDavid the year before. 21 players at 80 points or more compared to 7. 36 players at 70 points or more compared to 19. 75 players at 60 points or more compared to 42. And on and on. It was plain as day that scoring was up last year.

I'm aware scoring was up last year, but at some point raw totals should count for something. Like I said, if McDavid scores 150 points this coming season, it'll be more impressive (to me) than his previous two years, even if the runner up scores 148 or whatever.

As far as gap, I'd argue that this year McDavid was more "unlucky" in that only MacKinnon missed significant time among the guys he was competing with for the Art Ross. The other key challenges all played 82 games or close to that amount. The previous year, people keep harping on the "he won by 11 points". Right, but he was "luckier" in that his biggest competitor (Crosby) missed 7 games. Crosby's PPG would have put him at 97 points over 82 games. I also believe Kucherov would have paced for 95 points over 82 games, so last year's gap would have been closer to 3 points and 5 points, respectively, which is no bigger than his gap this year.

 

[Laineux]

Connor McDavid's remarkable season may have been Hart-less, but it sure wasn't pointless

This is a pretty sweet article on what kind of level McDavid was playing at last year.

-lead the league in EV points with the biggest margin since Gretzky in 86/87
-had easily the highest xgf/60 and hdcf/60 in recorded history
-lead the league in takeaways by a large margin and was 54th in giveaways despite having the stick the most on his stick in the league
-to add to the above, lead the league by a huge margin in controlled zone entries
-played a month of the season with a lingering illness

There's just no doubt in my mind that if he stays healthy he's going to destroy this league at a rate we haven't seen in a long time.

 

[Regal]

I'm aware scoring was up last year, but at some point raw totals should count for something. Like I said, if McDavid scores 150 points this coming season, it'll be more impressive (to me) than his previous two years, even if the runner up scores 148 or whatever.

As far as gap, I'd argue that this year McDavid was more "unlucky" in that only MacKinnon missed significant time among the guys he was competing with for the Art Ross. The other key challenges all played 82 games or close to that amount. The previous year, people keep harping on the "he won by 11 points". Right, but he was "luckier" in that his biggest competitor (Crosby) missed 7 games. Crosby's PPG would have put him at 97 points over 82 games. I also believe Kucherov would have paced for 95 points over 82 games, so last year's gap would have been closer to 3 points and 5 points, respectively, which is no bigger than his gap this year.

They really shouldn't though unless the scoring environments are very similar and the outliers are only at the top. Your example is about the comparison of two players, not the whole league. I don't think many people support the idea of judging Art Rosses solely by comparing them to the runner up. If McDavid scores 150 and the runner up scores 148, and the rest of the league looks like it did this season, then obviously it would be a much better season. But if rest of the league scoring looks like 92-93, then it isn't really more impressive. Also, it's not as if McDavid blew his totals away. He had 8 more points. And you can go through the top 80 or so scorers from '16-17 and add 8-10 points to their totals and you'd get a similar list to the top 80 scorers from '17-18.

 

[daver]

And it wasn't like he just had an underwhelming year on the PP. His 20 PP points were only 62nd in the league, and the Oilers had the least number of PPOs for a team since the 70s. It was truly unprecidented and any reasonable conclusion would point that this is the outlier, not his previous production. You keep claiming that these level stars produce regardless. Well, he won the Art Ross, so he did produce regardless. But that doesn't mean their totals don't fluctuate due to the circumstances surrounding their teams. You mention 100% certainty, but that seems like an unreasonable standard. We all make tons of assertions about players that we're not 100% certain on. But all logical interpretation of the data we have suggests that this is the outlier.

What are some examples of same level stars that also saw their point totals below what they should have been? I don't recall that narrative being brought up in discussions about any of the same level stars like Crosby, Jagr, Mario, Wayne etc...

What we can say with 100% is that this Art Ross was more impressive than his 16/17 one statistically speaking.

Whether this is anomaly or not will probably become apparent in the next couple of years.

 

[Mrb1p]

2017-18 was the stronger one because:

1-He was better this year than last
2-He scored more points this year than last

This notion that you judge the quality of a point total based on his next closest competitor is kind of dumb. If McDavid scores 150 points this coming season, it'll be more impressive than his previous two, even if someone finishes with 148 points as well.

It works if its comparing players across eras, but for a year to year its dumb I agree.

 

[daver]

It works if its comparing players across eras, but for a year to year its dumb I agree.

It's dumb to dismiss the reasons because it is one year. There was a clear change to the league dynamics.

 

[Regal]

What are some examples of same level stars that also saw their point totals below what they should have been? I don't recall that narrative being brought up in discussions about any of the same level stars like Crosby, Jagr, Mario, Wayne etc...

What we can say with 100% is that this Art Ross was more impressive than his 16/17 one statistically speaking.

Whether this is anomaly or not will probably become apparent in the next couple of years.

Really? I mean you can just look at the production for these players and it's pretty clear not every year was the same. Crosby's '09 was somewhat disappointing as were his '15, '16 and '18 seasons. Jagr's '95 and '98 weren't as good as his other Art Ross seasons, and let's not talk about Washington. Lemieux's '89 and '93 seasons stand out more than his other elite years. From '82 to '83 Gretzky went from 212 to 196 points, and his consistency is unmatched.

It's pretty obvious players don't put up the same totals relative to the league every year. That doesn't really need to be a discussion