daver
Registered User
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.
I think they are pretty much the same.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ppl keep forgetting that Crosby wouldve been very close to McDavid in the 16-17 toss race had he not missed 7 games
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.
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.
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.
It works if its comparing players across eras, but for a year to year its dumb I agree.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.
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.