Better Art Ross win for McDavid: 16/17 or 17/18 based on points and PPG?
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
And do those seasons get excused because they didn't meet expectations? Not by any objective observer. Nobody should accept that Crosby "should" have put up more points in 2009 therefore was closer to OV and Malkin than what his numbers actually showed. Jagr "should" have put up more points in Washington but didn't and his career is appropriately rated based on this, not on what he "should" have done.
Players aren't robots who perform at the same level year after year. There can be variance from season to season even in their primes or as they progress. OV took a step back in his 2nd year. Malkin was up and down in his prime.
So why should we excuse McDavid's season as being less than what it "should" have been because of subjective opinion that he should have improved in his 3rd year assuming a normal development curve.
If one wants to opine that he did improve given how much ES points he scored and with his increase in goals, then I would counter that 17/18 was less impressive as McDavid was lingering in 5th to 10th place in scoring while his team was fighting to make the playoffs and that his 16/17 is the 2nd best season that year, not the best based on his goal total.
But my starting point is to simply say that his point totals speak for themselves. If people think he is better than what his point totals showed, he should have plenty of chances to prove that and remove all this speculation.
But it isn't subjective, numerically and logically it's not that hard to make a case his powerplay production was abnormally bad. It's not about awarding him imaginary points, just about acknowledging it. The difference in dominance "vs peers" is just so negligible it's not reliable given the circumstances.
Agree, if the same was to carry on, there is a question to ask in a couple of years.
So what are some other that seasons by other players we should acknowledge abnormal circumstances? As I mentioned, this narrative doesn't get brought up at all in my recollection in discussions about same level stars.
It's not about excusing anyone, as there's nothing to excuse. Again, the guy won the Art Ross. It's about acknowledging the context of the situation and how good he was as a player. Yes there's variance in play, but McDavid didn't take a step back in terms of ability, he took a step forward. That's the whole point. It was plain as day watching him and plain as day when looking at the context of the numbers. If it was calling him better when he finished 10th in league scoring or something I would agree, but we're talking about a handful of points he was likely shortchanged inns season he already led to a similar degree as the year before.
If you believe point totals speak for themselves then be my guest, but I think it's rather naive to take them fully at face value without looking at the context behind them. More and more that's happening these days when it comes to looking at regression due to outlier shooting percentages or ice time distribution, and there tends to be good correlation with it. The general consensus seems to be that random variance plays a role in point totals, and what we typically associate with a rise and fall in play can often be attributed to it. I agree that he needs to show that it was an outlier. If his PP trend continues then I'm wrong. If he continues his ES play with the expected PP improvement going forward, I think it would be obvious that this season wasn't a reflection of his abilities.
I don't think any season has really been scrutinized, and treated the way this one has as far as discussions goes, and I also don't think there has been any recent season that has been as unrealistically bad in some aspect.
Ovechkin's season is commonly viewed as the best season post-lockout, yet it's not that close from a "vs peers" perspective. There are more than one way to evaluate imo.
In general, and not just hockey wise, I believe people give more weight than they should to individual factors, while not giving nearly enough weight to situational factors.
The only thing we can say with 100% certainty is that he brought 108 points of value to his team. Speculation that he would brought more if he his team had a better PP or played another team is just that, speculation. Perhaps we can put some value on what you are mentioning but not to the point where his season gets moved up to the level of a statistically superior performance.
I don't see any reason to apply the same speculation on the seasons you listed for Mario, Crosby and Jagr. Can you specify what we should be acknowledging about the seasons you mentioned?
OV took a drop in production in his 2nd year. Malkin took a big drop in production in his 4th year. Crosby's "expected" increase in production seemingly took five years to show up.
I don't see narrative by even the most biased posters that any of those players should be viewed as being better in those seasons than what they actually produced.
Just because McDavid was "expected" to dominate more than he did in 16/17 doesn't make speculations about PPs and the quality of his team into facts.
I can't account for the reasons for every single down season, but the overall trend in Malkin's first 6 seasons was still pretty clear, and the trend in Ovechkin's first 5 seasons also was. Ovechkin and Malkin had years ways below expectation. McDavid's wasn't, at all, really.
I don't agree with awarding McDavid extra points in hindsight when evaluating his career, just taking note that he most probably is improving and variance is likely in play. I also don't agree with the people that essentially predict, and there are a fair few of them, lets tack on the extra PP points and that's a reasonable estimate.
I don't consider myself particularly biased towards McDavid in general.
That's the whole point. People want to excuse McDavid for not showing an expected jump in his production rather than take it for what it was, an Art Ross win that was about as impressive statistically as 16/17's. Players can stagnate or even regress as they reach their peak.
Him scoring a lot at ES bodes well for him moving forward but we will have to see. The expectation that his PP points would go up with even a minor improvement of the Oilers PP is not unreasonable, but we will have to see.
As I said to the other poster, I don't see these excuses being thrown out for other same level stars, certainly nothing that reasonably moves a player up a level just because of situations. Their numbers speak for themselves.
