Crosby vs. McDavid: 1.288 vs 1.251 PPG question

[BallardEra]

Honestly this number surprised me. I know it's a big difference, but for some reason I figured it was even more.

Probably seems like that to you because Sid missed a lot of games due to injuries.

 

[Varan]

During their peaks:

OV had a 1.42 PPG from 07-10
Crosby (harder to define) had a 1.47 PPG from 10-14
Malkin (hard to define as well) had a 1.27 PPG from 07-12. I used this time frame because it included a 106, 113, and 109 point seasons which were his best. It goes up to 1.32 if you take out his outlier bad season in 2010/11 where he got hurt.

So PPG's do up when you're at your peak (if you're a great talent which CM is), so this 1.251 will definitely go up.

 

[bottomofthefoodchain]

And that is without playing with Malkin on the PP. Very impressive

 

[kugelbahn]

By the way PPG before/after All Star break is different for different players:

Sidney Crosby Career Splits | Hockey-Reference.com
Crosby: before 878/673 = 1.304, after: 270/218 = 1.238

Connor McDavid Career Splits | Hockey-Reference.com
McDavid: before 168/143 = 1.175, after: 131/96 = 1.365

So if trend continues this season, McDavid might overtake by the end of it...

 

[MadLuke]

So PPG's do up when you're at your peak (if you're a great talent which CM is), so this 1.251 will definitely go up.

If you remove is rookie season, it give a closer sense of is peak PPG: 1.294, that and league scoring going higher and is powerplay not being last in the league, is career PPG should go up for a little while yes, it is currently dragged down by is rookie year being a significant amount of career game and the terrible Oilers powerplay of last year.

 

[njdevils1982]

horrible thread title by the way

 

[GlitchMarner]

Just a couple other numbers to keep in mind.

Crosby Games Played: 891
McDavid Games Played: 239

People also need to keep games played in mind when comparing Crosby to players like Gordie Howe. Howe played a LOT more games in the NHL.

And Crosby has surpassed him by now, but his points per game and adjusted points per game numbers won't look as impressive compared to those of players like Mark Messier by the time he's retired as they do now.

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

How many PPG does it take to win a Cup? Thats how many it takes.

 

[Randyne]

And that is without playing with Malkin on the PP. Very impressive

Not only on the PP. They played together hell amount of time = 27.5% of all Sid's TOI 2007-now (naturalstattrick). And their GF/60 is like cheatingly high = 7.67. Separately drops to normal 3.5

 

[Revelation]

Not only on the PP. They played together hell amount of time = 27.5% of all Sid's TOI 2007-now (naturalstattrick). And their GF/60 is like cheatingly high = 7.67. Separately drops to normal 3.5

It probably helps that they're started in the offensive zone or with an extra attacker any ES time

 

[talitintti]

Not only on the PP. They played together hell amount of time = 27.5% of all Sid's TOI 2007-now (naturalstattrick). And their GF/60 is like cheatingly high = 7.67. Separately drops to normal 3.5

My guess is that split includes powerplay time and they play all powerplay time together so the gf/60 in relation is extremely high.

 

[daver]

Not only on the PP. They played together hell amount of time = 27.5% of all Sid's TOI 2007-now (naturalstattrick). And their GF/60 is like cheatingly high = 7.67. Separately drops to normal 3.5

This is an irrelevant point. Crosby produces just as much without Malkin playing in reality and in thoery. There is no doubt that Crosby produces with any quality of linemates or teammates.

 

[daver]

My guess is that split includes powerplay time and they play all powerplay time together so the gf/60 in relation is extremely high.

That should be painfully obvious.

 

[talitintti]

IMO it tells a lot about how evenly matched these players are in talent when you have to dig very deep to find the differences.

They'll probably be compared always and with no clear answer ever, like some classical hockey rivalries.

 

[daver]

1. Depth players today are way better than they were 10 years ago, which takes away ice time from top end players. Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin were consistently in the 22-23 minute range for ice time around 2008, most guys today top out at 20 minutes (unless your depth is bad). This isn't the case with all players, this is something that doesn't apply to McDavid for example.
2. Goalies aren't "way better" today than they were 10 years ago, but I think there are significantly fewer bad goalies in the NHL today. Same with defenses. The average doesn't end up all that different, but you had a much bigger disparity of goaltending and defense talent 10 years ago.
3. There are less powerplay opportunities today than there was 10 years ago, and you usually see 2nd PP units playing a larger percentage because depth is way better/more skilled.

Those are all arguments for scoring being more difficult today. Some of those don't apply to all players, McDavid plays a ton per game because his team sucks, but it's a general comment. The NHL just has a lot more parity today, and it's harder for players to dominate when the teams in the league are closer.

You also have arguments for it being easier to put up points today: better talent means better linemates, coaching systems have evolved to negate out defensive systems (which wasn't the case in 2008), more teams means a more diluted talent pool....the point is that it's complicated.

ES scoring is trending upwards which is why the year could see the most 100 point scorers since 2005/06.

I don't think using TOI to conclude that depth players are better makes any sense. More TOI in the 05 to 09 years is almost exclusively associated with more PP time. ES TOI hasn't change very much.

The larger point is that a comparison of career PPGs may be interesting numerically but is meaningless when the players have played in different seasons.

McDavid's PPG dominance after four years is very similar to Crosby's although McDavid benefits from missing time as a rookie rather than in his 3rd year like Crosby.

IMO, the better comparison is their PPGs from Year 2 to Year 4.

 

[daver]

Here is Crosby's PPG during his prime/peak and the next best ones:

NHL.com - Stats

Crosby - 1.42
Malkin - 1.22
OV- 1.18
St. Louis - 1.07
Thornton - 1.05
Datsyuk - 1.05
Next Ten PPGs - 1.00 (average)

Here is McDavid's:

NHL.com - Stats

McDavid - 1.30
Kucherov - 1.24
Malkin - 1.15
Crosby - 1.14
Marchand - 1.13
Stamkos - 1.09
Next Ten PPGs - 1.02 (average)

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Then we can adjust McDavid's points to win some ridiculous message board argument that no one cares about!

 

[Honour Over Glory]

So Ovis/Malkin/Sids peak was the lowest scoring ?

Shocking, or not, theyre special talent and transcend era.

I wonder where the scoring will go from now until McDavids retirement.

It doesn't jive with the argument a lot of people make here to diminish Crosby's accomplishments, especially with his production. People will argue, with some moronic adjusted stats thing, that Sid's numbers are far less impressive.

It's always good for a laugh.

 

[Randyne]

This is an irrelevant point. Crosby produces just as much without Malkin playing in reality and in thoery. There is no doubt that Crosby produces with any quality of linemates or teammates.

It is absolutely relevant.
Numbers when both players were available (2006/07-2017/18):
GP = 667;
Sid total points = 867;
Sid points with Malkin = 291 (105 ESP; 1 SHP; 185 PPP);
0.44 PPG and 33.56% of all his points (when both on the team) were from 2C.

Pretending those numbers would be the same without best center in the league (not named Crosby) is irrelevant.

 

[daver]

It is absolutely relevant.
Numbers when both players were available (2006/07-2017/18):
GP = 667;
Sid total points = 867;
Sid points with Malkin = 291 (105 ESP; 1 SHP; 185 PPP);
0.44 PPG and 33.56% of all his points (when both on the team) were from 2C.

Pretending those numbers would be the same without best center in the league (not named Crosby) is irrelevant.

Except both players have higher PPGs when the other has been out of the lineup or in the case of Malkin, noticeably under performed.

That is why your numbers are irrelevant. Speculating that Crosby doesn't do as well without Malkin is not backed up. And speculating that a player does something other than what they actually did based on pure speculation is a very weak argument.

Crosby's and McDavid's #'s speak for themselves.

 

[Gabranth]

Does McDavid even pass Crosby?

Discuss.

I don't think so, and I don't see McDavid scoring 140 pts like some ppl here think that he is capable of. I'm saying that his ceiling is max 120. Scoring 140 pts in this day and age is close to impossible.

He will probs end up under Crosby in ppg.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't think he'll surpass him career wise. I mean - he can - but he needs to start putting tom serious numbers to do so. The way I see it he has 2 main disadvantages in a race vs Crosby for career ppg:

1. Slower start. I think someone posted in this thread how at same point Crosby was at 1.34 or such? That's a decent gap from McDavid's 1.25, so he already has catching up to do

2. Crosby's consistency is legendary. One of the top 3 most consistent primes of all-time in my opinion. Not as many "peaks" as some maybe, but almost 0 valleys either. That'll be hard to rival, consistency in that sense.

McDavid would have to either outdo Crosby's peak by a good amount (and Crosby is somewhat vulnerable here, due to low games played in those injured years) for enough years - or be more consistent than Crosby has been in his career (implausible considering how great Crosby does here - even coming close will be hard, but maybe) or last longer as a top performer (Crosby is still very near top form at age 31, hasn't declined yet, so we'll see - too early to tell).

So it's not impossible - but i think those elements favor Crosby instead of McDavid. It'll be tough.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't think so, and I don't see McDavid scoring 140 pts like some ppl here think that he is capable of. I'm saying that his ceiling is max 120. Scoring 140 pts in this day and age is close to impossible.

He will probs end up under Crosby in ppg.

In essence - I agree with you.

Just thought i'd mention that Ranta is on pace for 138 points though =/

 

[Randyne]

Except both players have higher PPGs when the other has been out of the lineup or in the case of Malkin, noticeably under performed.

That is why your numbers are irrelevant. Speculating that Crosby doesn't do as well without Malkin is not backed up. And speculating that a player does something other than what they actually did based on pure speculation is a very weak argument.

Crosby's and McDavid's #'s speak for themselves.

Not true. Malkin plays much better as 1C it's a known fact. Evgeni Malkin and Erik Karlsson
Crosby never played without Malkin continuously for a long period except his first year 102/81=1.26
His PPG with Malkin 867/667=1.30.

 

[daver]

Crosby never played without Malkin continuously for a long period except his first year 102/81=1.26
His PPG with Malkin 867/667=1.30.

So if there is no data to show that Crosby's PPG took a clear drop without Malkin, how can you argue it? It is clear that Crosby was able to play at his peak ability in 2010/11 and 2013 while Malkin was not playing well.

There is much more evidence to prove that Crosby's #'s are not influenced by Malkin.

And all of this presumes that McDavid's #'s are not influenced by a teamnmate right?