Crosby vs Ovechkin - Pick a player moving forward after 2009-2010 - no hindsight available

[filinski77]

Quick question. Why does the point / gp spread matter when individually focusing on Ovechkin's seasons, but not when viewing the player's career as a whole?

Ovechkin had 0 opportunity to play in extra playoff games because his team did not advance that far. Every player (with the exception of injuries and suspensions etc) can theoretically play 82 per season. Only ~6 top line forwards play a full playoffs every year.

It's like saying Bryan Bickel was better than Crosby in the 12/13 playoffs, because he had more points and goals. The obvious answer is NO, the Hawks had a better playoffs than the Penguins did, and therefore their players played more games (and inherently got more goals and points).

For what it's worth, I also mentioned that I am fully aware that it is likely Ovechkin's /gp stats would have went down if he would have played in more rounds.

If that is not a reasonable explanation, then I don't know what to tell ya

 

[Gurglesons]

Ovechkin had 0 opportunity to play in extra playoff games because his team did not advance that far. Every player (with the exception of injuries and suspensions etc) can theoretically play 82 per season. Only ~6 top line forwards play a full playoffs every year.

It's like saying Bryan Bickel was better than Crosby in the 12/13 playoffs, because he had more points and goals. The obvious answer is NO, the Hawks had a better playoffs than the Penguins did, and therefore their players played more games (and inherently got more goals and points).

For what it's worth, I also mentioned that I am fully aware that it is likely Ovechkin's /gp stats would have went down if he would have played in more rounds.

If that is not a reasonable explanation, then I don't know what to tell ya

My point being Crosby led Ovechkin in P/GP from 05-06 - 09-10 in the regular season.

Why is it applicable in one season samples or playoff samples to say Ovechkin is better than Crosby because of his more impressive P/GP, but in the full sample not to say the opposite given Crosby had the more impressive P/GP?

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

When has that ever been said? Quotes please, because that's quite the claim. Every Penguins fan I've talked to knows the importance of Malkin that run.

Who said this? Saying it is arguable that Crosby should have won the Smythe based on his ES numbers and the dynasty was going to be established largely on his back doesn't reject Malkin's impact on either the 08 or 09 finals run?

"where as Crosby's team looked to be on its way to a dynasty largely on his back"

"He was on a different plateau then any player in the NHL at that point in terms of "winning" and being the clutch player in those situations."

Said in this very thread. Not only is it all false, but also completely disrespectful to Malkin (and others) contributions.

As for bolded, do you even know what you're saying? Saying it was largely on Crosby's back is 100% trying to minimize what Malkin did.

 

[Gurglesons]

"where as Crosby's team looked to be on its way to a dynasty largely on his back"

"He was on a different plateau then any player in the NHL at that point in terms of "winning" and being the clutch player in those situations."

Said in this very thread. Not only is it all false, but also completely disrespectful to Malkin (and others) contributions.

As for bolded, do you even know what you're saying? Saying it was largely on Crosby's back is 100% trying to minimize what Malkin did.

Yes. The Penguins were Crosby's team and Crosby had been the sweetheart in the Olympics while Malkin wasn't. Through the playoffs from 07-10, Crosby was on another level than Malkin consistently and was the obvious leader of the squad. Ovechkin was producing at a higher rate than them, but largely without any success beyond himself.

Also weren't you one of the people in @Trap Jesus's thread pining poetically about how the 1st round is the easiest or something similar? Funny how that changes when it comes to defending your boy.. kind of like how the above user is throwing out the PPG to prove Ovie was better than Sid from 06-10, but when it comes to their careers “it doesn’t matter because Ovie played more games”.

Not really sure what you are getting at here.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

"where as Crosby's team looked to be on its way to a dynasty largely on his back"

"He was on a different plateau then any player in the NHL at that point in terms of "winning" and being the clutch player in those situations."

Said in this very thread. Not only is it all false, but also completely disrespectful to Malkin (and others) contributions.

As for bolded, do you even know what you're saying? Saying it was largely on Crosby's back is 100% trying to minimize what Malkin did.

So 1 person = what Penguins fans (plural) are always saying?

Should I judge all Caps' fans on what Midnight Judges posts?

 

[daver]

2005/2006: Ovi had 4 more points, 13 more goals. Easily the better player that season. More impressive =/= better. (Just like how Selanne was not the best player in the league in his rookie season, despite having one of the most impressive rookie seasons ever). And if anything, Ovechkin was just as impressive (if not more): 3rd in rookie goals and 3rd in rookie points in NHL history (2nd place for both were in a much higher scoring 80's, and only 1 goal and 3 points ahead of Ovi)

You would choose the 18 year old over the 20 year old as per the theme of the OP.

 

[filinski77]

You would choose the 18 year old over the 20 year old as per the theme of the OP.

The theme of the OP is actually who you would choose moving forward after 2009/2010 (no hindsight), so realistically, the prior 3 years at the time would have been more indicative of the most likely future outcome. Considering that Ovechkin had won 3 straight Pearsons, and had a higher point/gp, goal/gp, hart record (with no major time missed to skew these metrics) in each of those 3 preceding years, the reasonable expectation at the time would be Ovechkin. (Team success was irrelevant, because I've already posted too much about how Ovechkin was just as good in the playoffs).

See ya.

 

[filinski77]

My point being Crosby led Ovechkin in P/GP from 05-06 - 09-10 in the regular season.

Why is it applicable in one season samples or playoff samples to say Ovechkin is better than Crosby because of his more impressive P/GP, but in the full sample not to say the opposite given Crosby had the more impressive P/GP?

I only broke it down season by season to defend a claim I made that Ovechkin had 4 seasons out of 5 where he was head to head better than Crosby at the start of their careers.

Crosby only lead in points/gp for the whole 5 year span (by 1.5% - despite Ovechkin having a 38.7% better goals/gp) because of the 4th furthest season from the end of 09/10, where Ovechkin had his worst season of the 5, and Crosby had his best.

If you want to go back to the main spirit of the argument, what Crosby and Ovechkin did 4 and 5 years in the past were more or less irrelevant at the end of 09/10. At the time, all that was known was that Ovechkin had won 3 straight Pearsons over Crosby, had 2/3 Harts over Crosby (and finished higher in the time he didn't win), had 2 rockets, and lead the league in points/gp and goals/gp for the whole 3 year period, and each individual season.

Before playoffs are brought up, Ovechkin had a higher point/gp and a significantly higher goals/gp in those 3 years combined. And I've already gone on the record and said that it is likely his totals may have dropped if he played further rounds (might not have - who knows, let's assume they do though), at worst, he likely would have finished with a slightly lower point/gp and still a better goals/gp. The PO for Crosby does not make up for how much consistently better Ovechkin was in the RS. It wouldn't be fair to penalize Ovechkin for the Penguins being a better playoff team than the Capitals.

Again, NO HINDSIGHT. I'm done for the night though, I hope I've at least shed some new perspectives, even if y'all don't want to absorb some of it.

 

[Gurglesons]

I only broke it down season by season to defend a claim I made that Ovechkin had 4 seasons out of 5 where he was head to head better than Crosby at the start of their careers.

Crosby only lead in points/gp for the whole 5 year span (by 1.5% - despite Ovechkin having a 38.7% better goals/gp) because of the 4th furthest season from the end of 09/10, where Ovechkin had his worst season of the 5, and Crosby had his best.

If you want to go back to the main spirit of the argument, what Crosby and Ovechkin did 4 and 5 years in the past were more or less irrelevant at the end of 09/10. At the time, all that was known was that Ovechkin had won 3 straight Pearsons over Crosby, had 2/3 Harts over Crosby (and finished higher in the time he didn't win), had 2 rockets, and lead the league in points/gp and goals/gp for the whole 3 year period, and each individual season.

Before playoffs are brought up, Ovechkin had a higher point/gp and a significantly higher goals/gp in those 3 years combined. And I've already gone on the record and said that it is likely his totals may have dropped if he played further rounds (might not have - who knows, let's assume they do though), at worst, he likely would have finished with a slightly lower point/gp and still a better goals/gp. The PO for Crosby does not make up for how much consistently better Ovechkin was in the RS. It wouldn't be fair to penalize Ovechkin for the Penguins being a better playoff team than the Capitals.

Again, NO HINDSIGHT. I'm done for the night though, I hope I've at least shed some new perspectives, even if y'all don't want to absorb some of it.

So Ovechkin was better than Crosby in 4 of the 5 seasons, but still couldn’t match his PPG over the sample? Got it.

Taking Crosby after 2010 was a popular opinion, it was the year the narrative swung to Sid and 10-11 just cemented it up until the winter classic.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

The whole 2 year age gap thing is silly, they were 1 year drafted apart, if Crosby were 6 months older, or Ovechkin 6 months younger, it would have made absolutely no difference on either of their developments, they would have both had just as much hockey development time as they would have otherwise.

Would they have the same physical development with only one year of age difference as opposed to two? (Muscle mass, etc.)

 

[daver]

The theme of the OP is actually who you would choose moving forward after 2009/2010 (no hindsight), so realistically, the prior 3 years at the time would have been more indicative of the most likely future outcome. Considering that Ovechkin had won 3 straight Pearsons, and had a higher point/gp, goal/gp, hart record (with no major time missed to skew these metrics) in each of those 3 preceding years, the reasonable expectation at the time would be Ovechkin. (Team success was irrelevant, because I've already posted too much about how Ovechkin was just as good in the playoffs).

See ya.

OV had just captained his team to an unprecedented playoff loss - the first #1 seed to blow a 3 to 1 lead against a #8 seed. I say "captained" since this was his idea of leadership was this: Ovechkin says Halak was 'shaking' after giving up goal

Crosby had shown at a very young age his superior ability to focus on winning. It took OV more years before he adjusted his game and not surprisingly the team had its greatest success.

 

[bobholly39]

The theme of the OP is actually who you would choose moving forward after 2009/2010 (no hindsight), so realistically, the prior 3 years at the time would have been more indicative of the most likely future outcome. Considering that Ovechkin had won 3 straight Pearsons, and had a higher point/gp, goal/gp, hart record (with no major time missed to skew these metrics) in each of those 3 preceding years, the reasonable expectation at the time would be Ovechkin. (Team success was irrelevant, because I've already posted too much about how Ovechkin was just as good in the playoffs).

See ya.

I think after 2006 you absolutely still take Crosby over Ovechkin. It's not about his season being better, but he was 18 only so you expected him to get better, and expectations had been better prior to season too. Don't think Ovechkin's slightly better rookie season is enough to counter that.

After 2007 - this just reinforces advantages Crosby.

After 2008 - still take Crosby. Fantastic season by Ovi - the best of both - but Crosby was 1a to 1b in the scoring race till he got injured. After his ross season. And rebound by leading playoff scoring. As good as Ovi's season was - I think you still take Crosby pretty easily moving forward.

2009 it gets tricky. That's second season in a row where Ovechkin is better. Crosby was still pretty great - but he was outscored slightly. He did have a fantastic playoffs, and won the cup in a great performance - but Ovechkin did very well in playoffs too. Still - there is merit in actually winning the cup, especially as captain and so young. Is Ovi's second back to back season better enough to think he's the better choice moving forward?

2010 it gets even harder. Ovechkin again had the better full season - but Crosby did channel a fantastic pace to end the season, I think numbers were posted in thread earlier. So although Ovechkin won Pearson, Crosby had so much momentum and was outperforming him slightly at end of season. He also had the huge moment at the Olympics - and Ovechkin was coming off a disappointing playoff loss (where yes, individually he performed well - but like it or not star players do get linked to team success). Crosby's team also had a disappointing playoff loss - but after a cup and finals back to back, it stands out a bit less.

I think all the way to the end of 2008 - you take Crosby moving forward easily (unless you're one of those who expected Ovechkin to be better all along, that might be different, but I assume that's a minority).
After 2009 and after 2010 - pro and con's for choosing both players.