Crosby vs Ovechkin

[Daeni10]

I wish we could ban the Ovechkin vs Crosby threads from hfboards. This topic has been discussed to death every season and I don't know why people have to make new threads about it every 2 months. Both are amazing players and we are lucky to watch them both play hockey. I'm happy for Ovechkin and he deserved to win a Cup, but those 12 games dont make him any better/worse as a player, when he already has 13 seasons of track record. There are no new points that people could bring up in a discussion like this, everyone has made their mind up already on who they think is better and I bet that 98% of hf board users could list all the arguments that are named in favor of one of those players in threads like this. No need t0 have the same discussion over and over and over

 

[Randyne]

Then why did McDavid win the Pearson for the 16/17 season then? That was voted on by the players too.

Different survey with different players?
This from original article from the Associated Press (which took the survey):
Crosby spent the first decade of his career being compared to Washington Capitals superstar Alex Ovechkin, the best goal-scorer of this generation, because they entered the league together...
But the mantle of best player in the game right now isn’t a lifetime achievement award. That’s OK: Crosby just turned 30 and scored 44 goals, the second most in his career, and players still see him still in his prime.
Crosby vs. McDavid is hot debate for best player in hockey

 

[daver]

Different survey with different players?
This from original article from the Associated Press (which took the survey):
Crosby spent the first decade of his career being compared to Washington Capitals superstar Alex Ovechkin, the best goal-scorer of this generation, because they entered the league together...
But the mantle of best player in the game right now isn’t a lifetime achievement award. That’s OK: Crosby just turned 30 and scored 44 goals, the second most in his career, and players still see him still in his prime.
Crosby vs. McDavid is hot debate for best player in hockey

The Lindsay is for who the best player was and it was all the players, not just a sample size.

And there is nothing in that narrative that says the players think goalscoring is viewed as better than overall point production. Lindsay voting over the years confirms this.

 

[Randyne]

And there is nothing in that narrative that says the players think goalscoring is viewed as better than overall point production.

The survey was all over 2016/17 narrative. McDavid versus Crosby. Read the original article:
"But the mantle of best player in the game right now isn’t a lifetime achievement award. That’s OK: Crosby just turned 30 and scored 44 goals, the second most in his career, and players still see him still in his prime."
Players never talks specific

 

[daver]

The survey was all over 2016/17 narrative. McDavid versus Crosby. Read the original article:
"But the mantle of best player in the game right now isn’t a lifetime achievement award. That’s OK: Crosby just turned 30 and scored 44 goals, the second most in his career, and players still see him still in his prime."

"and players still see him still in his prime"

This obviously shows that Crosby's career is being considered, not just his 16/17 season; that Crosby was the best/co-best with OV for ten years, and he is still going strong. There is nothing there to indicate that his 44 goal seasons moved him up a level from what he was over the previous ten years which was an all around offensive force.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Then why did McDavid win the Pearson for the 16/17 season then? That was voted on by the players too.

The NHL players probably based it solely on the regular season, as they should for that award. The survey of 30 top players was done after the playoffs and based on who they thought the top player currently was, so they could presumably base it as they felt they should.

 

[Randyne]

"and players still see him still in his prime"
This obviously shows that Crosby's career is being considered, not just his 16/17 season; that Crosby was the best/co-best with OV for ten years, and he is still going strong. There is nothing there to indicate that his 44 goal seasons moved him up a level from what he was over the previous ten years which was an all around offensive force.

So it's all about Crosby's career... And then all of a sudden McDavid's first full year competes with Crosby's whole career... There was also one name Erik Karlsson... 30 players decided that "top players in hockey world is Sid, McDavid and Karlsson"...
I think it's illogical... I think specific timing of the survey means something.

 

[daver]

The NHL players probably based it solely on the regular season, as they should for that award. The survey of 30 top players was done after the playoffs and based on who they thought the top player currently was, so they could presumably base it as they felt they should.

I am sure they did take the playoffs into consideration, one where Crosby was a dominant playmaker moreso than a goalscorer.

 

[daver]

So it's all about Crosby's career... And then all of a sudden McDavid's first full year competes with Crosby's whole career... There was also one name Erik Karlsson... 30 players decided that "top players in hockey world is Sid, McDavid and Karlsson"...
I think it's illogical... I think specific timing of the survey means something.

The survay wasn't about career value, it was about who is the best player at the time. Crosby has been recognized for his playmaking moreso than his goalscoring his whole career. Ironically, the three times he lead the league in scoring inlc. playoffs, he did not win the MVP.

You have zero evidence to prove that the players value goals vs. assists or that they viewed Crosby as being the best because he just won the Rocket.

There is zero evidence that Hart voters and the players place a higher value on goals than overall point production.

 

[Randyne]

The survay wasn't about career value, it was about who is the best player at the time.

Yes. And what time is that?

 

[RageQuit77]

The survay wasn't about career value, it was about who is the best player at the time. Crosby has been recognized for his playmaking moreso than his goalscoring his whole career. Ironically, the three times he lead the league in scoring inlc. playoffs, he did not win the MVP.

You have zero evidence to prove that the players value goals vs. assists or that they viewed Crosby as being the best because he just won the Rocket.

There is zero evidence that Hart voters and the players place a higher value on goals than overall point production.

While it's clear that average goal is more worthy than average assist (where average 1st assist is more worthy than average 2nd assist), I don't know what Hart voters think, but based on players' and their team mates' reactions on ice when there are raining hats after their third goal of a game, it's safe to assume at least players generally hold a goal and goal production more valuable than an assist and point production.

Goals are still the only way to determine the winner and loser in the game of hockey. Hart voters probably know that fact too.

 

[RageQuit77]

Also... one must value goals higher only because if no goal no assist(s) either, but not visa versa.

--> It's illogical to value assist over goal. If Hart voters and players do so, they act illogically.

 

[RageQuit77]

Quick check list about the nature and facts on three different types of points

- Goal is the objective of the game to win it
- At least one goal is necessity to win a game of hockey
- Goals can be scored without scoring assist(s), assist(s) cannot be scored without the goal
- Goal is necessary requirement for any assists to be scored
- Goal is both team and individual achievement when it comes to the end result of a game, assist(s) is/are only individual achievement
- There are statistically some 1.6-1.7 assists (first and second assists combined) scored per one goal
- More or less random passes' probability to collapse an assist with certainty of 1 is determined by the goal scored, not by those one or two passes preceding the goal ---> The goal scored gives the conventional, set value of one nominal point to those passes, even when neither 1st or 2nd assists' true values are same than goal.
- 1st assist is more valuable and it's also necessary requirement for 2nd assist to be scored
- Scoring system overvalues assists over Goal, particularly 2nd assists (worth about ~0.1-0.2 points when goal is worth of one point)
- Goals are represented always first in point count formula- XG+YA=ZPts
- OT is immediately won by scoring 'sudden death' goal, not by "golden assist"
- SO is based on the idea to reduce whole hockey game to it bare minimum essence: to score one more goal than opponent - by removing all non-essential personnel from the rink
- Multi-goal games are perceived more valuable than multi-point games
- There are special dedicated and privileged type of players whom main task is to try prevent goals to be scored against their team, while every other players try always when they can intercept opponent's passes, thus making probability of them being an assist and/or leading to a scored goal against very small: happens only in relatively rare cases of own goal
- Good goal scorer creates good play makers around them with higher probability than good play maker can create good goal scorers as for one scored goal there are 1.6 - 1.7 play making passes, but for every play making passes (that become assist(s) after the goal) preceding a goal scored there are only about 0.6 goals scored by goal scorer. If 1st and 2nd assists are weighted appropriately using values reflecting more closely their real statistically countable values, goal scorers and goals scored become even more strikingly valuable...
- Rarity order of different three point types is: Goals, 2nd assists, 1st assists -> thus arguments using 'scarcity of occurrence' goes to the woods if applied to assists and goals simultaneously: 2nd assists are never statistically more important and valuable over big samples (they can and they do in this or that particular play in a particular game) than 1st assists, and particularly goal which ultimately assigns all point values to over-valued assists - rare or not (or even non-existent as there are no unsurmountable, categorical need for any assist for a goal to be scored)...

If we compare guys with comparable careers, nearly 50% better goal scoring production cannot be nullified by any arguments that include and consider 2nd assists as worthy as goals. Not even in this thread where we speak about two goal scoring machines who have combined over 1000 regular season goals scored in less then 2000 games played over same 13 seasons they both have been competing as a recognized "rivals".

Topic: For me it's Ovi, tho it's close.

 

[pi314]

I wish we could ban the Ovechkin vs Crosby threads from hfboards. This topic has been discussed to death every season and I don't know why people have to make new threads about it every 2 months. Both are amazing players and we are lucky to watch them both play hockey. I'm happy for Ovechkin and he deserved to win a Cup, but those 12 games dont make him any better/worse as a player, when he already has 13 seasons of track record. There are no new points that people could bring up in a discussion like this, everyone has made their mind up already on who they think is better and I bet that 98% of hf board users could list all the arguments that are named in favor of one of those players in threads like this. No need t0 have the same discussion over and over and over

I agree.

"I changed my mind based on what someone else said on the internet."
- Said no one ever

 

[daver]

Yes. And what time is that?

uhhhh... whenever the survey was done.

 

[Tavares to Marner]

I'll take the guy closer to breaking some of gretzkys records

 

[daver]

Also... one must value goals higher only because if no goal no assist(s) either, but not visa versa.

--> It's illogical to value assist over goal. If Hart voters and players do so, they act illogically.

It's illogical to value a player who provides less offense than another player. Hart and Lindsay voting usually captures this.

 

[RageQuit77]

It's illogical to value a player who provides less offense than another player. Hart and Lindsay voting usually captures this.

Yeah. Skaters can act as "offensively" as they want on ice, but if they don't score points it doesn't mean anything. For them all it's necessary that they also score some points (= by definition "the offence"/"offensive production"), but any points can be scored only and only if someone score goal(s). As it's logically evident that there cannot be any points if there are no goals, ALL offensive point production is determined by amount of and players/team's capability to score goals that in fact create not only points from goals itself, but the whole offense of a team.

Being one goal better as a team than opposing team is the minimum winning condition in the game of hockey, and as such one single individual point is enough for the win, that point being always a goal, and it always being scored by a goal scorer.

All offense isn't equally worthy even if the tradition gives them equal value.

Three 100 points seasons:

100+0=100
0+100(1st Assist)=100
0+100(2nd Assist)=100

All worth of 100 points but...

 

[daver]

Three 100 points seasons:

100+0=100
0+100(1st Assist)=100
0+100(2nd Assist)=100

All worth of 100 points but...

Because this captures the reality of the OV vs. Crosby debate?

Crosby is unquestionably an all around offensive force who has unquestionably shown he can carry any level of talent on his line which has been extremely valuable to his team.

 

[RageQuit77]

Because this captures the reality of the OV vs. Crosby debate?

I don't know how well it captures that reality, but it's still thing we must take into account if we want discuss about 'all around offensive force' in hockey.

Crosby is unquestionably an all around offensive force who has unquestionably shown he can carry any level of talent on his line which has been extremely valuable to his team.

I agree with you 100%. No disagreements with that statement.

It's sad that structurally and logically bad NHL point system doesn't make full justice for Sid (or any other great goal scoring play makers).

 

[daver]

It's sad that structurally and logically bad NHL point system doesn't make full justice for Sid (or any other great goal scoring play makers).

They do. It's call points.

 

[RageQuit77]

They do. It's call points.

Yeah. Bad, internally broken category. For Crosby-level playmaker especially it doesn't make justice, it didn't do that for Gretzky either.

Majority of their effective and "offensively productive" play making actions on the ice are invisible if we stare only to points. Sid's crucial 3rd assists: worth zero. Sid skating 2 guys to a kiosk, but freeing 3-on-1 attack for his linemates: worth zero. etc.

Playmaker type players suffer more from the current point system than more pure goal scorers, but they suffer from it too, because of overvalue of assist(s). Point values are arbitrary set by human beings, they are not the law of the nature.

By currently used point values, nominal or theoretic/statistical, Ovi the goal scorer takes it home currently. Hart and Lindsay voters may think otherwise, but they presumably too utilize their impressions about those unrewarded zero-point worth activities of Sid that so often makes the difference Sid being left with nil-points for his efforts.

 

[daver]

Yeah. Bad, internally broken category. For Crosby-level playmaker especially it doesn't make justice, it didn't do that for Gretzky either.

Was majority of their effective and "offensively productive" play making actions on the ice are invisible if we stare only to points. Sid's crucial 3rd assists: worth zero. Sid skating 2 guys to a kiosk, but freeing 3-on-1 attack for his linemates: worth zero. etc.

Playmaker type players suffer more from the current point system than more pure goal scorers, but they suffer from it too, because of overvalue of assist(s). Point values are arbitrary set by human beings, they are not the law of the nature.

By currently used point values, nominal or theoretic/statistical, Ovi the goal scorer takes it home currently. Hart and Lindsay voters may think otherwise, but they presumably too utilize their impressions about those unrewarded zero-point worth activities of Sid that so often makes the difference Sid being left with nil-points for his efforts.

Not if you treat their respective point totals as the primary metric. Crosby has outproduced OV in career PPG by a 16 points per 82 game rate. IMO, that reflects the extra value Crosby brings with his playmaking complimented by his goalscoring.

 

[RageQuit77]

Not if you treat their respective point totals as the primary metric. Crosby has outproduced OV in career PPG by a 16 points per 82 game rate. IMO, that reflects the extra value Crosby brings with his playmaking complimented by his goalscoring.

I treat Goals (worth= 1 point) as a primary metric and 1st assists as sensible category (worth about half point), while 2nd assists are scrap category (particularly when 3rd, 4th and so on assists and various other offensive actions without puck are considered worth of zero points).

Issue for me isn't should or should not assists rewarded, but that they are overvalued and/or not valued at all relative to goal.

Not actually knowing exact amounts of Ovi's and Sid's point types but if those about 200+ more assists Sid have are about 50/50 1st and 2nd assists, I put immediately more value to Ovi's 200 more goals, and not going to explain it again why (see above).

Disparity in PPG disappears when you put 200 more goals against 200 more assists (that are in every 200 cases less valuable than 200 goals).

I agree to disagree if you agree to disagree. /end on my behalf. cya!

 

[glovesave_35]

Goals are still the only way to determine the winner and loser in the game of hockey. Hart voters probably know that fact too.

And most goals have assists.

Taken one to one, goals are better than points. But big points almost always reign supreme when it comes to comparing players. More points means the player was "in on" more goals than the other guy.