Defensively better: Crosby vs. Backstrom

[joe dirte]

Rel Team Corsi For per 60 = player on-ice CF60 – player off-ice CF60

Rel Team Corsi Differential per 60 minutes = (player on-ice CF60 – player off-ice CF60) – (player on-ice CA60 – player off-ice CA60)

Rel TM CF60 = Player’s on-ice CF60 – weighted average of all Teammates’ on-ice CF60 without Player (weighted by Player TOI% with Teammate)

Rel TM CF% = (on-ice CF60 / (on-ice CF60 + on-ice CA60)) – (weighted teammate CF60 / (weighted teammate CF60 + weighted teammate CA60))

I hope that helps (Rel TM is RelT). I'm not sure if that is exactly how Corsica calculates it, but it would be pretty much the same if it does differ.

So same thing except using off ice instead of team corsi.

These relative stats are heavily flawed.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Crosby's 16 smythe and OV's 18 smythe have nothing in common. Crosby wasn't even PPG, was a minus player and was double digits behind 1st place pts. OV was over PPG, leader in goals, plus player and wasn't double digit pts behind the leader. So not sure what point you're trying to make.

And it's not just caps fans who complain about that smythe. Literally anyone who isn't wet for Crosby can see what a joke that smythe was.

Not sure the relevance of the bolded is, unless you think Couture should have won the Conn Smythe despite his team losing. Because the most common person the bitter HF population thinks should have won the CS that year was Kessel, who was a whopping 3 points ahead of Crosby. Crosby was actually closer to Kessel in points than Ovechkin was to Kuznetsov.

 

[ijif]

So same thing except using off ice instead of team corsi.

These relative stats are heavily flawed.

No, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, that is not the only difference.

Every stat has flaws, but thank you for letting me know.

 

[GreatGonzo]

okay, well that's your perception.

Personally I think it's because he's just known as a speedy goal scorer. The average hockey fan just thinks of him potting 40 goals. It's the first thing that comes to mind.



I'm not clear if you're talkign about Washington or Pittsburgh here. I'd say with Washington, they always had the offense, and cleaning up their defense is exactly what made the difference.

But he still isn’t and has never been a stellar defensive player. He has only gotten more responsible in his own end, but that’s it. Well ya he’s a goal scorer while Crosby is a playmaker. Both aren’t known or highly regarded for their play in their own end. They aren’t considered all time greats for anything other than offense. Especially considering it’s only been recently that Crosby became more well rounded, but offensively he isn’t a scoring title threat anymore.

No, Pitt won a cup with Letang, Murray, and Kessels line being the biggest difference makers. Add Malkin as a third liner, you have crazy depth, same with Washington with Kuz and Backstrom stepping up, their goaltending being solid to stellar, and crucial depth scoring. Scoring wins cups, defense is certainly a factor, but they had plenty of goal scoring going on between both.

What is this post? "Very weird thread to make after Crosby's best defensive year" no, no that's why it was made, the thread is comparing two offensive juggernauts who have been trending towards top end defensive games, and there's nothing wrong with that. "Crosby has never carried a team" Crosby carried his team this season and was nominated for the Hart, but I'm sure that doesn't move you because the awards are all rigged for him or something asinine like that, no matter how far you want to stretch that crap "never carried a team" is hot bull****. And then your coup de grace is mocking the idea of Crosby shutting people down? Even though you just said it was his best defensive year, and mentioned his selke placement....like, okay, I guess just spew anti-Crosby nonsense even if you have no thesis and the very post contradicts itself.

You can pretend like it doesn’t swings things in Crosby’s favor or continue being deliberately obtuse, choice is yours.

What does Crosby “carrying his team” have anything to do with the topic? And you want to call my post weird? Why pump tires on the wrong truck my friend?

You have a lot of emotions and fanboy running through your post. Maybe come back later after you learned to make a post worth reading and adding to. Cool?

 

[joe dirte]

No, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, that is not the only difference.

Every stat has flaws, but thank you for letting me know.

CORSI RelTM is the differential between Team CORSI and player's CORSI.
CORSI Rel is the differential between team off-ice CORSI and player's CORSI.

the difference between the two is that one uses off-ice CORSI vs the other uses Team CORSI as a benchmark.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Not sure the relevance of the bolded is, unless you think Couture should have won the Conn Smythe despite his team losing. Because the most common person the bitter HF population thinks should have won the CS that year was Kessel, who was a whopping 3 points ahead of Crosby. Crosby was actually closer to Kessel in points than Ovechkin was to Kuznetsov.

Ovechkin was better in the finals than Kuz though, while Ovechkin Smythe is better than Crosby’s ‘16 and it isn’t close.

I’m not saying Couture should have won the Smythe, but he was most certainly better than Crosby those playoffs. I had Murray, Kessel, or Letang in the mix over Crosby because like you stated, it’s hard to win the Smythe when your team loses.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Ovechkin was better in the finals than Kuz though, while Ovechkin Smythe is better than Crosby’s ‘16 and it isn’t close.

I’m not saying Couture should have won the Smythe, but he was most certainly better than Crosby those playoffs. I had Murray, Kessel, or Letang in the mix over Crosby because like you stated, it’s hard to win the Smythe when your team loses.

My only point was using the "double digit behind the leader" argument against Crosby seems odd when people are crying about Kessel being robbed. Kessel was also quite a bit behind the leader in points (Couture) as well, yet that doesn't seem to stop people from crying about him deserving to win it.

So unless people want to argue that Couture should have won, bringing up how far behind him Crosby was in points is irrelevant. What is relevant is how far behind the "guy who was robbed" Crosby was, and in that case, it's 3 whopping points, which is less than what Ovechkin was behind the second favorite for the CS (Kuznetsov) in his season.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Not sure the relevance of the bolded is, unless you think Couture should have won the Conn Smythe despite his team losing. Because the most common person the bitter HF population thinks should have won the CS that year was Kessel, who was a whopping 3 points ahead of Crosby. Crosby was actually closer to Kessel in points than Ovechkin was to Kuznetsov.

Ovechkin was further in pts from Kuznetsov than Crosby was to Kessel but as stated, at least OV has a legitimate justification of winning (1st in goals, near the top in hits, better finals). Crosby was below PPG and the only player in history who the smythe as a minus player. The situations aren't at all similar. Crosby probably has the weakest smythe in history.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Ovechkin was further in pts from Kuznetsov than Crosby was to Kessel but as stated, at least OV has a legitimate justification of winning (1st in goals, near the top in hits, better finals). Crosby was below PPG and the only player in history who the smythe as a minus player. The situations aren't at all similar. Crosby probably has the weakest smythe in history.

Multiple players have won the Conn Smythe while being below a point per game in the playoffs. Patrick Kane scored the exact same number of points as Crosby (19) in his Conn Smythe year, and that's without the defensive responsibilities Crosby has.

As for "only player in history as a minus player", you might want to re-check your facts before using that as evidence. Toews and Beliveau were both minus players when they won, and there are quite a few who were barely on the plus side (ie. O'Reilly was a +2 this past year).

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Multiple players have won the Conn Smythe while being below a point per game in the playoffs. Patrick Kane scored the exact same number of points as Crosby (19) in his Conn Smythe year, and that's without the defensive responsibilities Crosby has.

As for "only player in history as a minus player", you might want to re-check your facts before using that as evidence. Toews and Beliveau were both minus players when they won, and there are quite a few who were barely on the plus side (ie. O'Reilly was a +2 this past year).

And those were all weak smythes as well. Kane's was a weak one.

OK fair enough I'll admit I didn't check that, I just went off what someone had posted earlier. Either way, doesn't change the fact that Crosby and OV's smythe cases are not comparable.

 

[Varan]

There is a bit of "who cares" element to the OP. Crosby is the prototypical #1C who can do it all with a generational ability for puck possession and playmaking which can be just as, or even more effective, than what he contributes in the defensive end.

Unlike Backstrom, Crosby has always been the #1 offensive driver on his line so he can be forgiven if he has made a bad read or play in the defensive zone. Backstrom usually had to be extra responsible in his own zone given OV was usually putting in a minimal effort waiting for the Caps to get possession.

IMO, both players lose zero points in comparison to almost every other C in the league given their offensive responsibilities. It is interesting to note that Bergeron played on Crosby's wing in the World Cup which shows that Crosby's all around game was good enough that they did not have to worry about Bergeron not facing the other team's #1C head on.

appreciate the conspicuousness shot

 

[Varan]

• why the f*** is ovechkin in this thread. why?
• why the f*** are conn smythes being discussed in this thread
• why do people keep bringing up that 2016 CS. jesus christ we all agree it was a controversial win stop bringing it up again and again
• this is a "what have you done for me lately" thread disguised to pump up someones' favourite player

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

• why the **** is ovechkin in this thread. why?
• why the **** are conn smythes being discussed in this thread
• why do people keep bringing up that 2016 CS. jesus christ we all agree it was a controversial win stop bringing it up again and again
• this is a "what have you done for me lately" thread disguised to pump up someones' favourite player

Are you new to HF? Crosby-haters always bring up the 2016 CS in any Crosby thread, regardless of what the topic is actually about. It could be "Sidney Crosby saves 20 orphans from a burning building" and the usual suspects would eventually show up to talk about him being gifted the Conn Smythe in 2016 to downplay what he did.

 

[Varan]

Are you new to HF? Crosby-haters always bring up the 2016 CS in any Crosby thread, regardless of what the topic is actually about. It could be "Sidney Crosby saves 20 orphans from a burning building" and the usual suspects would eventually show up to talk about him being gifted the Conn Smythe in 2016 to downplay what he did.

i understand the pens/caps rivalry and the crosby/ov haters. but this is ridiculous. think about it

conn smythe voting in a selke thread.

as for the bolded i probably wouldn't doubt it

 

[SotasicA]

Crosby is the correct answer and it's not particularly close.

 

[Varan]

Crosby is the correct answer and it's not particularly close.

i don't even think the staunchest of crosby fans are going to agree with you

what nonsense

 

[SotasicA]

i don't even think the staunchest of crosby fans are going to agree with you

what nonsense

If Crosby didn't score so much he could have won some Selkes.

 

[Future GOAT]

How is this almost tied? Backstrom has been noticeably better defensively over their entire careers.

Recency bias.

 

[Future GOAT]

Crosby's 16 smythe and OV's 18 smythe have nothing in common. Crosby wasn't even PPG, was a minus player and was double digits behind 1st place pts. OV was over PPG, leader in goals, plus player and wasn't double digit pts behind the leader. So not sure what point you're trying to make.

And it's not just caps fans who complain about that smythe. Literally anyone who isn't wet for Crosby can see what a joke that smythe was.

It was one of the worst Smythe wins ever.

 

[Sasso09]

Backstrom by miles

 

[GreatGonzo]

My only point was using the "double digit behind the leader" argument against Crosby seems odd when people are crying about Kessel being robbed. Kessel was also quite a bit behind the leader in points (Couture) as well, yet that doesn't seem to stop people from crying about him deserving to win it.

So unless people want to argue that Couture should have won, bringing up how far behind him Crosby was in points is irrelevant. What is relevant is how far behind the "guy who was robbed" Crosby was, and in that case, it's 3 whopping points, which is less than what Ovechkin was behind the second favorite for the CS (Kuznetsov) in his season.

I don’t agree with that either though. I don’t see it as a robbery but more Crosby getting it because his status as player being superior to Kessel, Murray, or Letang.....not impact as a player. That’s where the argument starts. Was Crosby more impactful? I’m don’t think so, but that’s when the whole “elite defense” thing started because I’m a firm believer that there was nothing else concrete or worth noting that could make a better argument for Crosby.

Again, I’m not saying Couture should have and I don’t agree with the people that do, but I will say he played better than Crosby did. But one lost and the other won. I also don’t see why you have to try to justify Crosby’s Smythe with Ovechkins.....doesn’t that prove our point more? That you have to attach someone else to Crosby in order to make it appear agreeable? Ovechkins Smythe was stronger than Crosby’s. There’s no denying that. Was Kuzy worthy? Of course. But both caps were still stronger than Crosby’s regardless. Crosby’s Smythe was weak, but what benefitted him was how no one else truly stuck out as well, at least enough to “dethrone” him. He had the Smythe wrapped up after the 3rd round, and that’s after his disastrous 2nd round and before his mediocre finals. Either way Crosby was going to be the favorite because he’s Crosby.

I mean, I’m sure if the Pens lost to the sharks and Crosby ended the playoffs with the exact same stats, there would be no talk of how great he was defensively or anything. Instead the talk would be how subpar he was offensively while his play in his own end not being much better. Winning changes everything, everyone’s minds, and makes players heroes when maybe they shouldn’t be.

 

[GreatGonzo]

If Crosby didn't score so much he could have won some Selkes.

That’s not how the selke works. And definitely not how voters would view Crosby. What a lot of you need to realize is offense wasn’t holding him back, he just was never a selke caliber forward until this year. Don’t let this recent bias take away the fact that he wasn’t before.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I don’t agree with that either though. I don’t see it as a robbery but more Crosby getting it because his status as player being superior to Kessel, Murray, or Letang.....not impact as a player. That’s where the argument starts. Was Crosby more impactful? I’m don’t think so, but that’s when the whole “elite defense” thing started because I’m a firm believer that there was nothing else concrete or worth noting that could make a better argument for Crosby.

Again, I’m not saying Couture should have and I don’t agree with the people that do, but I will say he played better than Crosby did. But one lost and the other won. I also don’t see why you have to try to justify Crosby’s Smythe with Ovechkins.....doesn’t that prove our point more? That you have to attach someone else to Crosby in order to make it appear agreeable? Ovechkins Smythe was stronger than Crosby’s. There’s no denying that. Was Kuzy worthy? Of course. But both caps were still stronger than Crosby’s regardless. Crosby’s Smythe was weak, but what benefitted him was how no one else truly stuck out as well, at least enough to “dethrone” him. He had the Smythe wrapped up after the 3rd round, and that’s after his disastrous 2nd round and before his mediocre finals. Either way Crosby was going to be the favorite because he’s Crosby.

I mean, I’m sure if the Pens lost to the sharks and Crosby ended the playoffs with the exact same stats, there would be no talk of how great he was defensively or anything. Instead the talk would be how subpar he was offensively while his play in his own end not being much better. Winning changes everything, everyone’s minds, and makes players heroes when maybe they shouldn’t be.

I'm not sure why you wrote all that when my original post was about how mentioning how far back Crosby was from Couture is irrelevant because Couture isn't the guy who HF thinks was "robbed", Kessel was. And in that case, Crosby was 3 points back. How far back Crosby was from someone who people aren't arguing should win has no bearing or else people should also think Couture is more deserving than Kessel as well.

Also, Crosby's defense gets brought up in large part because of who some say should have won (Kessel). Crosby finished 3 points back, but had added responsibility in defensive situations that Kessel didn't. That's why his defense is brought up, because he's being compared to a guy who was literally all offense, and still only finished 3 points ahead.

The only reason Ovechkin is brought up isn't to say Crosby's Conn Smythe was as good as Ovechkin's, but to point out that in both cases, they finished behind teammates in points. Yet it's only Crosby that that is constantly mentioned. Ovechkin finishing FIVE POINTS behind not only his teammate but actual linemate is glossed over. Yet all we hear is "OMG CROSBY HAD LESS POINTS THAN KESSEL!".

I also think this site is so damn hypocritical and double standard when it comes to "advanced stats" and Crosby. When other players have "great possession numbers", HF will use that to prop up how good they are, even when their actual numbers are moderate. But when Crosby has strong possession numbers, like he did in the Finals versus San Jose, the ONLY measurement of his performance is raw stats.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I'm not sure why you wrote all that when my original post was about how mentioning how far back Crosby was from Couture is irrelevant because Couture isn't the guy who HF thinks was "robbed", Kessel was. And in that case, Crosby was 3 points back. How far back Crosby was from someone who people aren't arguing should win has no bearing or else people should also think Couture is more deserving than Kessel as well.

Also, Crosby's defense gets brought up in large part because of who some say should have won (Kessel). Crosby finished 3 points back, but had added responsibility in defensive situations that Kessel didn't. That's why his defense is brought up, because he's being compared to a guy who was literally all offense, and still only finished 3 points ahead.

The only reason Ovechkin is brought up isn't to say Crosby's Conn Smythe was as good as Ovechkin's, but to point out that in both cases, they finished behind teammates in points. Yet it's only Crosby that that is constantly mentioned. Ovechkin finishing FIVE POINTS behind not only his teammate but actual linemate is glossed over. Yet all we hear is "OMG CROSBY HAD LESS POINTS THAN KESSEL!".

I also think this site is so damn hypocritical and double standard when it comes to "advanced stats" and Crosby. When other players have "great possession numbers", HF will use that to prop up how good they are, even when their actual numbers are moderate. But when Crosby has strong possession numbers, like he did in the Finals versus San Jose, the ONLY measurement of his performance is raw stats.

Does that double standard really exist, and does it really unfairly hit Crosby? I mean, Joe Thornton gets a ton of criticism for his consistently poor playoff performances. Yet from 2007-2008, he NEVER had a CF% below 50%, and his overall CF% was 53.64%. Yet I haven't seen people (outside of Sharks fans) use that as a defense of his playoff performances, or to say he was actually great and just unlucky.

I think the criticism of both players for their goal-based metrics is valid; particularly when we are using a very large sample size. But I've seen a lot more people use CF% to give credit to Crosby's playoff performances than just about any other player, despite Crosby's poor raw stats. Crosby had a negative 5-on-5 goal differential (49.28% GF) in the 48 playoff games he played in those two back-to-back runs, and his team without him had a 56.41% GF. Regardless of his xGF% and CF%, those real numbers simply aren't good enough for me to give him credit for being great defensively.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Does that double standard really exist, and does it really unfairly hit Crosby? I mean, Joe Thornton gets a ton of criticism for his consistently poor playoff performances. Yet from 2007-2008, he NEVER had a CF% below 50%, and his overall CF% was 53.64%. Yet I haven't seen people (outside of Sharks fans) use that as a defense of his playoff performances, or to say he was actually great and just unlucky.

I think the criticism of both players for their goal-based metrics is valid; particularly when we are using a very large sample size. But I've seen a lot more people use CF% to give credit to Crosby's playoff performances than just about any other player, despite Crosby's poor raw stats. Crosby had a negative 5-on-5 goal differential (49.28% GF) in the 48 playoff games he played in those two back-to-back runs, and his team without him had a 56.41% GF. Regardless of his xGF% and CF%, those real numbers simply aren't good enough for me to give him credit for being great defensively.

Poor raw stats? He had 46 points in 48 games in the back to back years. Thornton doesn't get the benefit of the doubt for his possession numbers because his raw stats are just plain bad. Even if you isolated his production to the finals, Crosby had 11 points in 12 finals games. Far cry from Thornton's overall playoff career, and the lackluster numbers he's put up to earn less than the benefit of the doubt for his possession numbers.

There's a difference between pointing out "strong possession numbers" for a guy who also averaged around a point per game in actual raw numbers, and "strong possession numbers" for a guy who doesn't produce much actual raw numbers. In one case, a player produced pretty good numbers AND had great possession numbers. In the other case, a player literally only has possession numbers to argue with.