Does McDavid match Ovi's peak with another awards sweep?

[daver]

That 31 year old Malkin had his best season in 6 years (since 2011-12). And McDavid is only 21, not even close to his prime yet. For you to use age as a comparison is hilarious.'

That was Malkin's best full season (over 75 games) since 11/12, but he was better the year before, and in 13/14. It really is not a great benchmark.

As for McDavid "not not even close to his prime yet". That is simply lazy narrative with zero relevance.

 

[psycat]

Which "team award" would you rather have?

A Cup or a lottery pick?

Pundits act like Cups aren't listed on career resumes, or Conn Smythe awards aren't that much better then regular season awards.

I will say this tho, for those 21 points in the regular season McDavid had leading his team nowhere, I'll bet money, and this is without looking, Ovie had more playoff points then McDavid.

I mean...captain leading his team to a cup is actually an effective season and all.....

Conn Smythe is, as shown over and over the last 10 years or so, a joke of a award. That said McDavid is not close to Ovechkin yet and who knows if he will ever catch him.

 

[daver]

The smartest narrative is that McDavid's even strength production was sustainable and his PP production was unsustainably low, and there's a good reason to assume that his point totals will be higher next year.

The facts show his ES scoring was up and his PP scoring was down. There is no reason to believe that one is more sustainable than the other. Each season has it's different ebbs and flows to begin with, and there is no guarantee that McDavid improves offensively in general than he already has shown.

 

[Laineux]

Nah. You claimed that McDavid wasn't good on the PP, but that was wrong. He just had an off season on the power play.

His previous two seasons he scored at a rate of 6.39 p/60 on the PP. In 461 minutes that would come out to 49 power play points, and Mcdavid would score 121 points to Crosby's 120.

The thing is that you're comparing Crosby's best season on the PP to Mcdavid's worst and trying to draw a conclusion that McDavid isn't suited for the PP which is just ridiculous.

I do not disagree with this. However, why bring McDavid's point totals to an era with more powerplays when he's a dominant ES scorer instead of PP scorer (which is more important in today's game with less PPs) instead of "adjusting" the points of the players who excelled in the high PP era (who would probably be players that were better at PP than ES) to todays era?

 

[Laineux]

The facts show his ES scoring was up and his PP scoring was down. There is no reason to believe that one is more sustainable than the other. Each season has it's different ebbs and flows to begin with, and there is no guarantee that McDavid improves offensively in general than he already has shown.

There are plenty of advanced stats that show that McDavid's 5vs5 production was sustainable and his PP production was down and 5vs5 scoring is a far more repetable stat than powerplay scoring.

There is plenty of reason to assume that if McDavid plays like he did last season he will score more points.

 

[ijuka]

Since February, McDavid had 26 goals in 33 games to end the season and I think that he has a lot of potential as a goal-scorer if he's actually learned to shoot more often.


And btw, very few players of McDavid's caliber have such poor PP scoring. It's reasonable to assume the scoring there will go up. And if his team does better, it also is reasonable to assume his ES scoring goes up also.

 

[daver]

There are plenty of advanced stats that show that McDavid's 5vs5 production was sustainable and his PP production was down and 5vs5 scoring is a far more repetable stat than powerplay scoring.

There is plenty of reason to assume that if McDavid plays like he did last season he will score more points.

What does this even mean. He gets credit for putting up 108 points, that's it. Whatever amount of points he puts up next year is what he should get credit for. If it's at the same level as this year, relative to his peers, he has not gotten really that close to peak OV regardless of what narrative you want to attach to it.

 

[daver]

There are plenty of advanced stats that show that McDavid's 5vs5 production was sustainable and his PP production was down and 5vs5 scoring is a far more repetable stat than powerplay scoring.

There is plenty of reason to assume that if McDavid plays like he did last season he will score more points.

McDavid proved that he didn't have to rely on PP points to keep him close to the leaders or to eventually win the Art. He also showed that while his team was in playoff contention, he could not overcome the lower PP points to contribute as much to his team as he did the previous season when he lead in scoring right from the start.

We'll see how this season plays out.

 

[Riddum]

How has McD shown that he has a higher ceiling? He hasn't matched Ovie's 65 goal season or really come close.

McDavid doesn't need to score 65 goals to prove he is a better player than Ovechkin was in his prime.

 

[Apotheosis]

The facts show his ES scoring was up and his PP scoring was down. There is no reason to believe that one is more sustainable than the other. Each season has it's different ebbs and flows to begin with, and there is no guarantee that McDavid improves offensively in general than he already has shown.

Less PP opportunities+worse PP players with him = bad PP = PP scoring down. ES scoring is ALWAYS a more sustainable metric to look at when evaluating a player's potential production. How long have you been watching hockey? Majority of the game is played at 5v5. If a player is scoring at a high rate 5v5, then they are going to have sustainably high numbers because they can consistently do it during the majority of their perceived ice time. And his chance generation coupled with the fact that from what I have seen, none of his line mates had higher than average SH%, means that his numbers are clearly sustainable.

 

[Apotheosis]

McDavid doesn't need to score 65 goals to prove he is a better player than Ovechkin was in his prime.

Seems like some people are engaging in some weird fallacious argument. Isn't that the same argument Crosby fans would use to say Crosby was better? Crosby produced more points despite Ovechkin scoring more goals? Why is it any different when Crosby is changed to McDavid?

 

[shtorm2005]

Can McDavid match this?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Nah. You claimed that McDavid wasn't good on the PP, but that was wrong. He just had an off season on the power play.

His previous two seasons he scored at a rate of 6.39 p/60 on the PP. In 461 minutes that would come out to 49 power play points, and Mcdavid would score 121 points to Crosby's 120.

The thing is that you're comparing Crosby's best season on the PP to Mcdavid's worst and trying to draw a conclusion that McDavid isn't suited for the PP which is just ridiculous.

You might want to re-read my original post that you quoted. Nowhere did I say McDavid "wasn't good on the PP". I said he excelled at 5 on 5 and that I think his game is better suited to the transition offense you usually see at 5 on 5 rather than the more methodical, stationary offense you see on the PP. But nowhere in that post did I say he wasn't good on the PP.

 

[daver]

Less PP opportunities+worse PP players with him = bad PP = PP scoring down. ES scoring is ALWAYS a more sustainable metric to look at when evaluating a player's potential production. How long have you been watching hockey? Majority of the game is played at 5v5. If a player is scoring at a high rate 5v5, then they are going to have sustainably high numbers because they can consistently do it during the majority of their perceived ice time. And his chance generation coupled with the fact that from what I have seen, none of his line mates had higher than average SH%, means that his numbers are clearly sustainable.

We'll see. I am not arguing against this. I am arguing against his season this being valued higher than a season from OV's peak because he scored more at ES vs. the PP.

 

[Riddum]

Can McDavid match this?

Lota of dirty hits in this video. McDavid is a clean player.

You might want to re-read my original post that you quoted. Nowhere did I say McDavid "wasn't good on the PP". I said he excelled at 5 on 5 and that I think his game is better suited to the transition offense you usually see at 5 on 5 rather than the more methodical, stationary offense you see on the PP. But nowhere in that post did I say he wasn't good on the PP.

Anyone who disagrees with this, doesn't understand the sport.

 

[shtorm2005]

Lota of dirty hits in this video. McDavid is a clean player.

If it's legal it's not dirty. So player's physique is useless and don't add any value? With McDavid on the ice u have to just be speedy on defense and ignore him on offense, with peak Ovy on the ice u have to worry all the time. Pretty big difference if we're comparing dominance.

 

[Future GOAT]

Can McDavid match this?

Well obviously McDavid doesn't hit as often as Ovechkin but as you can see in my sig if you click on the animated picture (and it's not the only massive hit he's laid on someone) he can dole them out. He just won't dole them out anywhere close to the frequency Ovechkin does.

 

[North Cole]

You missed my overall point.

More PP time means less ES time. So his ES scoring will go down (unless you think he'll score the exact same number of ES points in 3 or so less minutes per game) to offset whatever gains in PP points with increased PPs.

Example:

McDavid last year:
ES Points - 84 points in 1434:45 of total ESTOI
PP Points - 20 points in 243:13 of total PPTOI

During Crosby's 120 point season, his ice time breakdowns where:
Total ESTOI - 1159:27
Total PPTOI - 461:10

If we assume McDavid played in 2006-07 and got the exact same ES/PP distribution that Crosby got (more PP, less ES time), his production based on last year's production per total TOI would look like:

68 ES points (84 divided by 1434:45 times 1159:27)
38 PP points (20 divided by 243:13 times 461:10)
Total of 106 points between PP+ES

Add his 4 SHP and his total is 110.

So yes, you see a slight increase based on his current rates. But I don't think you'd see the increase some expect. I think people just assume he'd score the exact same number of ES points, but pad his totals with twice the PP points.

But the reverse is even more true for peak Crosby. Based on the same math, he would score:

32pts on the PP and 73pts at ES, with McDavids icetimes. This is a total of 105 points down from 120....with no points added while shorthanded.

This proves that ES scoring is more sustainable because it is not dependant on a rarer occurance (the majority of the game is played at ES). The difference between their PP times is almost double, but the difference between their even strength times is 23.7% [(1159 27-1434.45)/1159.27]. So a player who feasts on PP time will be more affected by the loss of that time, since the loss is a greater percentage of the whole.

McDavid doesn't need more time. He just needs to be more efficient; he is already very efficient at 5v5....more efficient than Crosby has ever been. Although Crosby is more efficient at pp, this is less important.

 

[North Cole]

Sure. I started that poll because the narrative by some is that he was not doing any worse than the previous year as long as his PPG was hovering 1.20, which was most of the year, which completely ignored the fact that scoring was up by the elite forwards and that he was 5th to 10th in scoring thru til the 60 game mark.

While his team was trying to make the playoffs, McDavid was among the Hart candidates and amongf the best players, but it was far from "clear".

And those people were right. It is allowed to ignore the bold because the bold is not relevant. Their point was that he was not doing any worse comparatively to himself.... talking about starts from other elite players has no bearing on his stats on a personal basis.

Talking about other players stats at the 30 game mark has no bearing on the Art Ross or Hart because those are full season awards. Therefore the data is not only skewed, but also incomplete at the 30 game mark. Which is why we don't hand the awards out in December...although much of the site (myself included) already figure Kucherov was a shoe in. Unfortunately for him, he ghosted the rest of the season. Other players besides McDavid turned it up... Malkin, Mackinnon, Hall, Kopitar.

This is what makes McDavid special. In the post above this, the math shows why he may have less variance in his stats year to year - his ES scoring ability. Naturally the ability could change, which is why stats are not predictive of future success. People forget that too often... ppg/gpg are not fool proof. No matter the sample size.

 

[North Cole]

Well obviously McDavid doesn't hit as often as Ovechkin but as you can see in my sig if you click on the animated picture (and it's not the only massive hit he's laid on someone) he can dole them out. He just won't dole them out anywhere close to the frequency Ovechkin does.

People think smaller players can't hit because they don't understand physics.. Force = Mass × Acceleration. A player like Barzal could smoke someone hard assuming they skate fast, which he does. Mcdavid might be smaller then the guys at 230lbs, but if he is moving 1.35x their speed, he could do more damage.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

But the reverse is even more true for peak Crosby. Based on the same math, he would score:

32pts on the PP and 73pts at ES, with McDavids icetimes. This is a total of 105 points down from 120....with no points added while shorthanded.

This proves that ES scoring is more sustainable because it is not dependant on a rarer occurance (the majority of the game is played at ES). The difference between their PP times is almost double, but the difference between their even strength times is 23.7% [(1159 27-1434.45)/1159.27]. So a player who feasts on PP time will be more affected by the loss of that time, since the loss is a greater percentage of the whole.

McDavid doesn't need more time. He just needs to be more efficient; he is already very efficient at 5v5....more efficient than Crosby has ever been. Although Crosby is more efficient at pp, this is less important.

I wasn't making any sort of comparison to Crosby. I was merely showing the math that McDavid's jump in production wouldn't be this huge amount if he got more PP time, like the poster I quoted suggested/implied. Based on the exact same ratios he produced at last year, and assuming he got exactly the same breakdown of ES and PP time Crosby got in 2006-07, he'd see a 2-point increase. Not some massive jump from like 108 points to 120+ or 130+ (which are some of the predictions for him in some of these threads based on "if he got more PP opportunities like in 2005-2008").

 

[Caps8112]

I wonder how many points McDavid would have gotten if his team got 346 PP's, instead of the 210 his team got last year.

Considering Edmonton was the worst team in the league on the PP, probably wouldnt have helped much

 

[Zuluss]

Ovechkin's peak leads over #10 in points, in %
29-25-27
McDavid's peak leads over #10 in points, in %
33-21-?

I would also believe that not too many people would put McDavid's 16/17 over Ovechkin's 07/08 despite the points lead over the field being a bit in McDavid's favor, because, well, 65 goals. That's not to say that McDavid has to score 65 goals to match Ovechkin's peak, but I think it is fair to ask for a bit wider point lead from McDavid if he is not going to score 65 goals and crash people.

So, going back to McDavid, unless he channels 11/12 Malkin and scores like 50 goals and 125 points next season, I don't think his three-year peak will match Ovechkin yet. On the other hand, he can add yet another Art Ross worthy season and I would be tempted to say that his 4-year peak then will be equivalent to Ovechkin's 3-year peak. Or better still, he can actually go ahead and have three 120-125 point seasons starting with the next one, and then we won't have to argue.

 

[daver]

And those people were right. It is allowed to ignore the bold because the bold is not relevant. Their point was that he was not doing any worse comparatively to himself.... talking about starts from other elite players has no bearing on his stats on a personal basis.

Going from 1st to 5th is worse. That is inarguable.

 

[shtorm2005]

People think smaller players can't hit because they don't understand physics.. Force = Mass × Acceleration. A player like Barzal could smoke someone hard assuming they skate fast, which he does. Mcdavid might be smaller then the guys at 230lbs, but if he is moving 1.35x their speed, he could do more damage.

Well, u have to know how to hit too. It doesn't come like magic if u have never practiced hits at full speed. Besides, if Civic will hit Hammer at 100kmh, who will get more damage?