First 14 Seasons: Crosby vs. Howe

[ImporterExporter]

Your "more shots is a bad thing" argument remains as stupid as ever. If you shoot more and score more - that's a good thing, not a bad thing. If you think more failed shots is a bad thing because you lose possession more often - it's only fair that you also track pass attempts/receptions and failed passes/receptions when looking at playmakers, to compare, which I don't think anyone does in hockey. More goals is a good thing - if you shoot more to score more, it's still a good thing.

Getting back to topic - I'm pretty sure he's posted his top 10 list before and Crosby is on it - just behind Ovechkin is all.

"Stupid as ever"
-5th grade response

And you don't even get the context I'm talking about. The more you shoot the more likely it is you will score more goals. Hence, shooting vastly more than anyone in hockey today means you're probably going to have great goal scoring finishes. If you think Ovechkin was the best goal scorer last year because he had the most goals, by a whopping 1, then there is nothing to discuss.

That doesn't even begin to dive into the notion that all shots are created equal and that simply shooting the puck because you can is a great thing. I'll give you a hint. It isn't.

If you think that is stupid, you're probably in the wrong place on this forum.

Regardless, this thread is about Howe vs Sid.....why I don't know, because anyone worth a damn knows this is Howe by a pretty decent margin.

 

[bobholly39]

And you don't even get the context I'm talking about. The more you shoot the more likely it is you will score more goals. Hence, shooting vastly more than anyone in hockey today means you're probably going to have great goal scoring finishes. If you think Ovechkin was the best goal scorer last year because he had the most goals, by a whopping 1, then there is nothing to discuss.

The more you shoot, the more likely it is you will score goals. I agree
Hence, shooting vastly more than anyone in hockey today means you're probably going to have great goal scoring finishes. I agree

You've yet to explain why the above is a bad thing.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The more you shoot, the more likely it is you will score goals. I agree
Hence, shooting vastly more than anyone in hockey today means you're probably going to have great goal scoring finishes. I agree

You've yet to explain why the above is a bad thing.

It's NOT always a bad thing. It only means that goal scoring finishes are overrated without context applied. If it takes player A, 150 more shots to score 5 more goals than player B, in 2nd place, why do we just automatically say player A is a superior goal scorer?

You do realize that no player in the current era misses more shots than Ovechkin, right? Many of those lead to change of possession. How many of the thousands of misses, that had no chance in hell of going in, led to chances going the other way? It's why just shooting the puck at will is not always a good thing. That's a lousy and lazy argument.

Is it any wonder why the 2 guys who generally are called the greatest all time in that department (Hull/Ovechkin) have such a shoddy playoff record as far as team results go, and to a lesser degree, individually, despite playing on great, great teams through out their careers?

One dimensional, puck dominant players are easier to defend. This has been true of Washington over the years. It was true of Chicago in the 1960's.

It's not rocket science. @Canadiens1958

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's NOT always a bad thing. It only means that goal scoring finishes are overrated without context applied. If it takes player A, 150 more shots to score 5 more goals than player B, in 2nd place, why do we just automatically say player A is a superior goal scorer?

You do realize that no player in the current era misses more shots than Ovechkin, right? Many of those lead to change of possession. How many of the thousands of misses, that had no chance in hell of going in, led to chances going the other way? It's why just shooting the puck at will is not always a good thing. That's a lousy and lazy argument.

Is it any wonder why the 2 guys who generally are called the greatest all time in that department (Hull/Ovechkin) have such a shoddy playoff record as far as team results go, and to a lesser degree, individually, despite playing on great, great teams through out their careers?

One dimensional, puck dominant players are easier to defend. This has been true of Washington over the years. It was true of Chicago in the 1960's.

It's not rocket science. @Canadiens1958

It would follow, then, for teams also.

Team A takes only 20 shots in a game, but scored 2 goals.

Team B takes 40 shots, but only scores 3.

See what this leads to?

 

[ImporterExporter]

It would follow, then, for teams also.

Team A takes only 20 shots in a game, but scored 2 goals.

Team B takes 40 shots, but only scores 3.

See what this leads to?

I'm talking about individual shots taken, not team totals. There's a difference.

When teams have one player who is taking such a huge portion of the overall total, generally speaking, you're going to be easier to defend.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Howe's 52/53 is what it is, a season that seemingly stands out from his others which can be called his "peak" season. Lots of other players have this type of season, one that sticks out from their other elite seasons. It doesn't mean that this is their "prime" level of play, it is meaningful that he only had one season like this while three of his other five Ross wins can be argued as being the best of his era but Hull, Beliveau, Mikita, Richard, all have their one peak season that can also be argued for.

IMO, Crosby hit Howe's 2nd best level during his peak.

In 1950-51, Howe outscored the 2nd place finisher 86-66.

In 1951-52, Howe outscored the 2nd place finisher 86-69. But that was his teammate, Ted Lindsay. He outscored the next best non-Wing 86-65.

1952-53 it was 95-71 0ver Lindsay, 95-61 over the rest.

Crosby has 2 scoring titles, 7 years apart. One almost as dominant as Howe's 3rd best, 104-87.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm talking about individual shots taken, not team totals. There's a difference.

When teams have one player who is taking such a huge portion of the overall total, generally speaking, you're going to be easier to defend.

On the right track but. Last five seasons has seen Washington with Ovechkin, has been below the league average in shots taken four times. Ideally a team would be top five in shots taken - above average, with a contender for the individual shot leadership.

This would reflect a balanced attack with multiple offensive options and styles with an alternative in case of injury.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm talking about individual shots taken, not team totals. There's a difference.

When teams have one player who is taking such a huge portion of the overall total, generally speaking, you're going to be easier to defend.

Since Ovechkin has been in Washington, their finishes in goals scored have been:

23rd, 18th, 8th, 3rd, 1st, 19th, 15th, 3rd, 11th, 6th, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 5th

Seems like the Caps have been pretty successful scoring goals. Especially the last 4 years, which have been Ovechkin's most one dimensional.

 

[daver]

In 1950-51, Howe outscored the 2nd place finisher 86-66.

In 1951-52, Howe outscored the 2nd place finisher 86-69. But that was his teammate, Ted Lindsay. He outscored the next best non-Wing 86-65.

1952-53 it was 95-71 0ver Lindsay, 95-61 over the rest.

Crosby has 2 scoring titles, 7 years apart. One almost as dominant as Howe's 3rd best, 104-87.

So you think Crosby played the best hockey of his career in 13/14?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So you think Crosby played the best hockey of his career in 13/14?

No, why do you ask?

 

[bobholly39]

No, why do you ask?

Why do you do that?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Since Ovechkin has been in Washington, their finishes in goals scored have been:

23rd, 18th, 8th, 3rd, 1st, 19th, 15th, 3rd, 11th, 6th, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 5th

Seems like the Caps have been pretty successful scoring goals. Especially the last 4 years, which have been Ovechkin's most one dimensional.

And what do all those shots and goals DO FOR THE TEAM?

If having the greatest goal scorer ever was such an advantage, why does the team the greatest goal scorer play for, routinely get bounced by teams who finished lower in the standings? I mean I know what the narrative is from folks like MJ and other Caps fans. "Everyone else shits the bed around Ovechkin", which of course is a crock.

It has a lot to do with shot quality and efficiency vs shot volume and having your superstar player able to contribute beyond winding up and pounding rubber at twine.

 

[MadLuke]

I notice on the first page for example, @MadLuke posted the ppg of both Howe and Crosby through 14 seasons. I don't like this too much. My issue with it is that a lot of those comparisons are random luck - since a huge component of it is "how perfectly do the era's best players align with your 14 years".

Yeah I didn't like it much either, really depend of how much you match the prime of the elite of your time, I did split it in 2 batch of 7 season for that reason but still, do still feel flayed. For an obvious example, Ovechkin get a massive injury in 2006, Crosby would be the goal leader of the last 14 season ? Is he really an all time great scorer or just a question that a lot of good goal scorer prime were cut by the lock out and the newer one like Stamkos/Ovechkin got injured a lot in that scenario and he didn't face a Bure/Selanne or even just an Jarome Iginla prime.

During Howe 14 season, almost no one played those 14 season to start with, like less than 7 other player's, making the group he had to beat to have the most points of the era a really small one.

I will look at your idea (once I achieve to get all the player stats, i think I did find a way for that), but it will introduce new issues, for example because the scoring shifted so much between 98 to 2004 and the post lock out era that it will give an advantage to Crosby when comparing the ppg for the player that their career played before the lock out and could hurt Howe because scoring went up around that time has well.

Maybe instead of looking at it in 2 group of 7 season, I could look at it in multiple group of 3 season or if anyone has good idea.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Look at all is full season first half ppg vs second half ppg, it is not has cut and dry than a cherry picked season tell us and 27 year's old is past most players offensive peak specially those that start really young out of the gates in the league, Ovechkin never went significantly above 1 ppg past 24 for an example.

Crosby in the 2009-2010 season just before that 41 games season

First 40 games: 48 points, 1.2 ppg
Last 40 games: 61 points, 1.52 ppg

The season before (77 games)
first 38 games: 50 points
last 38 games: 53 points

Is play at that age was not really indicating that a big drop in the second half would have happened, a certain regression to the mean of is shooting percentage and is goal scoring would have almost certainly happened too. But the fact is more than 50 next games he played followed the same pace, maybe it was close to peak Crosby normal.

It's a fair point but I wasn't asserting that slowing down was a certainty - merely that it was a strong possibility. Seeing as how everything here is pure speculation, I think the bar is rather low.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The other irony is if we look at raw points, with zero context, using the metric that defines Howe's peak - the % ahead of 2nd place - Crosby has the most impressive Art Ross win the last 27 years. This includes nine Art Rosses won by the group of Wayne (1), Mario (4), and Jagr (5). Of course, the "Crosby would have regressed significantly in those missed games" crowd will never acknowledge this.

Crosby's 2014 Art Ross win isn't even in the top 15 of the past 27 years. The primary reasons he was far ahead were:

1) Malkin, Kane, Stamkos, and Tavares were all injured; and
2) Crosby accumulated 34 secondary assists - a largely arbitrary stat - and there is video and statistical evidence that he didn't even deserve some of them.

Compare Crosby's 2014 to Kane's 2015 or Malkin in 2012. Kane and Malkin had the far superior seasons - on either side of Crosby's.

Comparing to second place is always going to be volatile. Crosby deserves zero credit for what second place accomplished because he had zero control over it. Hinging an argument on that is by definition, arbitrary.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There is no point in even engaging with him. I'm as big a Crosby fan as you'll find and even I don't subscribe to the notion he's a top 10 player all time (it's called being objective) yet. I honestly believe MJ believes some of the stuff (the rest is D level trolling) he writes but there is no objectivity there and always an agenda to demonize one player, selling him short at every turn...

It's funny you should say that because I would put Crosby in the top 10 all time, it's just that I don't have to do any pretending in order to get him there.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Considering he believes a 1 way, goal scoring only W is better than Crosby?

See, this is just pretending, and we've been over this before.

In reality Ovechkin is a physical dominator and a great playmaker. He's 11th in assists since the lockout. 4th in hits.

 

[Midnight Judges]

And you don't even get the context I'm talking about. The more you shoot the more likely it is you will score more goals. Hence, shooting vastly more than anyone in hockey today means you're probably going to have great goal scoring finishes. If you think Ovechkin was the best goal scorer last year because he had the most goals, by a whopping 1, then there is nothing to discuss.

Didn't the next guy play with the best player in thew world for most of the season? Don't you think that might be a bit of an advantage? Do you think Draisaitl's average shot length of 25 feet vs Ovechkin's 37 feet may reflect the quality of chances they were being afforded? Do you think maybe, just maybe, shooting from an average of 12 feet further away would have reduced Draisaitl's shooting percentage?

Here's the data BTW:

NHL.com - Stats

 

[ImporterExporter]

See, this is just pretending, and we've been over this before.

In reality Ovechkin WAS a physical dominator and a great playmaker. He's 11th in assists since the lockout. 4th in hits.

First bolded was a fix for you. Ovechkin hasn't been a physical dominator in ages. I know Caps fans who can admit that. At this point in his career, he's a one trick pony. He's elite at that one trick, yes, but he's nowhere close to the impact, physical player he was pre 2010.

2nd bolded is one of many, but a key reason why nobody takes you seriously. But then again I don't think you are trying to be serious half the time. You are a low level troll. Nothing more.

"Great playmaker"

If Ovechkin is a great (elite being the only level I put above the word great) play maker, then Joe Thornton and Sidney Crosby can each grab a nut on Gretzky and smile.

Throwing around raw stats like they mean what you think they mean and what you think will go over the heads of people in this particular sub forum, is just pure comedy.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Didn't the next guy play with the best player in thew world for most of the season? Don't you think that might be a bit of an advantage? Do you think Draisaitl's average shot length of 25 feet vs Ovechkin's 37 feet may reflect the quality of chances they were being afforded? Do you think maybe, just maybe, shooting from an average of 12 feet further away would have reduced Draisaitl's shooting percentage?

Here's the data BTW:

NHL.com - Stats

As if playing with Nick Backstrom, one of the most creative and best passing C's of the past decade is some sort of prison sentence.

Every, wonder, just maybe, that Ovechkin shoots further out because he, gasp, floats more than he used to? I mean, I see it, but then again, so do you. It's just that I don't have to pretend NOT to see it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Why do you do that?

I didn't have an answer and had something else to do.

Should have said not necessarily.

It was really a loaded question. "So you think Crosby played the best hockey of his career in 13/14?"

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

First bolded was a fix for you. Ovechkin hasn't been a physical dominator in ages. I know Caps fans who can admit that. At this point in his career, he's a one trick pony. He's elite at that one trick, yes, but he's nowhere close to the impact, physical player he was pre 2010.

2nd bolded is one of many, but a key reason why nobody takes you seriously. But then again I don't think you are trying to be serious half the time. You are a low level troll. Nothing more.

"Great playmaker"

If Ovechkin is a great (elite being the only level I put above the word great) play maker, then Joe Thornton and Sidney Crosby can each grab a nut on Gretzky and smile.

Throwing around raw stats like they mean what you think they mean and what you think will go over the heads of people in this particular sub forum, is just pure comedy.

He had 226 hits last season. He still hurts guys.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And what do all those shots and goals DO FOR THE TEAM?

If having the greatest goal scorer ever was such an advantage, why does the team the greatest goal scorer play for, routinely get bounced by teams who finished lower in the standings? I mean I know what the narrative is from folks like MJ and other Caps fans. "Everyone else ****s the bed around Ovechkin", which of course is a crock.

It has a lot to do with shot quality and efficiency vs shot volume and having your superstar player able to contribute beyond winding up and pounding rubber at twine.

What do goals do for the team? Isn't that obvious.

 

[ImporterExporter]

He had 226 hits last season. He still hurts guys.

Hits are about as useless a raw stat as +/- without context.

Be better than that.

 

[ImporterExporter]

What do goals do for the team? Isn't that obvious.

Simplistic response from a simple mindset.

The Caps have really dominated the league haven't they with the greatest volume shooter of all time?