Higher Peak?

[glovesave_35]

Yes, Oveckin's full season was better. I agree. I'm not even debating that, because personally, I could very easily choose Ovechkin as my own candidate.

I'm saying the guy I quoted said Crosby had a higher peak, but because he got injured, he switches his choice to Ovechkin as having had the better peak. To me, that doesn't even make sense. Either he thinks Sid played at a higher level, or he doesn't... it should be that simple, because I'm positive that's what the OP was asking.

Anyway, we're going in circles here. I think we need a new thread to get a consensus on the definition of peak... if we're going to throw the dictionary out.

Here's an aside, I'd like to know you if agree. If you were to ask me what Mario's best season was, I would reply 1988-1989. If you were to ask me what year Mario was the most valuable, I'd probably reply 1990-1991. But, if you were to ask me what Mario's peak was... I would definitely reply March to April 1993.

I am not old enough or watching hockey at any pf those times so I can't offer anything not based on stats.

I feel like this is getting a bit garbled together here. I personally would never call a span of a month or two as a player's peak so that option is out from the get-go. From the options listed I would probably have to say his 199 point season was his peak...but again, that is based on stats only and not my own personal feeling having watched those seasons.

 

[Tweed]

I personally would never call a span of a month or two as a player's peak so that option is out from the get-go.

Yet, by definition of the word peak... the period is considered a "moment".

From the options listed I would probably have to say his 199 point season was his peak...but again, that is based on stats only and not my own personal feeling having watched those seasons.

Darn, I guess yeah, it's hard for you to draw on viewing experience. I think you can still play along going purely by stats though.

If we look at Mario's 88-89 vs 92-93 full seasons... which would you rule is his peak?

Year GP G A PTS PPG
88-89 76 85 114 199 2.62
92-93 60 69 91 160 2.67

 

[glovesave_35]

Yet, by definition of the word peak... the period is considered a "moment".




Darn, I guess yeah, it's hard for you to draw on viewing experience. I think you can still play along going purely by stats though.

If we look at Mario's 88-89 vs 92-93 full seasons... which would you rule is his peak?

Year GP G A PTS PPG
88-89 76 85 114 199 2.62
92-93 60 69 91 160 2.67

I don't know where you got that specific definition regarding sports from. You are going down a path where one could, using your own definition, argue a player's peak as a single game, or even a single period of hockey. That is why many, including myself, don't take anything less than a season of play as a player's peak. From there it devolves into a discussion of "absolute top form" or "absolute peak" where we can argue smaller sample sizes of player A vs player B.

 

[Tweed]

I don't know where you got that specific definition regarding sports from. You are going down a path where one could, using your own definition, argue a player's peak as a single game, or even a single period of hockey. That is why many, including myself, don't take anything less than a season of play as a player's peak. From there it devolves into a discussion of "absolute top form" or "absolute peak" where we can argue smaller sample sizes of player A vs player B.

Trust me, I'm not taking this down Darryl Sittler road. I would genuinely like to know how you would rule on the Mario stuff. Obviously I'll bring it all back to Sid & Ovi.

 

[glovesave_35]

Trust me, I'm not taking this down Darryl Sittler road. I would genuinely like to know how you would rule on the Mario stuff. Obviously I'll bring it all back to Sid & Ovi.

Alright then. Given the atypical scoring league-wide in 1992-93 I am inclined to go with the 88-89 season.

I know you're trying to prove a point but I just don't like it because in this particular case, Mario Lemieux led the league with 160 freaking points despite missing 20 games.
By contrast, Crosby's 66 points in 41 games just doesn't have the same kind of gravitas, even accounting for era. The difference here is that even though Lemieux didn't play a "whole season" it doesn't matter because of the insane number of points he scored. On the other hand, Crosby's 2010-11 is a case of what if.

 

[Tweed]

Alright then. Given the atypical scoring league-wide in 1992-93 I am inclined to go with the 88-89 season.

I know you're trying to prove a point but I just don't like it because in this particular case, Mario Lemieux led the league with 160 freaking points despite missing 20 games.
By contrast, Crosby's 66 points in 41 games just doesn't have the same kind of gravitas, even accounting for era. The difference here is that even though Lemieux didn't play a "whole season" it doesn't matter because of the insane number of points he scored. On the other hand, Crosby's 2010-11 is a case of what if.

I'm actually surprised you replied. Either way, I'm not comparing Lemieux's season to Crosby's... so that's moot. But, you've just made my case, even in selecting the wrong Mario season, by virtue of giving him a pass for only having played 60 games. In other words... not a "whole season"... which is the point of contention everybody here seems to be trying to cram down my throat (despite OP not setting those parameters, nor "full season" being the boundaries of what defines "peak", as I'm demonstrating).

You then qualified that by saying because "led the league... despite missing 20 games". So what you've done is compared him to the rest of the field. Then you've contrasted what Crosby did citing it's not as impressive (because ?)... and you're right, it's not as "impressive". But that's because Sid also wasn't playing at the same level Mario was either, regardless of the field... whatever Pat Lafontaine did in 92-93, or Ovechkin did in 07-08.

Apart from that, and I know you said you weren't watching back then, but anybody who did watch, will tell you that 92-93 Mario was better than 88-89 Mario. So you kind of either had to pick 88-89 and be wrong on purpose (because I hand fed you Mario's best season by showing you his points-per-game)... or not reply at all. There was nothing you could say, that wouldn't solidify my point that "peak" doesn't mean "best performance in a full season"... and I think that's the real reason you don't like the point I'm trying to prove. You saw it coming a mile away.

Fact remains, Mario's peak was a shortened season. Crosby's situation was not a case of "what if". He went out there and performed at the level he did, for 41 games. "What if" would be "the stuff that might have happened in the 41 games he missed". There's nothing to indicate that he would have crapped the bed or fell off, for the last 41 games, nor does it matter. People who follow Sid will tell you, if anything, he's a slow starter, and only gets better as the year goes on. But it's a digression from the point. Sid's peak, lasted 41 games in 2010-11. Period. The guy I originally quoted acknowledged that. The fact that he got hurt, doesn't change the fact that was his peak, nor does it diminish it.

You'd be a fool to select Crosby over Ovechkin that year for your roster, knowing that Sid would only play half a season. And I'm pretty sure that's what the guy I quoted, was thinking. He picked the guy he would take on his roster, with a Magic 8-ball. But that's contrary to OPs question, and contrary to his own response of who had the higher peak.

Anyway check this out man. Mario's statsline that season was:

40GP-39G-65A-104P
misses 24 games
20GP-30G-25-56P

And anybody who was watching Mario that year, will tell you Mario was playing even better in his last 20 games, than he did in his first 40 games. That means, in his first 40 games, he was NOT playing at his peak. This is why we differentiate post-cancer-treatment Mario from pre-cancer-treatment Mario, when we talk about 92-93 Mario.

The difference? A "nominal" 0.20 PPG. Yet it was a night and day difference.

 

[glovesave_35]

I'm actually surprised you replied. Either way, I'm not comparing Lemieux's season to Crosby's... so that's moot. But, you've just made my case, even in selecting the wrong Mario season, by virtue of giving him a pass for only having played 60 games. In other words... not a "whole season"... which is the point of contention everybody here seems to be trying to cram down my throat (despite OP not setting those parameters, nor "full season" being the boundaries of what defines "peak", as I'm demonstrating).

You then qualified that by saying because "led the league... despite missing 20 games". So what you've done is compared him to the rest of the field. Then you've contrasted what Crosby did citing it's not as impressive (because ?)... and you're right, it's not as "impressive". But that's because Sid also wasn't playing at the same level Mario was either, regardless of the field... whatever Pat Lafontaine did in 92-93, or Ovechkin did in 07-08.

Apart from that, and I know you said you weren't watching back then, but anybody who did watch, will tell you that 92-93 Mario was better than 88-89 Mario. So you kind of either had to pick 88-89 and be wrong on purpose (because I hand fed you Mario's best season by showing you his points-per-game)... or not reply at all. There was nothing you could say, that wouldn't solidify my point that "peak" doesn't mean "best performance in a full season"... and I think that's the real reason you don't like the point I'm trying to prove. You saw it coming a mile away.

Fact remains, Mario's peak was a shortened season. Crosby's situation was not a case of "what if". He went out there and performed at the level he did, for 41 games. "What if" would be "the stuff that might have happened in the 41 games he missed". There's nothing to indicate that he would have crapped the bed or fell off, for the last 41 games, nor does it matter. People who follow Sid will tell you, if anything, he's a slow starter, and only gets better as the year goes on. But it's a digression from the point. Sid's peak, lasted 41 games in 2010-11. Period. The guy I originally quoted acknowledged that. The fact that he got hurt, doesn't change the fact that was his peak, nor does it diminish it.

You'd be a fool to select Crosby over Ovechkin that year for your roster, knowing that Sid would only play half a season. And I'm pretty sure that's what the guy I quoted, was thinking. He picked the guy he would take on his roster, with a Magic 8-ball. But that's contrary to OPs question, and contrary to his own response of who had the higher peak.

Anyway check this out man. Mario's statsline that season was:

40GP-39G-65A-104P
misses 24 games
20GP-30G-25-56P

And anybody who was watching Mario that year, will tell you Mario was playing even better in his last 20 games, than he did in his first 40 games. That means, in his first 40 games, he was NOT playing at his peak. This is why we differentiate post-cancer-treatment Mario from pre-cancer-treatment Mario, when we talk about 92-93 Mario.

The difference? A "nominal" 0.20 PPG. Yet it was a night and day difference.

I am on my phone so I will keep it short.

I told you why I was less likely to choose Mario's 92-93 season. All across the league players had outlier career years. So, having not watched him with my own eyes (as I clearly told you) I was inclined to go with the season where Mario played more games and scored more points while being very close to the PPG rate of his 93-93 season.

In addition, if you take Mario's scoring pace of 160 points over 60 games and apply it to 76 games (the number he played in 88-89) you get 202.6666667 points. That difference isn't the chasm you are painting it as. If he simply looked more dominant in 92-93 I can get down with that but at the risk of repeating myself, I did not see it.

Lastly, the point that I was clearly making in my previous post was that Mario's 92-93 season was still a full season because he missed 20 games and still led the entire league in scoring.

I know you are going to disagree with me. That is fine. But let's at least put everything out there honestly. You argued for the definition of "peak" being a moment but then say you aren't arguing for the single game variety of "moment". It all just seems to me like picking and choosing while arguing that you are the one with the rigid definition and everyone else is playing fast and loose with language.

 

[Seanaconda]

Wait if full seasons only count lemieux peak must be awful.

I don't see one so anyone with one full season beats him

 

[Tweed]

I am on my phone so I will keep it short.

I told you why I was less likely to choose Mario's 92-93 season. All across the league players had outlier career years. So, having not watched him with my own eyes (as I clearly told you) I was inclined to go with the season where Mario played more games and scored more points while being very close to the PPG rate of his 93-93 season.

In addition, if you take Mario's scoring pace of 160 points over 60 games and apply it to 76 games (the number he played in 88-89) you get 202.6666667 points. That difference isn't the chasm you are painting it as. If he simply looked more dominant in 92-93 I can get down with that but at the risk of repeating myself, I did not see it.

Lastly, the point that I was clearly making in my previous post was that Mario's 92-93 season was still a full season because he missed 20 games and still led the entire league in scoring.

I know you are going to disagree with me. That is fine. But let's at least put everything out there honestly. You argued for the definition of "peak" being a moment but then say you aren't arguing for the single game variety of "moment". It all just seems to me like picking and choosing while arguing that you are the one with the rigid definition and everyone else is playing fast and loose with language.

You "honestly" thought Mario Lemieux peaked in his 4th NHL Season, and not his 8th season... even with the numbers in front of you showing you he played better in his 8th? Yes, please, let's put everything out there honestly. Next you'll tell me that people on here commonly expect forwards to peak at age 22, and not 26, right?

My point was it doesn't matter whether or not the difference between 92-93 & 88-89 was a "chasm" or not. You don't measure a player's peak "against the field". You can't say "Sid played more-better-than Ovi in 16-17 than he did in 10-11, therefore Sid's peak was 16-17". That's not peak, that's an observation of dominance, but that's not how you assess a player's period of optimal hockey.

You said you read everything I had written on the subject? Once again... the peak "moment"... begins when the player enters a period of time where he is playing to the best of his abilities, and that moment ends, when his play declines. As I said before, I'm not talking about a Darryl Sittler 1-game moment... as the pro-Ovi club has suggested is the reason "full season" is the standard accepted boundaries for measuring a player's peak. I'm not the one who suggested Darryl Sittler had the highest all-time peak, by this definition. It was the same guy that accused me of choosing definitions when it suits my argument, who put forth the notion that peak is measured by a full season. And the rest of you followed his lead.

Incidentally, in another topic and conversation, I saw a poster use the word peak... and I asked him to explain what he meant when he was talking about a player's peak. The reason I asked was because I wanted to make sure I'm not living on an island here, using my own lexicon, mistakenly thinking we're all speaking the same language, when in fact we're not. His response was "What I mean by that is a stretch of games. Doesn't have to be a full season but say 20-40 games."

Swear to god. I didn't ask him to tell me how many games, or for how long, or anything about duration. I didn't lead the question, or direct him to answer in such a way that I would garner the result I wanted to hear. I straight up asked him to define what he meant by peak.

So if we're being "honest"... I honestly think the folks who don't like the Crosby choice, have decided his peak doesn't count, because it didn't last as long as Ovi's, despite Sid's peak being higher. You'll know I'm telling the truth when I say that, because that was what I said in my first quote, to the guy who contradicted himself.

 

[Seanaconda]

Correct answer is still crosby if it's no time limit . Ovechkin if it's 3 full seasons.

 

[glovesave_35]

You "honestly" thought Mario Lemieux peaked in his 4th NHL Season, and not his 8th season... even with the numbers in front of you showing you he played better in his 8th? Yes, please, let's put everything out there honestly. Next you'll tell me that people on here commonly expect forwards to peak at age 22, and not 26, right?

In terms of offensive output a good number of players do have their best season at 22-24. It isn't a crazy idea.

Think I am done with the rest for now.

 

[daver]

OV had the best full season.

Crosby's best hockey is/was better than OV's best hockey in all around offense and especially all around play.

 

[Tweed]

In terms of offensive output a good number of players do have their best season at 22-24. It isn't a crazy idea.

Think I am done with the rest for now.

Way to dodge the questions.