bobholly39
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2013
- 22,324
- 15,027
"Good", "bad", importance, small sample size.
This would go both ways though?
For instance, if Malkins season where he played 43 is of too small sample size to be of importance because he never had a full season so bad, Crosby's partials of less than 43 games would similarly not be of importance because he never had a full season so good?
I figured someone would go there with Crosby after my comments
My answer is.....no. I count Crosby's season of 41 games. Because I believe he could have maintained that pace over a longer stretch.
Look at Forsberg in 2002 playoffs. I could be ok with the idea of not counting his playoffs at face value if someone were to say "well he got an unfair advantage by resting all year and being ready for playoffs, and as such playing above what would be normally expected". I don't really think this happened for Crosby. He played 41 games from the start of season. In 2012-2013, he played the first 36 games of the year. If someone were to play 40 games out of 80, and only playing every 2 games with a ton of rest in between - sure, count that a bit less maybe. Like Lemieux in 1996 where he sat out back to back games? Sure - maybe hold that a bit against him when comparing that season of his to other all-time great seasons (though only to a certain extent, since he still did play 70 games overall, it's not like he only played ~40)
Using my logic you can probably extrapolate that if it's ok to give Crosby credit for a 41 game season and assume he would have kept his pace to the end (or at least close to it) - i should be able to apply the same logic to Malkin's bad season and assume he would have played bad all year and so hold it against him. Maybe?
But I think over an 80 game season, it's more likely that a player whose never had a bad season manages to start scoring closer to his average scoring rate, and raises his numbers.
Sticking to Crosby he had 19 points in his first 30 games in 2016. Then 66 in his last 50.
I'm not saying Malkin's season in 2011 would have looked that way if he played all year, but i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that over 70-80 games his scoring rate might have normalized a bit.
So yeah I don't hold 2011 against Malkin too much, because of small sample size.
But I do count 2011 as a plus for Crosby (and 2013, and even somewhat 2012 since it was in consecutive years).
I feel a lot stronger about the latter than the first for what it's worth. So if you want to hold 2011 against Malkin - I'm less bothered by it. I just don't in my own assessment of a player