That's not how statistics work. It's not cherrypicking a few good weeks at a time over the course of his career, Crosby scored 260 points in 160 (or 162 , can't remember which) straight games that he played in. Regression to the mean isn't more or less likely whether those games occurred as they did for Crosby or in an arbitrary span of time like an NHL season.
HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
With coin flips it doesn't. With hockey players, they do tend to regress for nonstatistical reasons.
Also Crosby played 180 games, scoring under 110 pts in the full season. See? He regressed with 5 minutes of fact checking.
If it were to occur due to non-statistical reasons, why would you use statistical terms to describe the phenomenon?
And I have no clue what you are referring to with your second paragraph.
If one wants to pace out his 10/11 season, 120 -125 points is reasonable based on his PPG in the 06/07 season. He was also on a 130 point pace after 41 games in that year.
But PPGs should be a secondary argument to raw point total finishes. In Crosby's case, his partial seasons should be considered when compared to another player with similar Art Ross finishes and in establishing his time as the best player in the world.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
OK, but not every player who experienced a spike year was the best on their team either. Also, was Sundin a full time centre at that point? I believe he played on the wing at times early in his career.
True, hadn't considered the schedule length. Still, that only accounts for a few extra points. The guys I classified as "career year" were far more than an extra few points above their next best year. The PP factor has been brought up before, and there was an increase in PP scoring. But many of the career year guys saw a similar uptick in their ES production. In spite of the fact that, theoretically, less of the game was played at ES due to extra PPs.
It's equivalent to suggesting Forsberg is a 1.59ppg player for scoring 165 points in 104 games from 01/01/2003 - 11/30/2005 (injury) - and I didn't even hand pick the range down to the game - the difference is Forsberg regressed as Crosby would have.
It's equivalent to doing the same for Ovechkin or Malkin. Malkin was at 1.59 halfway through 11/12 for instance, he's got to have a great range from 07-09 as well. Ovechkin leading up to 2010 Olympics has a similar stretch.
Someone posted on the main board that Marchand is scoring at a 1.3ppg pace over his past 100 games. Great for him, but I'm not ready to extrapolate that into Crosby's prime, not quite yet.
Point me to one season where Crosby performed above expectations where he also finished the season above that mid-season mark. One season. One single season is all I ask.
These spans are fun and impressive to drool about, but unless you're going to treat every player the same...
How about Gretzky in the 3-year span featuring 3 of his 4 highest pacing seasons?
1983-1984
1/1: 2.90ppg.
End of season: 2.77ppg
1984/1985
1/1: 3.00ppg.
End of season: 2.60ppg.
1985/1986
1/1: 2.59ppg.
End of season: 2.69ppg.
Once he was off to the moon a correction was eventually due, as with most things. (This of course doesn't apply to Jiri Hudler and his supernatural abilities)
IDK, in 92/93 there were 48 players in the Top 50 scorers at a PPG or above. In 91/92 there were 34 and in 93/94 there were 36. IMO, that's a clear indication that the scoring environment for the elite offensive forwards was easier in 92/93. Sakic's PPG did not make the expected jump one would have expected in 92/93, and it dropped considerably in 93/94. I don't see any significance to players having "career" years in a season due to an easier scoring environment. It would the same thing for 05/06 where a lot of players had "career" years in a season that was clearly the easiest to score over a 15 to 17 season period.
But this is all pretty moot IMO, I am not buying the "down years" argument that BobHolly is putting forward. My main issue is the tendency by some (not you) to broadly state that the competition was more difficult in the '80s and '90s compared to today.
To what end does this "260 points in 160 games" bear mentioning? It should be generally accepted that Crosby's full seasons are not representative of his peak level of play but at the same time it needs to be accepted that Malkin and OV both had better "peak" seasons (and apropos to this thread, Belliveau, Mikita, Esposito, etc...). At the end of the day, all three had a similar level of peak offensive performance in the regular season, Crosby was limited to how many games he was able to play at his peak due to injuries.
BTW, if an NHL season, the length of which is understood to apply equally to all teams and players, is "arbitrary", how is 160 games over 4 or 5 seasons not infinitely more arbitrary?
Last edited:
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
Agree that it's moot, I'm just discussing as opposed to arguing at this point.
92-93, definitely easier to score. I'm just supposing that some of the reason for such a large increase in the point totals of some guys in that leaderboard is attributable to random luck seeing a bunch of peak seasons happen concurrent. Extra PPs and 4 extra games played just isn't enough to account for Mogilny and Selanne approaching 80 goals, or Lafontaine ripping off a 148 point season for example. At least IMO. Hence, I do believe certain years were indeed harder or easier to hit certain thresholds in relation to the rest of the pack. Do I have an airtight run-down of objective evidence to support this assertion? Admittedly, no. There is some "gut feeling" invoked (with the exception of years where a bunch of injuries to stars occurred).
Thank you for your reply and for taking the time to put together all this data - I wanted to respond to your post just hadn't had the time until now. The data certainly puts some things into perspective. I will however still counter you with a few points that I believe it maybe overlooks. And I apologize in advance, but I have no fancy tables in my post, so it maybe won't look as neat as yours.
The 2 arguments I had made that you responded to were:
1. Malkin's "bad" seasons maybe shouldn't be held against him too much due to small sample size (2011 - 43 games, 2013 - 31 games), in the same way as I hold "fuller bad seasons" against Sakic (1994 as example) or Yzerman. Malkin hasn't had a "full" "bad" season yet - both Sakic and Yzerman had a few in their careers.
2. Crosby's "partial seasons" should be given credit they deserve - despite small sample size. (to be clear - i never once said his partial seasons count for as much as a full season would count - so if he had played all 82 games in 2011 at the same pace it would count for more. What i am saying though, is that the pace he had for that year, and the following 2, should absolutely count as a big plus in his overall career assessment). Furthermore - I said it's absolutely realistic to expect that Crosby would have maintained his PPG in more games those years - and possibly even raised it slightly.
Let's look at Malkin first. Your data seems to support the idea that his 43 game season - had he played it through to 82 games instead - there's a good chance his numbers go back to the mean and he raises higher. Does it turn his bad season into a "good" season? As you say - probably not, as he was far back. So if you want to hold 2011 against Malkin and call it a "bad" season in the same sense that I am holding 1994 against Sakic and calling it a "bad" season - you can do so. I myself tend to give him a bit more the benefit of the doubt because of small sample size and try to concentrate on fuller seasons before labeling them bad.
in 1995 - Yzerman only scored 38 points in 47 games. It's a "bad" season for him offense-wise. But because it's a short season of only 47 games (lockout year) - i don't hold it against him as much as I might call 1996 a bad offensive season, where he finished 25th in PPG over 80 games (to be clear i only said bad offensive season - I know he finished high in Selke that year).
But sure - if your argument is that you feel very strongly about the fact that you should be holding a 43 games (2011) or even 31 game (2013) season where he had bad numbers against Malkin, and that they should be seen as a "negative" or a "-1" on his resume - go ahead. I personally try to give the benefit of the doubt when looking at shorter seasons that were bad, and try to pick out full seasons before counting them as negatives.
It's not that a "healthy" sakic playing 84 games in 1994 is less valuable than an injured Malkin missing 39 games in 2011. Sakic playing is of course more useful to the team than Malkin not playing even if Sakic somehow scores 0 points. But when evaluating each player's career (which is what we're doing here, we're not comparing impact and value to his team) - I find it a bit more underwhelming that Sakic had a full 84 game stretch in 1994 where he wasn't able to raise himself towards the top of scoring in the league, finishing way back. I give Malkin a bit more of a pass for being underwhelming over a 43 game sample size because I give him the benefit of the doubt that over a full 82 games he might have done better and maybe looked better compared to other top scorers that he did after only 43 games.
So 1994 Sakic bugs me when looking at his resume.
2011 Malkin doesn't bug me as much.
If your deadset on also holding 2011 and 2013 against Malkin despite short sample size - that's fine, you can. Doing it this way doesn't hurt Sakic much - but there are a few shorter seasons in Yzerman's career where he also performed bad, and that we therefore also should count as bad seasons for him. Doesn't move the needle much in the Yzerman/Malkin comparison, but it does make Sakic look slightly better vs Malkin.
Switching to Crosby, and his pace in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Your data fails to take a very important consideration into account. 2011-2013 are Crosby's "peak" - where he was at his best (eye test, numbers and even Crosby haters tend to generally agree this was his peak/best). You yourself said in your post you agree that it's Crosby's peak.
I'm going to pick 5 random players that can be said to be somewhat comparable to Crosby in terms of offensive peak/prime/career. Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr and Lindros and Yzerman. Those 5 players are players whose peak offensive seasons happened in a row, and where it's rather easy to extrapolate 3 consecutive "best" seasons from their resume. (remember - we are going under the assumption 2011, 2012 and 2013 should have been Crosby's peak, and trying to determine how his PPG would have been impacted in a full season).
Lindros. His 3 best years are 95, 96 and 97. His PPG finishes those years are 1.52 1.58 and 1.52
Ovechkin. His 3 best years are 2008, 09 10. His PPG finishes those years are 1.37, 1.39 and 1.51
Jagr. His 3 best years are 98, 99 00. His PPG finishes those years are 1.32, 1.57 and 1.52 (maybe you disagree with those 3 years and you can pick different years, i don't think it would change much and I also wanted to avoid the Lemieux effect)
Yzerman. His 3 best years are 1989, 90 91. His PPG finishes those years are 1.94, 1.61 and 1.35
My argument is. 2011, 2012 and 2013 were Crosby's best seasons. His peak. He would have maintained (or slightly raised, or slightly lowered) his PPG by end of season. But they weren't a fluke that would have gone down significantly in either year as you seem to imply.
Ovechkin.
In 2008, on Jan 1st he had 1.23 PPG, by end year 1.37 PPG.
In 2009, on Jan 1st he had 1.36 PPG, by end year 1.39 PPG.
in 2010, on Jan 1st he had 1.56 PPG, by end year 1.51 PPG.
So his "peak". His best 3 years. He was mostly consistent, throughout the year. Some years his numbers went up at Jan 1st, some they went down, but in no year does it show that his numbers through half the season are unsustainable and he would have come crashing down to earth after Jan 1st (ie - he didn't).
Overall 2 years his PPG went up past Jan 1st vs 1 it went down. Overall it went up by .12 PPG past Jan 1st over 3 years.
Jagr.
In 1998. On Jan first he had ppg of 1.27, by end year 1.33 PPG
In 1999. On Jan 1st he had ppg of 1.28, by end year 1.57 PPG.
In 2000. On Jan 1st he had ppg of 1.89, by end year 1.52 PPG.
I tried to use 3 years without Lemieux - since Lemieux is an x-factor all on his own. I also think those 3 years are fairly representative of Jagr's peak or best years, but maybe you disagree. In 1999 his pace went significantly up past Jan 1st, whereas in 2000 it's the other way around. 2000 wasn't a full season, as he only played 63 games. He played a mostly full schedule by Jan 1st (35 games) - but less after that when his ppg dropped in the last 28 games of year over a smaller sample size. Maybe he still had a bit of nagging injuries/or took a bit of time to get back in synch to explain the drop, who knows. But if anything - it seems to show that he was doing better when he played every game before injury, so maybe if he misses no games his ppg stays closer to 1.89 - though that's just a guess of course. Regardless, let's take numbers exactly as is:
Overall, 2 years his ppg went up past Jan 1st, and 1 it went down. Overall it went down by 0.02 past Jan 1st over 3 years.
Lindros.
In 1995. At half the season (game 23 - lockout year) his PPG was 1.48. by year end, 1.52
In 1996, on Jan 1st his ppg was 1.53, by end year it was 1.58
In 1997, on Jan 1st his ppg was 1.44. By year end it was 1.52.
Lindros also had no problem raising his ppg as the year went on in his best years. It certainly didn't drop. To make the Crosby parallel - if his "peak seasons" follow a similar path, he either maintains his ppg in 2011, 12 and 13, or slightly raise it each year.
Overall, all 3 years Lindros raised his PPG by end year. Overall, his ppg went up by .17 over 3 years past Jan 1st.
Yzerman.
In 1989, on Jan 1st his ppg was 2.1, by end year it was 1.94
In 1990, On Jan 1st his ppg was 1.43, by end year it was 1.61
In 1991, on Jan 1st his ppg was 1.3, by end year it was 1.35
Overall, in two years his PPG went up past Jan 1st, and one year it went down. Overall his ppg past Jan 1st went up .07 over 3 years.
2011, 2012 and 2013 were Sidney's Crosby's peak seasons. After looking at Ovechkin, Lindros, Jagr and Yzerman - I think it's safe to say that Sidney Crosby's 2011, 2012 and 2013 were not flukes that would have averaged out over time. They were his best seasons - and it's more likely that he would have raised his ppg slightly in some years than it is that he would have lowered them.
So - yes, I have no issues whatsoever giving Crosby credit for his level of play during his partial seasons. +1 Crosby.
I don't count Crosby's 2011 season as much as I would have had he maintained his pace over 82 games (82 games > 41 games) - but I absolutely do still count the 41 games. And the 22 games of the following year, and the 36 of the following year, where he was the best player by a significant gap over the field. Having been a significant step above the competition for a few years in a row is in my opinion a big plus in someone's career, so yes I do give him credit for that because I don't see them as flukes that would have lowered over time. I see them as his best years that he would have maintained over time (or even raised).
Going to reply with my thoughts to the points you're making in this post, in an abbreviated manner.
I don't blame you. I swear (apologies to the moderator squad for the language), tables using the gui on this forum software is a bitch. I have to look into the "code" so I can write it in a text editor and just copy paste.
Not sure I would phrase it that way.
Having a "real" bad year could be, and most likely is, internal. (way below your standard)
Having a "real" good year is internal + likely require a good amount of good fortune. (way above your standard)
During exercise in school, did you ever run a fixed distance? Were you super-competitive (if you were, put yourself in the shoes of someone out of shape)?
What was easiest, perform below or above expectations? It'd have been easy to cave in, you could be lazy or you could be hurt physically.
In running there is limited room to perform above expectations, far less than in hockey.
Malkin was so far down the rankings I struggle to attribute it as being unfortunate.
Hockey players are humans, they aren't always at the top both physically and mentally.
I've always found Yzerman to be an oddball in discussions like these, he almost always require additional context. Big change in role, deteriorating body, age, etc.
I don't. It's your way of evaluating, I was just responding to the logics.
Beyond accomplishments, I think there is a clear connection between value and career rankings.
Sakic played right along Forsberg on the same team. Forsberg has a clear consistency edge on Sakic, but Sakic demolishes Forsberg durability wise, sometimes (more often than not) he played at a high level, sometimes not, but the career difference is quite large.
I don't detract from a career for a bad year, but it may add little of relevance.
Neither really bug me, but it's somewhat disappointing from the perspective as a fan watching.
Crosby 11-13 wasn't really part of the data in any meaningful way.
What's Crosby 11-13 age? 23-25.
What's a human's physical peak age? Mid to late twenties?
What's hockey players common peak age? 23-28?
What's the median age of the 33 stand out seasons (excluding Lemieux 02/03, clearly not peak) listed? 25.
What's the average age of the 33 stand out seasons (excluding Lemieux 02/03, clearly not peak) listed? 25.94.
How many players of the 33 stand out seasons (excluding Lemieux 02/03, clearly not peak) were 30 or below? 28 / 85%.
The vast majority were all peaking, yet they all regressed. Crosby's direct peers, Malkin and Ovechkin, were 22 and 24 respectively, smack in the middle of their peak.
I'm not going to comment on all these seasons.
Lindros & Jagr: ~1.50ppg was within their ballpark given era and opportunity.
Ovechkin & Crosby: ~1.40ppg was within their ballpark given era and opportunity.
Jagr wasn't a 1.90ppg player.
Ironically, the one time he deviated he (not surprisingly) did regress, he also missed the most time - 12% of the season. Perhaps he continue to regress?
I think it's commonly accepted not to take this season at face value. But once again, when performing above expectations one generally start to trend downwards.
-----
You seem to be missing the point when you look at the seasons like these. The interesting part isn't how they fare at the mid-season point in every single season, the interesting part is what happens when they perform significantly above expectations at the mid-season point;
Jagr -> down.
Ovechkin -> down.
Yzerman -> down.
Lindros didn't really have any such season.
I sincerely disagree.
You have to admit. It's convenient that he only managed to "peak" during his partials, that the most consistent player of this era fell off a cliff at age of 26, because that's what you're implying.
"The most consistent" player of this generation shouldn't see a drop in production at ages 22 and 26 that's around -20%.
His lesser consistent team mate is currently posting a very strong season at 31.
I've already acknowledged I think these were his peak years, but the gap is too big.
I'm still trying to figure out if you're willing to apply this to every player in a similar scenario and this is the only clear recent example I can think of.
Forsberg played 21 games, or 1 less than Crosby 11/12, which you absolutely count, before suffering a prime ending injury. Before injury, he was sitting at 1.86ppg. Is it reasonable to give him credit, that is, to assume, barring no injury, that he'd have maintained (or even raised) that ppg over the rest of the season?
Remember, this was a player that just came off "been a significant step above the competition for a few years in a row".
-----
So much for abbreviation!
I don't blame you. I swear (apologies to the moderator squad for the language), tables using the gui on this forum software is a bitch. I have to look into the "code" so I can write it in a text editor and just copy paste.
Not sure I would phrase it that way.
Having a "real" bad year could be, and most likely is, internal. (way below your standard)
Having a "real" good year is internal + likely require a good amount of good fortune. (way above your standard)
During exercise in school, did you ever run a fixed distance? Were you super-competitive (if you were, put yourself in the shoes of someone out of shape)?
What was easiest, perform below or above expectations? It'd have been easy to cave in, you could be lazy or you could be hurt physically.
In running there is limited room to perform above expectations, far less than in hockey.
Malkin was so far down the rankings I struggle to attribute it as being unfortunate.
Hockey players are humans, they aren't always at the top both physically and mentally.
I've always found Yzerman to be an oddball in discussions like these, he almost always require additional context. Big change in role, deteriorating body, age, etc.
I don't. It's your way of evaluating, I was just responding to the logics.
Beyond accomplishments, I think there is a clear connection between value and career rankings.
Sakic played right along Forsberg on the same team. Forsberg has a clear consistency edge on Sakic, but Sakic demolishes Forsberg durability wise, sometimes (more often than not) he played at a high level, sometimes not, but the career difference is quite large.
I don't detract from a career for a bad year, but it may add little of relevance.
Neither really bug me, but it's somewhat disappointing from the perspective as a fan watching.
Crosby 11-13 wasn't really part of the data in any meaningful way.
What's Crosby 11-13 age? 23-25.
What's a human's physical peak age? Mid to late twenties?
What's hockey players common peak age? 23-28?
What's the median age of the 33 stand out seasons (excluding Lemieux 02/03, clearly not peak) listed? 25.
What's the average age of the 33 stand out seasons (excluding Lemieux 02/03, clearly not peak) listed? 25.94.
How many players of the 33 stand out seasons (excluding Lemieux 02/03, clearly not peak) were 30 or below? 28 / 85%.
The vast majority were all peaking, yet they all regressed. Crosby's direct peers, Malkin and Ovechkin, were 22 and 24 respectively, smack in the middle of their peak.
I'm not going to comment on all these seasons.
Lindros & Jagr: ~1.50ppg was within their ballpark given era and opportunity.
Ovechkin & Crosby: ~1.40ppg was within their ballpark given era and opportunity.
Jagr wasn't a 1.90ppg player.
Ironically, the one time he deviated he (not surprisingly) did regress, he also missed the most time - 12% of the season. Perhaps he continue to regress?
I think it's commonly accepted not to take this season at face value. But once again, when performing above expectations one generally start to trend downwards.
-----
You seem to be missing the point when you look at the seasons like these. The interesting part isn't how they fare at the mid-season point in every single season, the interesting part is what happens when they perform significantly above expectations at the mid-season point;
Jagr -> down.
Ovechkin -> down.
Yzerman -> down.
Lindros didn't really have any such season.
I sincerely disagree.
You have to admit. It's convenient that he only managed to "peak" during his partials, that the most consistent player of this era fell off a cliff at age of 26, because that's what you're implying.
"The most consistent" player of this generation shouldn't see a drop in production at ages 22 and 26 that's around -20%.
His lesser consistent team mate is currently posting a very strong season at 31.
I've already acknowledged I think these were his peak years, but the gap is too big.
I'm still trying to figure out if you're willing to apply this to every player in a similar scenario and this is the only clear recent example I can think of.
Forsberg played 21 games, or 1 less than Crosby 11/12, which you absolutely count, before suffering a prime ending injury. Before injury, he was sitting at 1.86ppg. Is it reasonable to give him credit, that is, to assume, barring no injury, that he'd have maintained (or even raised) that ppg over the rest of the season?
Remember, this was a player that just came off "been a significant step above the competition for a few years in a row".
-----
So much for abbreviation!
Staniowski
Registered User
Bathdog, I'm trying to understand the criteria you used to choose the bolded PPG Jan 1st numbers to look at.
You've actually described the Jan 1st bolded numbers 4 times, as follows.
"strongly deviated from their norm"
"were clearly on pace to post their best season ever"
"stood out (in my opinion) as being on pace to become the best season, by a noticeable margin...during their career"
"that displayed an unusually high PPG half way through the season"
The issue is, I still don't understand exactly what this means. What criteria would make a number "on pace to become the best season, by a noticeable margin...during their career"?
It sounds, from the way you describe, like such a PPG number would need to be significantly higher than any other year-end PPG number of that players career.
However, the very first one you've chosen is '95-'96 Mario Lemieux with a Jan 1st PPG of 2.69. This number is not significantly higher than two other PPG numbers of his career (both of which occurred quite recently prior to this) - 2.67 and 2.62.
My question is, why did you choose to look at this 2.69, since it doesn't significantly deviate from the norm?
What criteria do you use?
A reasonable pace out of his partial seasons, actually just '11 and '13 as it is not reasonable to pace out a quarter season (22 games), would, IMO, be a 120 to 125 point season '11, and another dominant win in 2013 based on previous season performances and his career PPG at the time. I don't think calling him a 130 point player over those three years is reasonable or any presumption that he could have even upped his pace but presuming he has two more Art Rosses, won in a dominant manner is reasonable.
Honestly, I didn't have a fixed criteria. I shot a bit from the hip as "imo" would imply, but I tried to be consistent year to year. Feel free to point out anyone I omitted.
Environment.
2.69ppg during a season averaging 6.28gpg...
is imo deviating a fair bit from
(his next 2 highest pacing seasons)
2.67ppg during a season averaging 7.26gpg.
2.62ppg during a season averaging 7.48gpg.
Another example would be Sundin, he scored at 1.43ppg in 92/93 (same season as one of Mario above), yet his actually lower 1.31 is more impressive. Points were just easier to come by.
I'm not going to speculate in exact numbers because those threads tend to derail, but he was clearly in a strong position collect individual hardware.
Staniowski
Registered User
It would be difficult to point out anyone you missed since nobody has any idea what your methodology is. Such research is obviously not worth anything.
Staniowski
Registered User
It's not necessary that the majority share the opinion. Any real research has to be clear about its methodology, otherwise you can say whatever you want and nobody has any opportunity to test it. Research must be testable and other people must be able to reproduce it. Otherwise it's meaningless. If this were academic research, you would receive an "F". I asked you a very simple question and you can't answer it.
I'll try to keep my response abbreviated too
Ok I agree with all of this I guess. Hockey players are human, can be lazy, have off years, etc. Not really sure what your point is here.
Ok you seem to mostly agree, or at least understand my reasoning.
2011-2013 is Crosby's peak. Peak varies by player age to age. You yourself agreed it's his peak, as does generally everyone.
You're just going back and forth and trying to make numbers say what you want them to say it seems.
I am stipulating that for many of these players it's easy to extrapolate a 3 year "peak" stretch above from the rest. It's true for the 5 players i mentioned. It won't necessarily be true for every player, some player peak years happen years apart, or only last 1-2 years, but it is very comparable for all 5 players here, and I think is a fair way of evaluating.
Ovechkin in his first rookie season had a ppg of 1.31. This was 2005-2006, very high scoring season, scoring league wide went down very quickly years after, so this one is a bit of an outlier imo.
In the 3 year peak i picked for Ovi his year end PPG's were 1.37, 1.39 and 1.51. His best ppg finish outside of those 4 years? 1.17. Then 1.12. And down from there. What does this show? It shows that for a 3 year stretch, Ovechkin scored at a much higher clip than he had for the rest of his career. ie - this is his peak.
What am I stipulating? That Crosby from 2011-2013 are his "peak" seasons. So it's only natural that his PPG in those seasons are higher than his PPG in the rest of his career - which they are.
What does it mean when you say "Ovechkin ~1.40 PPG was within his ballpark given era and opportunity"? That doesn't even mean anything.
Lindros. 95, 96, 97. 1.51, 1.58 1.52 PPG. He did also score at 1.49 PPG in 94 (higher scoring that year, but still very good for him and if you want to include it as a 4 year peak you can). Significantly higher than the rest of his prime career. So again, what am I stipulating? I am saying it's normal that Crosby's ppg in 2011, 2012 and 2013 would have been higher than it was the rest of his career since it was Crosby at his best.
No sorry, you are cheating. Ovechkin deviated 3 seasons, not 1. in 2008, 2009 AND 2010 he scored at a much higher clip than in any other seasons of his prime. In 2 of those, after Jan 1st his scoring went up. In 1 of those it went down.
2 > 1
Overall - his scoring went up more over 3 years than it went down after Jan 1st.
So your logic is failing.
Ovechkin's career path tends to show that a player in his peak will have significant PPG increase for a few seasons, and will also have no problem keeping that PPG pace all year and sometimes raising as the season advances (which I am claiming for Crosby).
I am not missing the point - I believe you are. You are also not understanding the results properly it seems.
"Perform significantly above expectations". What is that? A subjective idea you unilaterally decide yourself? No, sorry.
Ovechkin has a 3 year peak in which his PPG is significantly higher than the rest of his prime. In 2 of those seasons he increased his PPG by year end.
so Ovechkin -- > UP, not down.
Jagr? Two years up, 1 year down. Overall over 3 years, sure down by .02, smallest number out of all the players, but it is down.
Yzerman? Up 2 years, down 1 year.
To sum up:
Sidney Crosby's "peak" was between 2011-2013. During those 3 years, he was significantly above the rest of the league, by a decent gap. I think that counts for a "lot" (subjective quantifier - to each his own to quantify a "lot") when evaluating his career, because it is very commendable to be able to be so far above the field over a 3 year period.
Full seasons > Partial Seasons. He gets much less credit for his partial seasons than he would have gotten had he seen all 3 seasons to completion at a same rate. No one disagrees here. BUT - the partial seasons (all 3 of them) should still count as they display a level of dominance - over a course of a 3 year period - that were commendable, and over a large sample size of games. Based on what I demonstrated above - they in no way appear to be "flukes/hot starts/hot stretches" that would have gone down in larger sample sizes, and therefore should be discredited, quite the opposite imo.
Other players (Ovechkin, Jagr, Yzerman, Lindros) - if you similarly look at their 3 year peak, you will see it's not unusual they they have a 3-4 year stretch in their prime where their PPG is a step above the rest of their career. It's called peak, and Crosby's numbers those 3 years are in line with that, 3 years higher than the rest of his prime.
Other players (Ovechkin, Jagr, Yzerman, Lindros) in those 3 year stretches have shown an ability to not only maintain their ppg over the first half of year to year end - but in many of the seasons, to increase it as the season goes on. ie - it's perfectly reasonable to expect Crosby would have maintained or even increased his PPG in those 3 years. It is NOT fair to suggest he certainly would have dropped his PPG over a longer stretch, and certainly not by a "lot" - as i don't believe that to be true for reasons mentioned.
Finally, regarding Forsberg. I didn't look at Forsberg in-depth but sure. I'm not being biased here. I believe in my method of evaluating players and if you want to apply it to Forsberg and if you believe it makes him look better than that's only fair. And if you want to discuss Forsberg specifically, bring up some numbers and which season specifically you're alluding to and we can talk about him.
This isn't academic research, nor was it intended to be particularly detailed. It's a post written with data gathered in a couple of hours, one that everyone that's followed hockey to some degree over this span could be familiar with. What do you expect from 2-3 hours?
With "norm" I was referring to prime/peak averages, something that was replicated with some regularity (depending on career length, but at least 2-3 >65GP seasons at the same level). I would be fairly confident the bolded seasons deviated by at least 15% from that "norm".
Since you requested a more firm criteria: every season, except for Lemieux 02/03 (clearly stated it wasn't on pace to be best), Forsberg 05/06 (injuries had already impacted the # significantly), Malkin 08/09 (miss on my behalf) listed deviated, at the mid-season mark, more than 10% (vast majority 15%+) from their 2nd (3rd for players listed twice, Alfredsson, Heatley, Spezza, Seguin etc) seasons as far as PPG goes (with numbers being adjusted by league wide GPG for simplicity).
Looking forward to your contributions on the subject.
There is a brick wall between our beliefs. This time I'll settle for an abbreviated post, enough hockey talks for the day.
Eye of Ra
Grandmaster General of the International boards
its too early to say....but i wonder where mcdavid will end up on this list when he has finished his career....do you guys think he has the potential to be a top 20 c of all time?
Staniowski
Registered User
Eye of Ra
Grandmaster General of the International boards
GlitchMarner
Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
I doubt that.
And McDavid can be top 10 or higher potentially, I think. In my opinion, he has more talent than Sakic, which is saying a lot.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 13Staked: $16,904.00Event closes- Updated:
-