Points Streaks

[Rhiessan71]

Well...it's over at 25.

Pretty amazing run for sure and I don't have any issue ranking it above the 30 gamers of Sundin and Gretzky as the 4th best ever.

 

[jepjepjoo]

Well...it's over at 25.

Pretty amazing run for sure and I don't have any issue ranking it above the 30 gamers of Sundin and Gretzky as the 4th best ever.

I still think that Perry of all people getting 19 game streak last year makes Crosby's streak little less impressive.

 

[matnor]

I've tried saying that. People hear what they want to hear. In this age of an ADD society people don't like facts getting in the way of a good story.

I will say this. I have never seen Crosby play better. And right now I would say he has played better than anything I have ever seen Jagr do. He's on pace for a 70 goal 140 point year. If he keeps this up all year he will have beaten the best year of Jagr's career (1999 IMO). That would also smash anything Forsberg or Bure or Stamkos, Ovechkin, Dionne and Perreault have done. I also believe Crosby will have surpassed Lafleur at his best (it's close with him, Jags and Guy though). I will stop short at saying he is at the Gretzky/Lemieux level. That is a couple notches higher. We'll wait and see. But he has a lot of hockey ahead of him.

I think we should let the entire season pass before we declare Crosby's season better than what Jagr did in 98/99. In the 25 game point streak Crosby had 50 points. Jagr's best 25 game streak in 98/99 included 47 points (16+31). Also, using 25 games is arbitrary. For instance, Jagr had 42 points (14+28) during a 20 game streak which I think is better than anything Crosby has done.

Additionally, there was significantly less scoring in 98/99 than today (although it's not a dramatic difference). Another difference is that Jagr had significantly less support. However, that works in two directions. On the one hand he didn't have much help from his teammates. On the other hand, as a result, his ice time was through the roof. During his best 25 game streak he played on average 26 1/2 minutes per game which may have gotten him more scoring opportunities.

In short, what Crosby have done so far this season is amazing but I'm not sure we should extrapolate his numbers through a whole season just after the hottest streak of his career.

 

[matnor]

There's got to be some mathematical formula that can take how easy it is to get points and convert that to how easy it is to have a scoring streak, but I can't think of what it would be. It wouldn't just be proportionate. If it's twice as easy to get points in that era, it wouldn't quite be twice as easy to get a scoring streak I imagine, it would be a little less.

If we are willing to make some simplifying assumptions it's possible. The crucial assumption is independence. That is, the probability of scoring a point in a given game is independent of scoring another point in that game. Also there is no correlation of point scoring between games. This assumption is unlikely to be true (strength of opposition differs, injuries to teammates and, potentially, hot streks) but we may be willing to make this simplification. If so, the probability (following the poisson distribution) of being held without a point in a game is e^(-a) where a is the average number of points a player scores in a game.

For instance, scoring at a 120 point pace over 80 games, that is 1.5 ppg on average, the probability of being held scoreless is 0.22. That means the probability of getting at least one point is 1-0.22=0.78. The probability of getting at least one point in 25 straight games is then 0.78^25=0.00181, around 0.181%.

Now, we want to compare this with scoring in 51 straight games (Gretzky's record) but during a higher scoring era. So far this season, the average team scores 2.76 goals per game. During 83/84 the average team scored 3.94 goals per game. Making the simplest possible adjustment, each point today would be worth 3.94/2.76=1.43 points back then. 120 points today would then translate into 171 points.

(This may be an overestimation of how hard it is to score today, see for instance this thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=801447)

Scoring at a 171 point pace (over 80 games) eqauls a ppg of 2.15. The probability of being held scoreless a given game is then e^-2.15=0.12 which means the probability of getting at least one point is 1-0.12=0.88. So, the probability of getting at least one point for 51 straight games at that pace is 0.88^51=0.00175, or around 0.175%.

So, in this example, it is about as likely to score in 51 straight games in 83/84 as it is to score in 25 straight games this season. However, the probabilities depend crucially on which scoring pace we assume. For instance, scoring at a 2ppg pace this season gives a probability for a 25 game scoring streak of 2.64%. That translates into a ppg pace of 2.86 in 83/84 which gives a probability for a 51 game scoring streak of 4.96%. The following graph shows the probability of each streak respectively where the ppg pace for this season is shown on the x-axis.

As can be seen, as the scoring pace increase, the probability of the 51-game streak in 83/84 increases faster than the probability of the 25-game streak this season. I've got to say, I'm surprised by the result of this calculation. I expected Gretzky's streak to be harder than Crosby's. On the other hand there are a lot of assumptions (independence, era adjustments) that may not be ok so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[TheStranger]

I still think that Perry of all people getting 19 game streak last year makes Crosby's streak little less impressive.

Yeah, but how many points did he have in that stretch? If it was less than 38 then Crosby's is still much more impressive. (I'm assuming it was probably low 20's?)

 

[nik jr]

Yeah, but how many points did he have in that stretch? If it was less than 38 then Crosby's is still much more impressive. (I'm assuming it was probably low 20's?)

i had never heard of it, but it was 26p.

 

[jepjepjoo]

Yeah, but how many points did he have in that stretch? If it was less than 38 then Crosby's is still much more impressive. (I'm assuming it was probably low 20's?)

My point was that a 25 game scoring streak isn't out of this world.

Edit.

26pts in 19 games = 1.37 ppg x 25 = 34 ... big whoop.

And no. I'm not pimping Perry, I'm just saying that Crosby's streak is not that impressive if a player like Perry can almost match it.

 

[Big Phil]

My point was that a 25 game scoring streak isn't out of this world.

Edit.

26pts in 19 games = 1.37 ppg x 25 = 34 ... big whoop.

And no. I'm not pimping Perry, I'm just saying that Crosby's streak is not that impressive if a player like Perry can almost match it.

Which is why I personally chuckled a bit when people started to compare the streak to Gretzky's. Crosby is a great player, the best in the world, but the longer time passes the more underrated Gretzky will become because we forget how dominant the guy was. Just look on the boards here of how many people who are young that go out of their way to discredit the 1980s.

I said to my wife and my best friend last night that Gretzky wouldn't let the worst team in the NHL end is streak at 25 games. In fact, we know he didn't. He went 51 games. Say what you want but Crosby has to wake up pretty early in the morning to catch Gretzky and that isn't an insult either, just the due respect for Gretzky.

25 games is impressive though, only 5 players have had a longer points streak than Crosby. That's not bad company.

I think we should let the entire season pass before we declare Crosby's season better than what Jagr did in 98/99. In the 25 game point streak Crosby had 50 points. Jagr's best 25 game streak in 98/99 included 47 points (16+31). Also, using 25 games is arbitrary. For instance, Jagr had 42 points (14+28) during a 20 game streak which I think is better than anything Crosby has done.

Additionally, there was significantly less scoring in 98/99 than today (although it's not a dramatic difference). Another difference is that Jagr had significantly support. However, that works in two directions. On the one hand he didn't have much help from his teammates. On the other hand, as a result, his ice time was through the roof. During his best 25 game streak he played on average 26 1/2 minutes per game which may have gotten him more scoring opportunities.

In short, what Crosby have done so far this season is amazing but I'm not sure we should extrapolate his numbers through a whole season just after the hottest streak of his career.

And I will wait until the end of the year. Its just that all we have to judge is nearly half a season. When was the last time the top scorer in the NHL had a 13 point lead on the next best this early into the year? If, the big word is if, he keeps this pace up all year the way he's been scoring then he will certainly be at the minimum of the level of Jagr in 1999 IMO. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[seventieslord]

let's not overstate the importance or significance of a streak either. Take out a few of Gretzky's one point games in there, make them 0 point games, and say he scored an extra point in three others. Same number of points in that 51-game stretch, but now it's just four streaks of 10-13 games. Is it any less impressive?

 

[Big Phil]

let's not overstate the importance or significance of a streak either. Take out a few of Gretzky's one point games in there, make them 0 point games, and say he scored an extra point in three others. Same number of points in that 51-game stretch, but now it's just four streaks of 10-13 games. Is it any less impressive?

Yes and no. For starters, sports fans LOVE streaks. Secondly, scoring at least a point in successive games shows remarkable consistency. That's really what it comes down to in my mind.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'd like to know who these "hockey experts" are because frankly that's incredibly ignorant.

It's one guys opinion, lots of experts differ on the difference between Gretzky's 51 back in the day and Crosby's 25 today, no formula will settle the dispute but Sid's streak (and season in general is really a great accomplishment so far).

As for Corey Perry's 19 point scoring streaks are a great gimmick stat but Perry's season last year doesn't' compare to the season Sid is having so far. I'm going to assume that the expect took that into consideration as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I still think that Perry of all people getting 19 game streak last year makes Crosby's streak little less impressive.

What's the hangup with Perry?

He's a very good player who got some luck as well on a streak. If 5 guys a year were getting close to a 20 game streak sure but Sid's run at 25 in today's conditions is extremely impressive.

 

[Hardyvan123]

let's not overstate the importance or significance of a streak either. Take out a few of Gretzky's one point games in there, make them 0 point games, and say he scored an extra point in three others. Same number of points in that 51-game stretch, but now it's just four streaks of 10-13 games. Is it any less impressive?

I have to agree here and was impressed with Mantor's post as well.

We have to remember that streaks are nice little oddities and lucky events as well. It's not like Wayne's great seasons would be any less great if by some statistical chance he was held pointless at least once every 20 games and was not on the list at all.

 

[seventieslord]

Yes and no. For starters, sports fans LOVE streaks. Secondly, scoring at least a point in successive games shows remarkable consistency. That's really what it comes down to in my mind.

- I realize that, I like streaks too, but I'm not talking about what we love, I'm talking about what demonstrates dominance and greatness.

- In the Gretzky example I gave, he'd be every bit as good. His lack of a point in three games would have slightly decreased his team's chances of winning those games, and vice versa in the three games he got one more point in. Larger sample sizes are always better than smaller ones, and the value of the larger sample size never changes in this scenario. If you turn on the microscope and peer down at those three games in which he had no point, I don't think it really tells you anything about that 51-game stretch. the total after those 51 games does, though.

 

[reckoning]

Bronco Horvath set the record for longest points streak in '59-'60 at 22 games. It stood until the '77-'78 season when Lafleur broke it. It's hard to believe that throughout the 60s and most of the 70s, legends like Hull, Mikita, Orr and Esposito were never able to put together a streak of over 22 games.

Considering that the scoring rate today is comparable to the 60s, and lower than the 70s, Crosby's 25 games is a very special, noteworthy achievement. Not in the same world as the Gretzky or Lemieux streaks, but still very impressive historically.

 

[BM67]

In Gretzky's first NHL season of 1979-80 he scored 137 points and his longest point streak was 12 games (11+10). He played 17 games where he didn't get a point.

In 1980-81 he scored 164 points and his longest point streak was 12 games (6+26). He played 13 games where he didn't get a point.

In 1981-82 he scored 212 points and his longest point streak was 24 games (28+38). He played 8 games where he didn't get a point. Bryan Trottier had a 25 game point streak (28+27) this season.

His longest pointless streak was 3 games (twice) in 79-80. He did not go pointless in consecutive games in 80-81 or 81-82.

 

[Westcoasthabsfan]

Another record that wont be broken IMO... 51 games with at least a point... Dont get me wrong Crosbys 25 games is pretty good but its not even half way to the Great Ones fifty one straight.....

 

[Up the Irons]

does any know if Crosby had any 1-point games during the streak with the one point coming in overtime?

 

[Up the Irons]

'As can be seen, as the scoring pace increase, the probability of the 51-game streak in 83/84 increases faster than the probability of the 25-game streak this season. I've got to say, I'm surprised by the result of this calculation. I expected Gretzky's streak to be harder than Crosby's. On the other hand there are a lot of assumptions (independence, era adjustments) that may not be ok so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

the biggest assumption being that a 171 point season was the norm, which it wasn't for everyone else. Of course, it was easier for Gretzky, because he was 10 miles better than everyone else, and, still, way better than Crosby.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

So, in this example, it is about as likely to score in 51 straight games in 83/84 as it is to score in 25 straight games this season. However, the probabilities depend crucially on which scoring pace we assume.

I calculated this independently earlier today and I agree. Crosby's 25 game scoring streak is about as likely as Gretzky's 51 game scoring streak, dependent on certain assumptions.

 

[Hardyvan123]

'As can be seen, as the scoring pace increase, the probability of the 51-game streak in 83/84 increases faster than the probability of the 25-game streak this season. I've got to say, I'm surprised by the result of this calculation. I expected Gretzky's streak to be harder than Crosby's. On the other hand there are a lot of assumptions (independence, era adjustments) that may not be ok so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

the biggest assumption being that a 171 point season was the norm, which it wasn't for everyone else. Of course, it was easier for Gretzky, because he was 10 miles better than everyone else, and, still, way better than Crosby.

What does 10 miles better than everyone mean in the real world?

And why use the way better than Crosby is he 10 miles better or only 5?

Sorry I really just could not help myself here.

see the thing is with Mantor's example is that is examines numbers and probability which is a logical thing to do, but you cant; see past the numbers because you have a predisposition to "how great" a certain guys is before looking at all of the evidence.

Maybe I'm wrong on that point in your view but it seems to be that way in this thread.

All of that aside, Sid's 25 game streak was extremely impressive as his season is looking so far and if Stamkos keeps up his pace (4 points tonight) the "lack of dominance " argument will rear it's ugly head again and not all will appreciate just how dare I say Great Sid's season at age 23 really is here.

 

[Up the Irons]

hardy: 'see the thing is with Mantor's example is that is examines numbers and probability which is a logical thing to do, but you cant; see past the numbers because you have a predisposition to "how great" a certain guys is before looking at all of the evidence.'

i admit to this weakness. but, Mantor's evidence is pretty convoluted, if it even qualifies as evidence; more like interesting numbers.

we always see these far reaches to show how someone's lower stats are actually just as good as Gretzky's considerably higher stats. Never a consideration that maybe 99 was just that good; maybe it wasn't so much the era, but him. The high scoring era didn't just happen by fluke; his influence moved the game to high scoring. So, to pass off Gretzky's accomplishments as just a product of the time is not fair. He was the time.

I agree that Crosby is having a great season and appears to be separating himself from the pack. But, just 2 years ago OV was doing the same with his 65 goals. As for Crosby's streak.. IMHO, he would have to go 35-40 to say it was in Gretzky's range. 25 just isn't special enough. it's eyebrow raising, but not mind blowing.

 

[sr edler]

I know he was good, I'd campaign for his induction to the HOF, but look at the names around him, he's by far the worst player on there and the only guy not named Gretzky or Lemieux to get to 30. That's remarkable.

Also kind of statistically surprising he only scored 46 points during that incredibly long streak, just barely above his season average and well below the pace of everybody else on that list (and Crosby right now). It's just an all-around weird streak, that's all.

what's strange is that he did it from game 1-30

20 games with 1 point, 4 with 2 points, 6 with 3 points

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/sundima01/gamelog/1993/

 

[Hardyvan123]

what's strange is that he did it from game 1-30

20 games with 1 point, 4 with 2 points, 6 with 3 points

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/sundima01/gamelog/1993/

Sundin is sure one underrated guy in this section, it's not his fault that he was traded to TO and never had a great supporting cast.

Sundin was the better player (of him and Sakic) and 2 years younger when he got traded to Toronto and the rest became history.

One guy is associated with being a winner while Sundin isn't.

 

[Rhiessan71]

What does 10 miles better than everyone mean in the real world?

And why use the way better than Crosby is he 10 miles better or only 5?

Sorry I really just could not help myself here.

see the thing is with Mantor's example is that is examines numbers and probability which is a logical thing to do, but you cant; see past the numbers because you have a predisposition to "how great" a certain guys is before looking at all of the evidence.

Maybe I'm wrong on that point in your view but it seems to be that way in this thread.

All of that aside, Sid's 25 game streak was extremely impressive as his season is looking so far and if Stamkos keeps up his pace (4 points tonight) the "lack of dominance " argument will rear it's ugly head again and not all will appreciate just how dare I say Great Sid's season at age 23 really is here.

No one is trying to take away from Sid here though, we don't need to take away from Sid to make Gretzky look better heh.
If anything, it's the opposite and people attempt to take away from Wayne to make Sid look better and that is what gets people all pissy and starts the majority of these arguments.

Also, something that seems to get lost in all the talent, skill and speed arguments and something that has actually bugged me for a long time going back to an argument you and I a while back.
In that you said that Sid is prolly as or more skilled than Gretzky was and I didn't agree at the time.
After much thought, I have since changed my mind on this and I will now agree that Sid prolly is more talented and skilled than Gretzky was and is certainly faster.

The thing is though....Gretzky wasn't even the fastest, most skilled or talented when he was getting 200+ points a season either.

It was Gretzky's creativity, craftiness, intelligence and hockey sense that made him the best ever and I'm sorry but Sid is not even close in to him in these area's.