Predict McDavid’s peak point total

[winnipegger]

If the Oilers ever get a PP quarterback he'll break 120. Their backend is still a huge weakness.

 

[CraigsList]

Gonna go with 123, that’s exactly a point and a half PPG

 

[CraigsList]

If the Oilers ever get a PP quarterback he'll break 120. Their backend is still a huge weakness.

I think Bouchard is capable of that.

 

[leafsfan1234]

108, it's all downhill from here.

 

[Varan]

Where I am downplaying anything?

McDavid has two similar Art Ross wins, one where his team had a pretty good PP; one where the PP sucked. One where his team was in the playoff hunt the whole year; one where they were out of it for the last quarter of a season.

I predict McDavid could have a season where, relative to the field, there is a gap like Crosby and Malkin had over the field at their peaks. How that translates into a point total depends on league dynamics.

What I won't predict is McDavid's ES staying the exact same if the he puts up more PP points than this year.

You’re completely missing the point of this poll. This is about what his future point totals would look like. It has nothing about strength of his past 2 wins and potential wins in the future. That is a separate thread for another day.

If you want to reserve your thoughts about his future point totals and art Ross wins while taking PP into account then go ahead. However you are using a very small sample of a decent PP year for the Oilers. 50% our of 2 full seasons isn’t a hell of a lot to go on of, that’s why I said wait until he has a few full seasons under his belt where we see exactly how he does with different PPs, and we can come to some sort of conclusion about the correlation from his AR wins, point totals, with the PP

 

[McVespa99]

So here is a question:

Do you believe that the 16/17 versions of McDavid and Crosby would have only had the 7th and 8th best PPGs if they played last year?

NHL.com - Stats

Im not sure exactly what point your trying to make but man your #$%& is weak.

 

[daver]

You’re completely missing the point of this poll. This is about what his future point totals would look like. It has nothing about strength of his past 2 wins and potential wins in the future. That is a separate thread for another day.

If you cannot see the value in evaluating his past performances to predict what his future ones may look like, I am not sure what to say to you. You seem to blindly believe that the opportunity for the league's best offensive players is the same year after year when that clearly has not been the case.

I would say the same thing to people are are listing Crosby's 120 points or his 130 point pace at his peak as some sort of reference. If McDavid put up 115 points last season, I would say he eclipsed Crosby's 120 point season.

 

[daver]

You’re completely missing the point of this poll. This is about what his future point totals would look like. It has nothing about strength of his past 2 wins and potential wins in the future. That is a separate thread for another day.

If you want to reserve your thoughts about his future point totals and art Ross wins while taking PP into account then go ahead. However you are using a very small sample of a decent PP year for the Oilers. 50% our of 2 full seasons isn’t a hell of a lot to go on of, that’s why I said wait until he has a few full seasons under his belt where we see exactly how he does with different PPs, and we can come to some sort of conclusion about the correlation from his AR wins, point totals, with the PP

Here is your original post: "and he eclipsed his point total from that year with an even worse PP."

So........if you want to reserve your thoughts about his future point totals and art Ross wins while taking PP into account then go ahead. However you are using a very small sample of a crappy PP year for the Oilers. 50% our of 2 full seasons isn’t a hell of a lot to go on of, that’s why I said wait until he has a few full seasons under his belt where we see exactly how he does with different PPs, and we can come to some sort of conclusion about the correlation from his AR wins, point totals, with the PP.

Sound fair?

 

[blundluntman]

I know it may sound crazy but I really think he can hit 130 at some point. His shot looks absolutely lethal now and when you can shoot and pass like he can... especially at full speed... Its going to make defensemen make even more mistakes. I can see him hitting 50 goals and averaging an assist per game if everything pans out well.

 

[karnige]

I think if the stars align, PP is hot and hes healthy.... 130 points

 

[North Cole]

The fact is Kucherov, Giroux, Malkin, and MacKinnon all played better last year than McDavid did in 16/17 using your logic of comparing stats from one season to another with zero context.

Trying to write off a PPG comparison because of a handful of games is laughable. There were nine players over 90 points last year, there 20 players over a PPG; these are significantly different numbers from 16/17 but you refuse to acknowledge this.

He refuses to acknowledge it because it's irrelevant. 9 players did better last year than CM did the year before last.... But CM did better last year than them in the year before last also.... That's what doesn't make sense....

Everyone did better last year than they did the year before, but you're trying to push some tiny discrepancy because his "improvement" was slightly worse than everyone else's "improvement", even though he still beat them in point totals.... We went over this months ago, literally no one cares that CM had a 3% worse ppg-increase relative to the other elite players, because he still smoked everyone in points. This is the biggest nitpick of all time. "PPG-increase relative to the field".

Just stop. His peers improved their PPG, Connor McDavid improved his PPG. The difference between their respective increases is less than 5%. It's "laughable" that you denounce his claim that 5% of the season they didn't play has an effect on their PPG, but you try to push a <5% comparative PPG increase as to why CM did worse year over year... Typing this gave me a headache because it's so goddamn convoluted.

You're trying to filibuster and create a maze of derivative stats (PPG-increase relative to the field's PPG increase, it's like a "CDO-squared" [type of marketable security, inside of a security, made up of other securities]) so that people can't argue against you. Sorry to be blunt but It doesn't create worthwhile discussions IMO.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Is it even a mcdavid thread if daver isn’t in it moving them goalposts

 

[Varan]

He refuses to acknowledge it because it's irrelevant. 9 players did better last year than CM did the year before last.... But CM did better last year than them in the year before last also.... That's what doesn't make sense....

Everyone did better last year than they did the year before, but you're trying to push some tiny discrepancy because his "improvement" was slightly worse than everyone else's "improvement", even though he still beat them in point totals.... We went over this months ago, literally no one cares that CM had a 3% worse ppg-increase relative to the other elite players, because he still smoked everyone in points. This is the biggest nitpick of all time. "PPG-increase relative to the field".

Just stop. His peers improved their PPG, Connor McDavid improved his PPG. The difference between their respective increases is less than 5%. It's "laughable" that you denounce his claim that 5% of the season they didn't play has an effect on their PPG, but you try to push a <5% comparative PPG increase as to why CM did worse year over year... Typing this gave me a headache because it's so goddamn convoluted.

You're trying to filibuster and create a maze of derivative stats (PPG-increase relative to the field's PPG increase, it's like a "CDO-squared" [type of marketable security, inside of a security, made up of other securities]) so that people can't argue against you. Sorry to be blunt but It doesn't create worthwhile discussions IMO.

that's what I'm saying! it's such an insignificant amount where all it comes down to is 2-3 games played, not actual production or skill or talent. are you kidding me lmao.

this is actually a testament to his greatness, where it is so hard to find fault with him that it has come down to bringing up minimalistic ppg differences that show absolutely nothing with zero context

 

[daver]

He refuses to acknowledge it because it's irrelevant. 9 players did better last year than CM did the year before last.... But CM did better last year than them in the year before last also.... That's what doesn't make sense....

Everyone did better last year than they did the year before, but you're trying to push some tiny discrepancy because his "improvement" was slightly worse than everyone else's "improvement", even though he still beat them in point totals.... We went over this months ago, literally no one cares that CM had a 3% worse ppg-increase relative to the other elite players, because he still smoked everyone in points. This is the biggest nitpick of all time. "PPG-increase relative to the field".

Everybody's numbers went up, that doesn't mean everyone was a better player than the year before. That makes no sense.

That's the point. McDavid was not better in terms of the gap between him and the pack. You and others seem so desperate to prove that he was better last year than he was in 16/17 that you are blind to this statistical reality. It seems the general consensus that a player is judged on how he performs vs. his peers is now inapplicable because it goes against the narrative that McDavid is going to be the best talent since Mario. He will every opportunity to prove this rather than trying to spin his 17/18 season into something better than the numbers showed.

 

[daver]

this is actually a testament to his greatness, where it is so hard to find fault with him that it has come down to bringing up minimalistic ppg differences that show absolutely nothing with zero context

Where I am trying to find fault? Just because I question putting any more value on his 17/18 season than what he actually produced in no way is trying to find fault. You can play the "what if" game with every single player.

I disagree with the sentiment that he had no control over his PP production or that if the PP was better, you simply add more PP points to his ES totals. I disagree with the sentiment that he had to be better because he is still in the traditional developing stage of his career. Not everyone shows a straight path of improvement or have seasons that reflect their level of talent.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

Because it's an option that makes no sense considering McDavid hit that total last season with a historically bad PP.

Use your head.

Peter Chiarelli doing his best to be the anti-McDavid...

 

[Voight]

if Bouchard becomes a 70 point dman in the NHL McDavid hits 130, If the Oilers never find that offensive stud from the backend, McDavid still hits in incredible 120 + , if The Oilers remain trash for the remainder of McDavids contract, McDavid will be hard pressed to hit 110 + every year.

 

[North Cole]

Everybody's numbers went up, that doesn't mean everyone was a better player than the year before. That makes no sense.

That's the point. McDavid was not better in terms of the gap between him and the pack. You and others seem so desperate to prove that he was better last year than he was in 16/17 that you are blind to this statistical reality. It seems the general consensus that a player is judged on how he performs vs. his peers is now inapplicable because it goes against the narrative that McDavid is going to be the best talent since Mario. He will every opportunity to prove this rather than trying to spin his 17/18 season into something better than the numbers showed.

He was better last year than he was in 16/17. I'm comparing him to himself....you seem so desperate to try and compare him to a few players who may have played beyond themselves.

The fact is, McDavid proved that him scoring 100 was not an outlier, because he scored even more. When has MacKinnon shown that he can consistently put up those numbers? Giroux has been irrelevant for 2 years prior to last season. Marchand is a consistent 1.29 PPG player? That's what doesnt make sense. You're jumping on people's career years which they may never repeat and trying to show some narrative that it makes connor McDavid look worse. It doesn't. He is consistent, they are not....if they do it again, you have something to stand on.

Otherwise its you comparing a player who is improving year over year, to a bunch of guys who had freak seasons and then went back to being mediocre. Scoring was the highest it's been since your boy Crosby put up 60pp points. Obviously some people are going to benefit from that

17-McDavid was better than 16-McDavid. Higher ppg, more points, more es points, more goals...the desperate narrative is trying to take one stat (ppg), and show that although his was higher YoY, everyone elses' went up more. Maybe their ppg went up by more than his, because it was way lower to begin with. Ever think of that? Performance wise, everyone owns a car that can go from 0-150, but not everyone can go 200-300....showing that they accelerated more raw KM going 0-150, doesnt change the fact that him going 300 is still faster and better performance.

Spin spin spin.

 

[Varan]

He was better last year than he was in 16/17. I'm comparing him to himself....you seem so desperate to try and compare him to a few players who may have played beyond themselves.

The fact is, McDavid proved that him scoring 100 was not an outlier, because he scored even more. When has MacKinnon shown that he can consistently put up those numbers? Giroux has been irrelevant for 2 years prior to last season. Marchand is a consistent 1.29 PPG player? That's what doesnt make sense. You're jumping on people's career years which they may never repeat and trying to show some narrative that it makes connor McDavid look worse. It doesn't. He is consistent, they are not....if they do it again, you have something to stand on.

Otherwise its you comparing a player who is improving year over year, to a bunch of guys who had freak seasons and then went back to being mediocre. Scoring was the highest it's been since your boy Crosby put up 60pp points. Obviously some people are going to benefit from that

17-McDavid was better than 16-McDavid. Higher ppg, more points, more es points, more goals...the desperate narrative is trying to take one stat (ppg), and show that although his was higher YoY, everyone elses' went up more. Maybe their ppg went up by more than his, because it was way lower to begin with. Ever think of that? Performance wise, everyone owns a car that can go from 0-150, but not everyone can go 200-300....showing that they accelerated more raw KM going 0-150, doesnt change the fact that him going 300 is still faster and better performance.

Spin spin spin.

holy this is what I have been screaming about for months, just couldn't put it into these words. thank you bro

 

[daver]

He was better last year than he was in 16/17. I'm comparing him to himself....you seem so desperate to try and compare him to a few players who may have played beyond themselves.

What a coincidence that the majority of the league happened to play beyond themselves so the narrative for McDavid can be kept up.

 

[North Cole]

What a coincidence that the majority of the league happened to play beyond themselves so the narrative for McDavid can be kept up.

Yep. The majority of the league had 1+ ppg. Impressive! What was the goaltending avg? 0.800?

Interesting that you quoted one paragraph from a 5 paragraph post. And you didnt even quote it properly. You dont even try to hide the fact that you're the GOAT at nitpicking and selective information. Have a good day.

Edit - I said a FEW players. The highest scorers have a much bigger effect in league wide scoring then the guys playing in depth positions. You chose the scope of players that you were comparing McDavid to when you initially came up with this idea in April.... So its not the entire league. McDavid has a much bigger effect on league goals per game then Maroon....if that's not obvious, then its clear you not only have an agenda, but you also cant do basic math...

 

[daver]

Yep. The majority of the league had 1+ ppg. Impressive! What was the goaltending avg? 0.800?

Interesting that you quoted one paragraph from a 5 paragraph post. And you didnt even quote it properly. You dont even try to hide the fact that you're the GOAT at nitpicking and selective information. Have a good day.

Edit - I said a FEW players. The highest scorers have a much bigger effect in league wide scoring then the guys playing in depth positions. You chose the scope of players that you were comparing McDavid to when you initially came up with this idea in April.... So its not the entire league. McDavid has a much bigger effect on league goals per game then Maroon....if that's not obvious, then its clear you not only have an agenda, but you also cant do basic math...

It is plain and simple, McDavid did not have a more impressive Art Ross win than the previous year which brings into question the claim that he was better. Maybe it was team dynamics that held him back but the great players before him don't have that excuse; they are measured by what they accomplished.

 

[daver]

Yep. The majority of the league had 1+ ppg. Impressive! What was the goaltending avg? 0.800?

Interesting that you quoted one paragraph from a 5 paragraph post. And you didnt even quote it properly. You dont even try to hide the fact that you're the GOAT at nitpicking and selective information. Have a good day.

Edit - I said a FEW players. The highest scorers have a much bigger effect in league wide scoring then the guys playing in depth positions. You chose the scope of players that you were comparing McDavid to when you initially came up with this idea in April.... So its not the entire league. McDavid has a much bigger effect on league goals per game then Maroon....if that's not obvious, then its clear you not only have an agenda, but you also cant do basic math...

No need for the facetious response. It is a statistical fact that scoring was up among the elite offensive forwards this past year.

# of players over 90 points

16/17 - - 1
17/18 - 9

# of players over 80 points

16/17 - 7
17/18 - 21

# of players at a PPG or better in Top 50

16/17 - 8
17/18 - 20


Avg. PPG of the Top 20 scorers

16/17 - 0.99
17/18 - 1.13


But you want us to believe that while McDavid was better in 17/18 because he scored more points, every other elite forward in the Top 50 who scored more (which would be the vast majority of the Top 50) simply had an unusually productive season which explains why McDavid did not have a more impressive Art Ross win than the year before.

That is not reasonable.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

It is plain and simple, McDavid did not have a more impressive Art Ross win than the previous year which brings into question the claim that he was better. Maybe it was team dynamics that held him back but the great players before him don't have that excuse; they are measured by what they accomplished.

IMO, he did when you consider his closest competitor in 2016-17 (Crosby) missed 7 games and paced for 97 points, which would have only seen a 3 point Art Ross win. That's about the same gap as there would have been had MacKinnon played all his games, so I'd opt for the higher overall point total as being more impressive.

 

[daver]

IMO, he did when you consider his closest competitor in 2016-17 (Crosby) missed 7 games and paced for 97 points, which would have only seen a 3 point Art Ross win. That's about the same gap as there would have been had MacKinnon played all his games, so I'd opt for the higher overall point total as being more impressive.

When looking at how much he separated himself from the next best 5, 10, 20 etc.. scorers, it was about the same. Point totals need context.