Sidney Crosby surpassing Alexander Ovechkin in career points watch (UPD: Ovechkin ahead by 6)

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

It’s funny how Crosby’s haters think that his point production only rely on secondary assist. They just can’t admit that Sid outproduced Ovy through all their careers (ppg wise), so they bring this argument to make you think that the majority of Crosby’s points are « luck » and he’s not that great, which is complete bulls*t. Hell, nobody brings that argument on a Gretzky debate and he damn sure got a plenty of secondary assists during his long ass career but who cares? He was still the best playmaker there ever was. Give credit where credit is due, Ovy is indeed the best goal scorer of the two, but Crosby is the better player offensively and overall, the only reason why it’s still a debate it’s because Sid missed most of his prime years.

...no. Nobody said it was luck, nobody said it was all secondary assists. You said those things, no one else.

The dude arguing about assists is just pointing out that they can be arbitrary and there's 1.6 of them for every goal, so saying "Crosby produces more points so is the better offensive player".. he's saying that's inaccurate. Not necessarily wrong, but he's pointing out that's an inaccurate way of looking at it. You could look at it from a purely mathematical standpoint, eliminate the discrepancy assists bring, but that'd miss the point as well, because there's defense, chemistry, playoff performance, etc.

They're two great players, uniquely skilled, and you will never decide a debate over who is best. I personally lean towards Crosby for skill, Ovechkin if I have a a solid setup man.

OP posted an interesting fact, that's it.

..you may continue to argue now..

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Andreychuk is 331 pts below points per game. He is not even supposed to be in the conversation with these guys.

Sid is 263pts above PPG and Ovi 127 pts.

Yes, because that is the point the poster was making. That Andeychuk is better than Crosby.

 

[412 Others]

It's amusing to see Ovechkin fans attempt to gloss over the 141 less games played. When that doesn't work they go right into overhauling a scoring system that's been in place for decades. Shamelessly dumbing down the game of hockey by suggesting that having the best shooting ability in the league means you're the best player. I don't have the Ovechkin fan flowchart handy but 'North American bias' usually works its way into the discussion as well.

 

[Shrimper]

Ovechkin will likely play longer and regain the lead at some point. Obviously Crosby would be ahead at the moment without some bad injury luck, but playmakers also benefit from a scoring system that arbitrarily awards up to two assists per goal.

Going back to the 2009-10 season, which is as far back as the NHL site goes for some reason, Crosby has 469 assists of which 275 are first assists, with 193 are secondary assists.

Ovechkin has 187 primary assists and 141 secondary assists. Not a big a difference as you might think.

This mean going back to the 2009-10 season without secondarys which, again, is as far as it goes back for some reason, the totals are;

Crosby - 296 goals - 275 assists - 571 points in 609 games
Ovechkin - 417 goals - 187 assists - 604 points in 716 games

Crosby at a rate of 0.93 PPG and Ovechkin 0.84PPG.

With Crosby having the same number of games he'd have 671 points, 67 more than Ovechkin.
So, despite playing in 107 more games, Ovechkin has just 33 more points since the start of the 09-10 season. I wish I could find a website to go back further.

So you can ignore the secondary assist, for some reason, but Crosby is still producing better on a PPG and rate basis in comparison

 

[Randyne]

Going back to the 2009-10 season, which is as far back as the NHL site goes for some reason, Crosby has 469 assists of which 275 are first assists, with 193 are secondary assists.

Career wise 282 Sid secondary assists and 211 OV. Which is 0.98 and 0.92 PPGs (0.06 difference, not a big difference considering it's Center vs Winger)

 

[Hippasus]

You mean a system that has existed for literally the entirety of hockey history? Lmao. Sure, it's completely arbitrary, definitely.

While I too would not call two assists per goal arbitrary, at certain times in the history of the NHL, one or three assists have been awarded per goal.

 

[Riddum]

Career wise 282 Sid secondary assists and 211 OV. Which is 0.98 and 0.92 PPGs (0.06 difference, not a big difference considering it's Center vs Winger)

Secondary Ovi?

 

[Hippasus]

I don't agree with demeaning playmaking and assists, but the word is fitting. It's arbitrary. Why two assists and not three or one? Why automatic two assists and not evaluating the secondary assist on every play basis? I mean, I wouldn't change the system but it literally is arbitrary.

If something can be otherwise, it's contingent (as opposed to neccesary). If it were truly arbitrary, there would be no justification for two assists. But I think there is: Two touches of the puck from players other than the goal scorer usually captures all the significant plays toward creating a goal for a given team.

 

[PB12]

Good for Sid. Don't see why this is a thread though. OV is paid the big bucks to score goals, not pass the puck.

 

[Shrimper]

Going back to the 2009-10 season, which is as far back as the NHL site goes for some reason, Crosby has 469 assists of which 275 are first assists, with 193 are secondary assists.

Ovechkin has 187 primary assists and 141 secondary assists. Not a big a difference as you might think.

This mean going back to the 2009-10 season without secondarys which, again, is as far as it goes back for some reason, the totals are;

Crosby - 296 goals - 275 assists - 571 points in 609 games
Ovechkin - 417 goals - 187 assists - 604 points in 716 games

Crosby at a rate of 0.93 PPG and Ovechkin 0.84PPG.

With Crosby having the same number of games he'd have 671 points, 67 more than Ovechkin.
So, despite playing in 107 more games, Ovechkin has just 33 more points since the start of the 09-10 season. I wish I could find a website to go back further.

So you can ignore the secondary assist, for some reason, but Crosby is still producing better on a PPG and rate basis in comparison

So, just went through Hockey reference.

Sid had 19 secondary assists in 2008-09, 15 in 2007-08, 35 in 2006-07 and 19 in 2005-2006.

A total of 88 further secondary assists. So, if we add that to the 193 secondary assists that equals the 281.

Ovie had 22 secondary assists in 2008-09, 11 in 2007-08, 14 in 2006-07 and 18 in 2005-06.

A total of 65 further secondary assists. So, if we add that to the 141 secondary assists that equals 206.

So, without the roughly calculated above numbers, their careers would be;

Crosby - 428 goals and 453 assists for 881 points in 899 games - 0.97 PPG
Ovechkin - 636 goals and 325 assists for 961 points in 1040 games - 0.92 PPG

With the same number of games, Crosby would have 1019 points, 58 more.

Sid isn't as reliant as you think. They're both talented players who would should enjoy watching, lets leave it at that. This can be debated after their careers are over.

 

[Plural]

If someth4ging can be otherwise, it's contingent (as opposed to necbcessa7rsy). If it were truly arbitrary, there would be no justification for two assists. But I think there is: Two touches of the puck usually captureqs all the significant plays toward creating a goal for a given team.

The choice of two assists instead of one or three or subjective assists per play is arbitrary choice, no?

 

[mrv52]

Can someone post the stats on secondary goals?

 

[Shockmaster]

It’s funny how Crosby’s haters think that his point production only rely on secondary assist. They just can’t admit that Sid outproduced Ovy through all their careers (ppg wise), so they bring this argument to make you think that the majority of Crosby’s points are « luck » and he’s not that great, which is complete bulls*t. Hell, nobody brings that argument on a Gretzky debate and he damn sure got a plenty of secondary assists during his long ass career but who cares? He was still the best playmaker there ever was. Give credit where credit is due, Ovy is indeed the best goal scorer of the two, but Crosby is the better player offensively and overall, the only reason why it’s still a debate it’s because Sid missed most of his prime years.

Not to mention nobody seems to whine about secondary assists when players not named Crosby rack them up. Wonder why?

 

[TheAngryHank]

Let me know when Ovechkin scores 90 goals in a season.

Let me know when Crosby drains 50.

 

[TheAngryHank]

It's not always arbitrary. Sometimes a goal straight up doesn't happen without the play of the secondary assiter.

That's the key,hockey is a game about "almost" lots of goals almost happen. Points from helpers is getting credit for someone else's work.

 

[RussianGuyovich]

ITT Crosby anti-defamation crew does math in bad faith and also doesn’t understand the conversation. Shocker.

 

[K Fleur]

That's the key,hockey is a game about "almost" lots of goals almost happen. Points from helpers is getting credit for someone else's work.

This is the worst definition of an assist that I’ve ever seen. Start drinking early on New Year’s Hank?

 

[TheAngryHank]

This is the worst definition of an assist that I’ve ever seen. Start drinking early on New Year’s Hank?

No, I woke up this way.lol aloha.

 

[Ms Maggie]

Yup your correct the one you can count on to actually play

So the best player is the who played the most games? That would be Patrick Marleau. Funny, don't often hear his name in "the best" conversation.

 

[inthewings]

I'm not going to get into a debate about which player is better, but it seems pretty clear to me that anyone interested in quantifying a player's contributions to his team would place different weights on goals than assists. We treat them as being equal only out of convention at this point.

I'll take a 50G, 30A guy over a 30G, 50A guy 100 times out of 100.

 

[Ms Maggie]

I don't agree with demeaning playmaking and assists, but the word is fitting. It's arbitrary. Why two assists and not three or one? Why automatic two assists and not evaluating the secondary assist on every play basis? I mean, I wouldn't change the system but it literally is arbitrary.

Why 6 points for a TD and 3 for a FG?

Scoring a goal is rarely a solo act. Players who set up goals are valuable. The point allocation is arbitrary but the same for everyone. The irony here is the same Ovi fans who argued for so long that Ovi's lack of Cups didn't matter because it's a team sport, argue that stats that reflect the team nature of the sport are somehow suspect.

That said, not sure it matters! HNY!

 

[kmart]

It's amusing to see Ovechkin fans attempt to gloss over the 141 less games played. When that doesn't work they go right into overhauling a scoring system that's been in place for decades. Shamelessly dumbing down the game of hockey by suggesting that having the best shooting ability in the league means you're the best player. I don't have the Ovechkin fan flowchart handy but 'North American bias' usually works its way into the discussion as well.

there is no need to dumb down anything. at some point u have to stop projecting and realize that ao produced more in the regular season as crosby. even if sid soon eclipses ao... the majority of their prime ovi got more out of himself... in that regard the higher ppg is not significant because crosby could not converse that into outproducing ovi. raw totals mean more that projections. after more than 10 years of hockey they are about even... one has more consitensy the other has a higher points output.

 

[Ms Maggie]

I'm not going to get into a debate about which player is better, but it seems pretty clear to me that anyone interested in quantifying a player's contributions to his team would place different weights on goals than assists. We treat them as being equal only out of convention at this point.

I'll take a 50G, 30A guy over a 30G, 50A guy 100 times out of 100.

I get your point. But another way to look at it: with player A on the ice, your team scores 80 goals. And with player B, 80 goals. And in the Ovi/Crosby case, player B's team has won 3 cups.

 

[inthewings]

I get your point. But another way to look at it: with player A on the ice, your team scores 80 goals. And with player B, 80 goals. And in the Ovi/Crosby case, player B's team has won 3 cups.

I find the debate about the relative value of goals and assists generally more interesting than the debate about Crosby and Ovechkin specifically.

I guess my feeling is that I trust the 50G guy more than the 50A guy to produce in the future, even if he's moved to a different context. I'm an absolutely terrible hockey player, but I pick up quite a few assists: get the puck to the good players in the offensive zone and they'll get me points. It's a lot more rare for a great passer to get me goals than it is for a good goalscorer to get me assists.

 

[Hippasus]

The choice of two assists instead of one or three or subjective assists per play is arbitrary choice, no?

No, because two touches for a given team, besides the goal scorer, usually captures the most significant plays toward the scoring of a goal. Something like that would be the justification under the current system.