And why compare 1st with 10th and 5th exactly? Seems a little bit arbitrary to me to chose random placing.
We need to control for league-wide scoring somehow. "Adjusted points" effectively compare the leader to an average player in the league. % leads over #5 or #10 compare the leader with a fellow star, who is more of a peer.
Runners-up are more relevant in this case imo.
Runners-up are too volatile, you have to make sure the two runners-up are comparable. #10 in points is a more stable position - if the second-best player is injured/slumping, that affects the lead over the runner-up greatly, whereas replacing #10 with #11 because #2 is out is unlikely to change anything.
Crosby had a 0,13 PPG lead over Thornton (Runner-up) which was way more significant than McDavid’s 0,03 PPG lead over Crosby.
Any reason why we are looking at ppg and not actual points? Are we going to punish McDavid for Crosby being more fragile than Thornton? Because if we look at % lead over #2 points, McDavid-2017 lead becomes much more impressive than Crosby-2007 (12.5% vs. 3.5%). (Though again, one can always make the argument that peak Thornton was more of a competition than Crosby-2017, and I would probably agree)
It wasn’t until the last month of the season that McDavid started to separate himself (even though it was a mere lead).
Those were the most important games of the season, at least for Oilers who made the playoffs because of their 8-2 run in the last 10 games.
Hard to blame McDavid for turning it on when it matters the most.
Let’s not forget that Crosby (2006-07) was clearly viewed as the best player in the world throughout the season.
He was not, really. He was so far behind Thornton in 2005/06 and so little ahead in 2006/07 that it was hard to pick him based on the record. Jagr and Ovechkin, who were also much better than Crosby in 2005/06 but slumping in 06/07, were also looming large.
In 2007, Crosby was
projected to become the best in the world. This is a different thing from actually being one.
Plus, Crosby did not really deliver on that projection until a few years later, which calls the rationality of the projection into question.
McDavid was also projected to be the best in the world in 2016/17 - well, at least he delivered and we know by now the guys doing the projecting were making sense.
Crosby was still the consensus best in the world by the end of the season and by the start of the 2017-18 season.
Well, unless you put a grace year on a grace year on a grace year, otherwise Crosby clearly was not the best in the world after being destroyed by Kane in the points race in 2015/16. It is not clear how losing in the points race to McDavid by 11 points would help him back to the top.
In both 2006/07 and 2016/17, the "best in the world" position was not as clear-cut as when peak Jagr or peak Ovechkin reigned. If you go by one season, then both Crosby and McDavid have the same kind of claim - they won Art Ross/MVP in the respective season, so the crown is theirs for the moment. If you go by 2-3 seasons, then neither was the best.
