What would it take for a player of today to challenge for a spot in the big 4?

[daver]

You ever consider the idea that you're being way too anal about the scoring levels compared to context?

Not sure what your point is but you obviously disagree with what I wrote. What seasons would you say are the best ones offensively over the past 40 years (other than Wayne and Mario)?

Of course there is context, I generally disagree with applying context before establishing a statistical foundation first. Many posters will say they think a season or player was better then shut their ears when context is applied around the different scoring levels.

 

[Plural]

Not sure what your point is but you obviously disagree with what I wrote. What seasons would you say are the best ones offensively over the past 40 years (other than Wayne and Mario)?

Of course there is context, I generally disagree with applying context before establishing a statistical foundation first.

Huh? My point is exactly what I said. There's no hidden agenda. You can't seriously contemplate the idea that you're being too anal about simplistic statistical measure and not understanding how to apply context?

 

[daver]

Huh? My point is exactly what I said. There's no hidden agenda. You can't seriously contemplate the idea that you're being too anal about simplistic statistical measure and not understanding how to apply context?

Applying context shouldn't necessarily mean that a statistical conclusion is incorrect. Context begins to cross into subjective territory where consensus should become a mitigating factor. Speculation and hypothetical scenarios is not, IMO, appropriate context.

E.g. I don't think that the consensus is that Nichols' 88/89 season is up there with some of the best non-Big Four seasons when context is applied. I think the consensus is that Yzerman's offensive numbers in 88/89 do match up well against the best non-Big Four seasons ever.

 

[Plural]

Applying context shouldn't necessarily mean that a statistical conclusion is incorrect. Context begins to cross into subjective territory where consensus should become a mitigating factor. Speculation and hypothetical scenarios is not, IMO, appropriate context.

E.g. I don't think that the consensus is that Nichols' 88/89 season is up there with some of the best non-Big Four seasons when context is applied. I think the consensus is that Yzerman's offensive numbers in 88/89 do match up well against the best non-Big Four seasons ever.

That's fair.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Since the mid-70s, only Jagr put up a full season that was on the same level offensively as Yzerman's 88/89 season. Malkin and Crosby had the talent to put up a season like Yzerman's 88/89. Malkin's 11/12 was as close as you can get but he missed a few games. McDavid seems primed to reach that level. I would say that 120 -125 points in last year's league would be close.

if you're suggesting that malkin's 109 point season -- which prorates to 119 if he'd played all 82 games -- is on the level yzerman's 155 point season, then why not sakic's 118 point season in 2001? without jagr and mario, that's a pretty weak pack, but it's not like iginla, forsberg, or MSL winning the art ross by a few points in the next three seasons; sakic was more than 20 points ahead of the next guy.

and yeah, i agree. if we saw the same mcdavid of the second half of last season over a full season, i'd put him in that sub-howe/orr/gretzky/mario echelon.

 

[Stephen]

Lemieux did very little after age 31 and had several down years prior.

You do realize Lemieux retired for three years after he turned 31, which explains why he "did very little" right? But might want to take a look at his stats lines between 2001 and 2003 at the end of the Dead Puck Era.

Has anyone really even scored like that post lockout?

 

[Stephen]

Applying context shouldn't necessarily mean that a statistical conclusion is incorrect. Context begins to cross into subjective territory where consensus should become a mitigating factor. Speculation and hypothetical scenarios is not, IMO, appropriate context.

E.g. I don't think that the consensus is that Nichols' 88/89 season is up there with some of the best non-Big Four seasons when context is applied. I think the consensus is that Yzerman's offensive numbers in 88/89 do match up well against the best non-Big Four seasons ever.

Is that "context" or reputation?

 

[Midnight Judges]

You do realize Lemieux retired for three years after he turned 31, which explains why he "did very little" right? But might want to take a look at his stats lines between 2001 and 2003 at the end of the Dead Puck Era.

Has anyone really even scored like that post lockout?

Close.

Ovechkin scored 88 points and 42 goals in 52 games to start the 09-10 season. That's .78 GPG and 1.69 PPG. Ovechkin also had 135 points and 62 goals reaching back a little farther to include an 81 game span including the playoffs and the end of the 08-09 season (1.67 PPG).

Lemieux scored 76 points and 35 goals through 43 games in 2001 after three year's rest. That's .81 GPG and 1.76 PPG.

 

[Stephen]

Close.

Ovechkin scored 88 points and 42 goals in 52 games to start the 09-10 season. That's .78 GPG and 1.69 PPG. Ovechkin also had 135 points and 62 goals reaching back a little farther to include an 81 game span including the playoffs and the end of the 08-09 season.

Lemieux scored 76 points and 35 goals through 43 games in 2001 after three year's rest. That's .81 GPG and 1.76 PPG.

Exactly. An old Mario Lemieux came out and busted out peak Ovechkin numbers in the twilight of his career, just trying to keep his investment afloat in Pittsburgh.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Exactly. An old Mario Lemieux came out and busted out peak Ovechkin numbers in the twilight of his career, just trying to keep his investment afloat in Pittsburgh.

-The idea of cherry picking stats like that is laughable. Thats why you use the entire decade or a multi year period, not some goofy metric of first 40 games in a season.

-The 2nd thing is, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Mcdavid, whoever else never played in the dead puck era.

-The year Lemieux put up those stats was 2003, the league average was 2.65 goals per game.

-The year Ovi put up those stats or whatever other cherry picked numbers Midnight is using, the league average was 2.91 goals per game. That's a 10% swing in goal differential. So Midnight can add 10% to Lemieux's numbers and subract 10% for Ovi's, era adjusted. This is why I love era adjusted stats.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Exactly. An old Mario Lemieux came out and busted out peak Ovechkin numbers in the twilight of his career, just trying to keep his investment afloat in Pittsburgh.

He wasn't that old (35), had years of rest, played extensively with peak Jagr, and if anyone didn't pass Lemieux the puck he'd have them traded - no matter how good they were, and he sustained it for all of half a season. Ovechkin sustained his pace for 81 games.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So Midnight can add 10% to Lemieux's numbers and subract 10% for Ovi's, era adjusted.

lol math is hard.

 

[GuineaPig]

He wasn't that old (35), had years of rest, played extensively with peak Jagr, and if anyone didn't pass Lemieux the puck he'd have them traded - no matter how good they were, and he sustained if for all of half a season. Ovechkin sustained his pace for 81 games.

I think it's pretty disingenous to spin not playing hockey for years as "rest", like it's the same thing as getting an extra day off between games

Though maybe that's why you think Mario won the Conn Smythe in 1991 - he sure was rested for those playoffs having been confined to a hospital bed for months!

 

[PenguinSpeed]

He wasn't that old (35), had years of rest, played extensively with peak Jagr, and if anyone didn't pass Lemieux the puck he'd have them traded - no matter how good they were, and he sustained if for all of half a season. Ovechkin sustained his pace for 81 games.

-In 2003 he was on the verge of turning 38. And your rest argument holds no water whenever anyone has surgery on their spinal cord.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

I think it's pretty disingenous to spin not playing hockey for years as "rest", like it's the same thing as getting an extra day off between games

Though maybe that's why you think Mario won the Conn Smythe in 1991 - he sure was rested for those playoffs having been confined to a hospital bed for months!

-Apparently Hodgkins Cancer is no big deal. Nor is radiation treatment.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think it's pretty disingenous to spin not playing hockey for years as "rest", like it's the same thing as getting an extra day off between games

That's interesting because every Pens fan was saying their team was tired from playing too much hockey these past 3 seasons. Are they all confused and misguided?

Is hockey actually NOT a grind? Does playing 82 games a season actually NOT require stamina? Do players not accumulate nagging injuries and wear and tear every season?

 

[Sentinel]

if you're suggesting that malkin's 109 point season -- which prorates to 119 if he'd played all 82 games -- is on the level yzerman's 155 point season, then why not sakic's 118 point season in 2001?

Or Fedorov's 124 point season in 93-94? He did not win the Art Ross that season (Gretzky), but neither did Yzerman. Add to that his Selke.

 

[daver]

if you're suggesting that malkin's 109 point season -- which prorates to 119 if he'd played all 82 games -- is on the level yzerman's 155 point season, then why not sakic's 118 point season in 2001? without jagr and mario, that's a pretty weak pack, but it's not like iginla, forsberg, or MSL winning the art ross by a few points in the next three seasons; sakic was more than 20 points ahead of the next guy.

and yeah, i agree. if we saw the same mcdavid of the second half of last season over a full season, i'd put him in that sub-howe/orr/gretzky/mario echelon.

The 00/01 season saw a total of 28 players out of the Top 50 scorers hit a PPG. In 11/12, that number was 8. Clearly the scoring environments were different, the amount of PPs called being the primary factor, making Malkin's 119 point pace more impressive, IMO.

Sakic's PPG - 1.44

Best PPG's among the Top 20 scorers
Forsberg - 1.22
Palffy - 1.22
Kovalev - 1.20
Fleury - 1.19
Elias - 1.17

Note: that Forsberg and Palffy only played 73 games so the gap of 20 points you mentioned is a bit misleading.

Malkin - 1.45

Best PPG's among the Top 20 scorers
Giroux - 1.21
Stamkos - 1.18
Kovalchuk - 1.08
Spezza - 1.05
Neal - 1.01
Kessel - 1.00

I think Sakic's season was very impressive and his Selke recognition arguably moves that season into that top echelon but from an offensive perspective, it is below.

 

[daver]

Or Fedorov's 124 point season in 93-94? He did not win the Art Ross that season (Gretzky), but neither did Yzerman. Add to that his Selke.

He had 120 points. Fedorov did not clearly separate himself from the pack like Malkin or Sakic did.

Fedorov's PPG - 1.46

Best PPG's among the Top 20 scorers
Lindros - 1.49
Oates - 1.45
Bure - 1.41
Turgeon - 1.36
Gilmour 1.34

 

[GuineaPig]

That's interesting because every Pens fan was saying their team was tired from playing too much hockey these past 3 seasons. Are they all confused and misguided?

Is hockey actually NOT a grind? Does playing 82 games a season actually NOT require stamina? Do players not accumulate nagging injuries and wear and tear every season?

I'm sorry, have you ever done physical exercise? There's a pretty massive difference between taking extra time between intense sessions of activity and months or years of inactivity. The former helps grow/repair muscles, and the latter causes them to atrophy.

This is like asking "if humans need food to survive, how can eating too much food be bad for you?"

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm sorry, have you ever done physical exercise? There's a pretty massive difference between taking extra time between intense sessions of activity and months or years of inactivity. The former helps grow/repair muscles, and the latter causes them to atrophy.

This is like asking "if humans need food to survive, how can eating too much food be bad for you?"

We're talking about a young man in the prime of his life. At age 32, 33, 34, atrophy need not be a big problem. If it was, then it is Lemieux's fault.

But I do enjoy how players are fatigued when it suits their fans, or atrophied when it suits their fans - whichever supports the narrative of the moment.

I also enjoy how Lemieux somehow gets bonus points for allegedly not keeping himself in shape.

 

[Laineux]

Didn't Lemieux say that he was in the best shape of his life when he made the comeback?

Of course that wouldn't negate the "rink rust". But Lemieux didn't exactly continue with that pace going forward.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The 00/01 season saw a total of 28 players out of the Top 50 scorers hit a PPG. In 11/12, that number was 8. Clearly the scoring environments were different, the amount of PPs called being the primary factor, making Malkin's 119 point pace more impressive, IMO.

Sakic's PPG - 1.44

Best PPG's among the Top 20 scorers
Forsberg - 1.22
Palffy - 1.22
Kovalev - 1.20
Fleury - 1.19
Elias - 1.17

Note: that Forsberg and Palffy only played 73 games so the gap of 20 points you mentioned is a bit misleading.

Malkin - 1.45

Best PPG's among the Top 20 scorers
Giroux - 1.21
Stamkos - 1.18
Kovalchuk - 1.08
Spezza - 1.05
Neal - 1.01
Kessel - 1.00

I think Sakic's season was very impressive and his Selke recognition arguably moves that season into that top echelon but from an offensive perspective, it is below.

2001 had more powerplays than 2000 or 2002, but it only marginally had more powerplays than 2003 (leading scorer: 106 points). and yes, forsberg missed some games, but we're talking about peter forsberg in his best year; he's supposed to be nipping at the heels of sakic in his best year.

without having thought about this too much, or really deep-diving into the seasons involved, my initial observation is malkin: 1.45 points/game, sakic 1.44 points/game, giroux 1.21 points/game, forsberg 1.22 points/game. so yes, there were a lot more players in the 1-1.2 points/game range, but neither sakic nor malkin were in that range. and i don't necessarily see the evidence that whatever advantages the "pack" had in 2001 were shared by the outlier (sakic) over 2012's outlier (malkin). unless you want to argue that giroux in 2012 was better than forsberg in 2001?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Or Fedorov's 124 point season in 93-94? He did not win the Art Ross that season (Gretzky), but neither did Yzerman. Add to that his Selke.

the post i was responding to was talking about points only, not overall play. fedorov's margin over the next guy isn't close to the level we're discussing, i think.

 

[daver]

2001 had more powerplays than 2000 or 2002, but it only marginally had more powerplays than 2003 (leading scorer: 106 points). and yes, forsberg missed some games, but we're talking about peter forsberg in his best year; he's supposed to be nipping at the heels of sakic in his best year.

Forsberg's PPG 02/03 was 1.41.