Where do Ovechkin and Crosby Rank?

[bambamcam4ever]

When comparing two players with similar point totals, while one has a lot more goals, the goal scorer is almost always the better player, since goals are statistically more valuable than assists. Whether Crosby and Ovechkin are actually similar enough as point getters to make this true is another question, however.

Do you have evidence of this, or is this just another goals are more rare and therefore more valuable argument?

 

[steve141]

When the same players put up the most assists year after year does that not remove the arbitrary aspect?

You misunderstood. The definition of the "assist" stat is pretty arbitrary. The assigning of assists to players according to the decided rules is not arbitrary. It's no coincidence that good playmakers get a lot of assists.

 

[Fantomas]

Well hockey is about scoring goals, how are stats like goals and assists an imperfect stat?

How else do you want to measure offensive ability?

It's one thing to criticize something but what exactly is the alternative?

I am not recommending alternatives to goals and assists. I am saying that we should not leave things at that. We have many other advanced stats to consider, which matter as well. Furthermore, fans should understand that "points" does not provide a complete picture, as tempting as it may be to think that more points = better offense.

I think that as a stat "goals" is a fairly clearcut category, even if one is to say that some goals matter than others. Assists are less clearcut, because the decision to count two assists per goal - rather than one or three - is purely a cultural construct. Points is just altogether arbitrary. Why would a goal and an assist both count equivalently as points? If one actually stops and thinks about the logic, there is pretty much none to it.

Traditional stats are frequently reductive and selective. Think of baseball stats, for example, which for many years looked at batting average, home runs and RBIs as sufficient measurements of offensive ability. Only recently have there been efforts made to look beyond these, and also pay attention to on-base-percentage, runs scored and more complex (context-specific) stats like WAR.

A hockey fan does not need to be a stat geek to develop a healthy skepticism of traditional stats. A player with 100 points is not necessarily a better offensive contributor than a player with 90 points.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you have evidence of this, or is this just another goals are more rare and therefore more valuable argument?

Goals being more rare is the statistical evidence.

 

[daver]

You misunderstood. The definition of the "assist" stat is pretty arbitrary. The assigning of assists to players according to the decided rules is not arbitrary. It's no coincidence that good playmakers get a lot of assists.

Which is how I look at it. Players with more points, whether it was a goal or an assist, have made more plays that have lead to goals.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Goals being more rare is the statistical evidence.

So are primary assists more valuable than goals since they are more rare?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So are primary assists more valuable than goals since they are more rare?

No, because there is a maximum of one primary assist per goal, but there is a maximum of 2 total assists per goal. I guess I didn't really explain myself well earlier.

I've thought for awhile that goals + primary assists + (secondary assists/2) would be a more accurate representation of offensive value among forwards, though I understand why the NHL would have gone with simplicity.

 

[Voight]

We can only judge Crosby after his 10 seasons. Obviously injuries have affected Crosby's totals but he is actually the overall points leader in his era when playoffs are included and he has played 100 games less than anyone else..

Right but you're cherry picking to help his and your case.

How exactly do you explain Ovechkins lead in trophies then, if Crosby has the "better point totals?"

 

[Hardyvan123]

When comparing two players with similar point totals, while one has a lot more goals, the goal scorer is almost always the better player, since goals are statistically more valuable than assists. Whether Crosby and Ovechkin are actually similar enough as point getters to make this true is another question, however.

I would argue the stronger argument is the one who is only 43 points away with 134 less games played is more impressive, even as impressive as AO has been as a goal scorer.

Throw in the fact that AO has a lower low, and less elite consistency than Sid has had in his career.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Right but you're cherry picking to help his and your case.

How exactly do you explain Ovechkins lead in trophies then, if Crosby has the "better point totals?"

Really this isn't hard to figure out as there is only 1 trophy for post season for individuals and regular season trophies tend to favour guys who play close to or all 82 games.

Furthermore a lot of the edge in trophies for AO is Richard specific, if we include all trophies, ie SC and Olympic golds it tends to not look as one sided.

that being said at least 2 of AO's Hart trophies weren't really huge victories or the margin between Sid in 06 (sure AO has a clear edge but sid got very little attention from voters depsite having almsot as good a rookie season as AO and 13, were AO's lead over Sid is minuscule and stastically insignifacnt really.

Aas for those already crowning AO as this years winner, where is the actual logic behind that?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would argue the stronger argument is the one who is only 43 points away with 134 less games played is more impressive, even as impressive as AO has been as a goal scorer.

Throw in the fact that AO has a lower low, and less elite consistency than Sid has had in his career.

It's a valid argument, but... a 134 difference in games for two players who were rookies in the same season is quite large, right?

Really this isn't hard to figure out as there is only 1 trophy for post season for individuals and regular season trophies tend to favour guys who play close to or all 82 games.

Furthermore a lot of the edge in trophies for AO is Richard specific, if we include all trophies, ie SC and Olympic golds it tends to not look as one sided.

that being said at least 2 of AO's Hart trophies weren't really huge victories or the margin between Sid in 06 (sure AO has a clear edge but sid got very little attention from voters depsite having almsot as good a rookie season as AO and 13, were AO's lead over Sid is minuscule and stastically insignifacnt really.

Aas for those already crowning AO as this years winner, where is the actual logic behind that?

Ovechkin's 2007-08 and 2008-09 Hart Trophies were both landslides.

128 of 134 1st place votes in 2007-08; 115 of 133 1st place votes in 2008-09.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's a valid argument, but... a 134 difference in games for two players who were rookies in the same season is quite large, right?

yes it is much greater than their difference in points and given Sid's age and any luck in health he will match AO in points in probably less than 100 games when he does, which is just very impressive.

Ovechkin's 2007-08 and 2008-09 Hart Trophies were both landslides.

128 of 134 1st place votes in 2007-08; 115 of 133 1st place votes in 2008-09.

I did some work on this but i need to wake up in 5 hours and will be out in the bush will have more on this later but it looks like Malkin was hurt more in Hart voting than Sid over the years, but will add and think about it while I'm away.

 

[daver]

The OP is about all-time rankings, not OV vs. Crosby.

At this point, OV may get the nod over Crosby because of superior regular season numbers.

This doesn't mean that OV is the better player or has had the better career.

 

[daver]

Right but you're cherry picking to help his and your case.

How exactly do you explain Ovechkins lead in trophies then, if Crosby has the "better point totals?"

I did not mention OV, why are you?

I am showing Crosby's dominance vs. his peers in his first ten years is similar to other all-time greats like Howe's in their ten year primes. Obviously games played is a factor but does that mean Crosby gets rated in the same tier as them but at the lower end due to lower raw numbers.

 

[Beau Knows]

Looks like they are both going to end the season at or near the top of the league in scoring again. 10 years of elite play from these guys, pretty incredible really.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Ovechkin has 46 more points in 130+ more games. Any non biased person can see Crosby is easily the better offensive player.

 

[The Panther]

Ovechkin has 46 more points in 130+ more games. Any non biased person can see Crosby is easily the better offensive player.

That's just silly. If we were talking about a sample size of 100 games, then 46 more points would almost unquestionably mean the high-scoring player is better offensively. But here, we are talking about something like 614 games (Cros) to 749 (Ovi). In this sample size, 46 more points is noteworthy (in that Crosby has a higher PPG), but hardly conclusive that one player is better offensively.

For example, in the 80s, Denis Savard had a higher PPG than Mark Messier. But was Savard the better offensive player? Or, in 1990-91, Adam Oates had a higher PPG than Brett Hull, yet Hull was NHL MVP.

There are exceptions, but in general it's harder to acquire NHL goals than NHL assists. Ovechkin's clear superiority to Crosby in goal scoring has to be taken into consideration, as does Crosby's stellar consistency and SC Finals' runs.

I have no dog in this fight as I prefer neither player or team -- I'm very non-biased, you could say. But I disagree with your point.

 

[daver]

That's just silly. If we were talking about a sample size of 100 games, then 46 more points would almost unquestionably mean the high-scoring player is better offensively. But here, we are talking about something like 614 games (Cros) to 749 (Ovi). In this sample size, 46 more points is noteworthy (in that Crosby has a higher PPG), but hardly conclusive that one player is better offensively.

If we are talking raw points, then OV is the better player offensively (not including playoffs which would push Crosby ahead).

If we are talking PPG, then Crosby is the better player offensively.

If you can prove that Crosby's playmaking (goals and assists) has been less effective than OV's, then a goals vs. assists breakdown can be discussed.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

In his next 130 games crosby will likely face 160-170 points. Crosby hit 800 points 87 games faster than ovechkin. He hits every milestone much faster in terms of games played and this is him being injured for a huge part of his peak

 

[The Panther]

If you can prove that Crosby's playmaking (goals and assists) has been less effective than OV's, then a goals vs. assists breakdown can be discussed.

Nowhere have I suggested that Crosby's playmaking is less effective than Ovechkin's.

I have only suggested that one player scoring 46 more points after ten years does not rule out all discussion that the other player might be the better player (offensively, or in general).

I actually couldn't care less about Crosby vs. Ovechkin, as I'm not particularly a fan of either. I'm also not sure why we're discussing this on the History forum...

 

[daver]

Nowhere have I suggested that Crosby's playmaking is less effective than Ovechkin's.

I have only suggested that one player scoring 46 more points after ten years does not rule out all discussion that the other player might be the better player (offensively, or in general).

I actually couldn't care less about Crosby vs. Ovechkin, as I'm not particularly a fan of either. I'm also not sure why we're discussing this on the History forum...

In terms of ranking players, I would think raw numbers would hold a bit more water than PPG but that's not to say it is completely black and white.

 

[eddytheeagle20]

The OP is about all-time rankings, not OV vs. Crosby.

At this point, OV may get the nod over Crosby because of superior regular season numbers.

This doesn't mean that OV is the better player or has had the better career.

ou must think Lemieux was a better player then gretzgy

 

[daver]

ou must think Lemieux was a better player then gretzgy

I don't recall Mario being a better player on a per game basis so no I don't. I think Mario is better than every else ahead of him on the all-time scoring list though.

 

[Voight]

The OP is about all-time rankings, not OV vs. Crosby.

At this point, OV may get the nod over Crosby because of superior regular season numbers.

This doesn't mean that OV is the better player or has had the better career.

And because of a superior trophy case. Very few players have three Harts and he has an outside shot at a 4th this year. Lets not forget the multiple Richard wins.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think straight up listing without positions, Ovechkin will end up considerably better than Crosby, both will be top 50.

Without playoff success, Ovechkin will not. Better slightly? Perhaps but the postseason is where players can really separate in these types of discussions. Crosby, while underwhelming lately has a clear advantage in the playoffs as well as international acclaim. The only reason why this is an argument IMO is Sid was robbed of essentially 2 years due to cheap shots and a slap shot from his own neanderthal teammate (Orpik), which cost him 2 clear Hart wins, among other awards. It's a great rivalry nonetheless in an era where there isn't much top end F talent. I just wish the league wasn't doing it's best to suppress the stars and turn the game more towards the late 90's and early 2000's type of hockey. We don't need the 80's wide open crap, but the game is getting tough to watch right now.