Who is the best peak player since 2000?

[Midnight Judges]

To expand it a bit further he had 17 points in his first 8 games in 2013-14 which he means he had 197 points in 116 consecutive regular season games (beating Forsberg's 183 in 115 like I suspected) for a 139 point pace over 82 games. Unfortunately though, David Steckel.

Those aren't consecutive games. Missing 50% of a season, then 75% of a season, then the playoffs, then 25% of the next season is the opposite of consecutive games. Ask Cal Ripken.

What you mean is consecutive games that Crosby played in during half, quarter, and a 36 game season. It's an abuse of the term (just like when peope claim Crosby is consistent without the "when healthy" caveat).

It's an important distinction because while virtually every other player was dealing with sprains and strains, pulled muscles, hairline fractures, slashed fingers, etc, Crosby's body was 100% fresh.

82 games of hockey is a marathon - a grind. It takes a toll. To think otherwise is not equitable to the players who showed up every night.

Nonconsecutive "streaks" like Crosby's or Forsberg's are much less meaningful than if a player actually achieved those levels of productivity in actual consecutive games - which Ovechkin did BTW (he may have missed a game or two).

 

[Sam Spade]

It’s wayyy more impressive doing it during the first half than the 2nd half, especially 4 years in a row.

Wait, what? There is a reason why every season guys get off to insane starts and then slow down (or settle into who they really are) EVERY season. The beginning of the season you are healthy, your teammates are healthy, you are hyped for the season to begin, the goalies haven't gotten into a groove yet, etc.

Guys that produce in the second half are way more impressive.

 

[authentic]

It’s wayyy more impressive doing it during the first half than the 2nd half, especially 4 years in a row.

Crosby didnt show ONE sign of slowing down during those years. None.

In the second half teams are really gearing up for the playoffs and at the beginning of the season teams can still be a little rusty and the games less intense and more wide open offensively so I'm not sure that's true, but the fact that he played at that pace for over 100 straight games between 22-26 it's pretty obvious that was his peak level of play. In full seasons he could've slowed down and still scored 120 points though.

 

[authentic]

Those aren't consecutive games. Missing 50% of a season, then 75% of a season, then the playoffs, then 25% of the next season is the opposite of consecutive games. Ask Cal Ripken.

What you mean is consecutive games that Crosby played in during half, quarter, and a 36 game season. It's an abuse of the term (just like when peope claim Crosby is consistent without the "when healthy" caveat).

It's an important distinction because while virtually every other player was dealing with sprains and strains, pulled muscles, hairline fractures, slashed fingers, etc, Crosby's body was 100% fresh.

82 games of hockey is a marathon - a grind. It takes a toll. To think otherwise is not equitable to the players who showed up every night.

Nonconsecutive "streaks" like Crosby's or Forsberg's are much less meaningful than if a player actually achieved those levels of productivity in actual consecutive games - which Ovechkin did BTW (he may have missed a game or two).

I don't believe they're completely equal either, but like I mentioned Crosby could have slowed from that pace considerably and still scored over 120 points. I mean he did it as a 19 year old in a higher scoring season, but in 79 games and anyone who watched Crosby in 2007 and from 2010-13 knows he was a better player later on because no player in the history of the league peaked at 19, Crosby included.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The best consecutive regular season streak Ovechkin had was 189 in 120 games for a 129 point pace over 82, but he also scored 90 goals which is a 62 goal pace compared to Crosby's 47, so you could still make a case for Ovechkin's streak being the best.

Ovechkin's streak is by far the best, because Crosby's "streak" isn't a streak at all.

 

[authentic]

Ovechkin's streak is by far the best, because Crosby's "streak" isn't a streak at all.

You're the judge I suppose.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You're the judge I suppose.

I think the dictionary is the judge:

Streak:

1. a spell or run: a streak of good luck.
2. an uninterrupted series: The team had a losing streak of ten games.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Wait, what? There is a reason why every season guys get off to insane starts and then slow down (or settle into who they really are) EVERY season. The beginning of the season you are healthy, your teammates are healthy, you are hyped for the season to begin, the goalies haven't gotten into a groove yet, etc.

Guys that produce in the second half are way more impressive.

Yes it’s more impressive given that you don’t have a sample size showing that it was mostly a hot streak. I’ll give you an example.

Who’s the better player?

Player 1:
First half: 66 pts in 41GP
Second half: injured
Total: 66 in 41 1,61 PPG

Player 2:
First half: 45 pts in 41GP
Second half: 60 pts in 41GP
Total: 105 in 82 1,28 PPG

Now imagine that player 1 starts the next 3 seasons with a PPG higher than 1,50 and gets injured mid season. (Or vise versa in 2012)

 

[Midnight Judges]

We can say this a dozen different ways.

Would a GM rather have Ovechkin from 2008-2010 playing full seasons or Crosby playing half and quarter seasons from 2011 to 2013?

Would Ovechkin's 171 goals and 331 points from 2007 to 2010 help his team win the most or would Crosby's 55 goals and 159 points from 2010 to 2013 somehow help his team win more?

There is simply no way it comes up Crosby. There is a correct vote, and there is a homer vote. There is no case for Crosby.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

In the second half teams are really gearing up for the playoffs and at the beginning of the season teams can still be a little rusty and the games less intense and more wide open offensively so I'm not sure that's true, but the fact that he played at that pace for over 100 straight games between 22-26 it's pretty obvious that was his peak level of play. In full seasons he could've slowed down and still scored 120 points though.

On the flip side, you have some teams that are bringing up young guys and trading players at the trade deadline knowing that they won’t make the playoffs in the 2nd half.

Also, not every players are having a hot streaks to start the season. Some players need more time to adjust to let’s say, new linemates, new system..

Like you said, the fact that the guy started the season on a torrid pace 4 times in a row with pretty much confirms that it wasn’t some flukes.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I think the dictionary is the judge:

Streak:

1. a spell or run: a streak of good luck.
2. an uninterrupted series: The team had a losing streak of ten games.

Speaking of streaks, Crosby had a 25 game pts streak with 50 pts in his 2010-2011 season.

 

[authentic]

I think the dictionary is the judge:

Streak:

1. a spell or run: a streak of good luck.
2. an uninterrupted series: The team had a losing streak of ten games.

Well we're not talking techinically about a point streak either because any game you go pointless would interrupt it. Crosby scored that much in consecutive regular season games he played in during the peak of his career and you are free to rank him as you wish based on that fact.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

We can say this a dozen different ways.

Would a GM rather have Ovechkin from 2008-2010 playing full seasons or Crosby playing half and quarter seasons from 2011 to 2013?

Would Ovechkin's 171 goals and 331 points from 2007 to 2010 help his team win the most or would Crosby's 55 goals and 159 points from 2010 to 2013 somehow help his team win more?

There is simply no way it comes up Crosby. There is a correct vote, and there is a homer vote. There is no case for Crosby.

A GM would probably take a 2010-2011 Crosby knowing he wouldn’t get injured over anything OV has shown in his career.

 

[Midnight Judges]

A GM would probably take a 2010-2011 Crosby knowing he wouldn’t get injured over anything OV has shown in his career.

You are choosing to live in fantasyland. What you are imagining did not happen.

You are forced to revert to imaginary scenarios because reality does not support your homerism. You unwittingly acknowledge that every time you make arguments based on things that didn't occur.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

You are choosing to live in fantasyland. What you are imagining did not happen.

You are forced to revert to imaginary scenarios because reality does not support your homerism. You unwittingly acknowledge that every time you make arguments based on things that didn't occur.

I would suggest you to re-read my post.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I would suggest you to re-read my post.

Fantasyland.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Fantasyland.

Does that change the fact that Crosby at his best was very arguably better than Ovechkin at his best?

Not really.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Does that change the fact that Crosby at his best was very arguably better than Ovechkin at his best?

Not really.

You keep making this argument as if sustained excellence is worth no more than intermittent excellence.

It requires you to pretend GMs pick players knowing they won't get injured.

It requires you to pretend consecutive games can be played in quarter season chunks - and compare those chunks to players who showed up every night.

None of that is real.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

You keep making this argument as if sustained excellence is worth no more than intermittent excellence.

It requires you to pretend GMs pick players knowing they won't get injured.

It requires you to pretend consecutive games can be played in quarter season chunks - and compare those chunks to players who showed up every night.

None of that is real.

What does this have to do with Peak level of play?

I already said that Ovechkins full seasons were more impressive than Crosby’s full seasons. Obviously GMs will pick Ovechkin for a full season if they know Crosby will be injured, but that’s not the point at all..

They would most likely pick Crosby for their team at peak play over Ovechkin. I don’t know why you are always trying to spin it to full seasons...

 

[Midnight Judges]

What does this have to do with Peak level of play?

I already said that Ovechkins full seasons were more impressive than Crosby’s full seasons. Obviously GMs will pick Ovechkin for a full season if they know Crosby will be injured, but that’s not the point at all..

They would most likely pick Crosby for their team at peak play over Ovechkin. I don’t know why you are always trying to spin it to full seasons...

How small of a sample is reasonable in terms of judging peaks of generational players in your opinion? Seems to me a full season is a reasonable minimum.

When you get down to half seasons and less, you are going to find some anomalies that - IMO - are not indicative.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

How small of a sample is reasonable in terms of judging peaks of generational players in your opinion? Seems to me a full season is a reasonable minimum.

When you get down to half seasons and less, you are going to find some anomalies that - IMO - are not indicative.

Crosby played 100+ games at that level. It’s almost as if you’re blaming Crosby for getting injured and putting up ridiculous numbers in the games he played.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Crosby played 100+ games at that level. It’s almost as if you’re blaming Crosby for getting injured and putting up ridiculous numbers in the games he played.

I am absolutely evaluating Crosby for being injured, and Ovechkin for being durable. Because that is reality.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I am absolutely evaluating Crosby for being injured, and Ovechkin for being durable. Because that is reality.

Durability is another overrated aspect on this forum. How in your right mind would you think Crosby could have dodged the Steckel hit or the Hedman hit? You get injured and then you become injury prone... not the opposite. Same thing applies with Malkin. It’s just a part of the game.

It would be ridiculous to hold Crosby’s injuries against him due to his poor durability. It’s just a ridiculous, homerism statement.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Durability is another overrated aspect on this forum. How in your right mind would you think Crosby could have dodged the Steckel hit or the Hedman hit? You get injured and then you become injury prone... not the opposite. Same thing applies with Malkin. It’s just a part of the game.

It would be ridiculous to hold Crosby’s injuries against him due to his poor durability. It’s just a ridiculous, homerism statement.

Ovechkin has taken exponentially more hits and more hard hits than Crosby - to the head, to the face, you name it. He stays on the ice and produces for his team.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports. Without health, a player is less than worthless.

There are tons of great athletes out there that are undersized - and that's the primary reason they aren't professionals.

Body type is fair game when evaluating athletes - especially when it enhances or impedes the desired result - which is obviously to help your team win.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Ovechkin has taken exponentially more hits and more hard hits than Crosby - to the head, to the face, you name it. He stays on the ice and produces for his team.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports. Without health, a player is less than worthless.

There are tons of great athletes out there that are undersized - and that's the primary reason they aren't professionals.

Body type is fair game when evaluating athletes - especially when it enhances or impedes the desired result - which is obviously to help your team win.

Wait, who was more durable in your opinion Gretzky or Lemieux? You'd probably say Lemieux since he was bigger right?

Do you have any videos of Ovechkin getting hit hard to the head because I don't recall him getting hit to the head very often.

Anybody who would have been hit to the head like Crosby did for his concussions would have suffered a concussion too.