"Who Was Better, Crosby or MacKinnon?" Has Become A Valid Question

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

To sum up your evidence:

"Jamie Benn, LOL"

"Ryan Getzlaf, LOL"

I'd put it more as

McDavid, MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Kucherov >>>>>>>>>>>> Getzlaf, Seguin, Benn, Hall, therefore winning the Ross is harder today, and raw trophy counts are meaningless.

But, yeah, pretty much.

You initially said that league scoring was lower simply because there were so many fewer elite scorers in the league.

I disagreed and said there are multiple factors.

You then admitted there are multiple factors as well.

No, I said it was easier to finish top 10 in scoring and win the Ross.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

No, I said it was easier to finish top 10 in scoring.

No, you said this:

I'd also love to see evidence to suggest league scoring was down due to traps and obstruction, and not simply because there were so many fewer elite scorers in the league.

And I disagreed with this point.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

No, you said this:



And I disagreed with this point.

And you've provided zero evidence that suggests a lower number of high end scorers isn't why scoring averages were still so low in an era when the average player was so much better.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

And you've provided zero evidence that suggests a lower number of high end scorers isn't why scoring averages were still so low in an era when the average player was so much better.

Lets figure something out. Yes or no, league scoring is solely dependent on how many elite players are in the league?

A few comments ago you said:

And, I fully agree variations in overall league scoring are due to a lot of different factors

So which is it?

Do you think that there are multiple factors involved, or is it simply down to the number of elite players?

 

[HolyHagelin]

does anyone actually believe we can prove 100% conclusively exactly which factors contributed how much to league scoring rates? Demands to “prove it” are childish. Present your evidence and argument in the strongest possible way, this can never be “proven.”

Let’s flip the elite scorers argument around for a minute.

Is the true reason for the DPE just better goalies, and it is easier to score now because the replacements suck comparatively? Given the larger number of events each goalie is involved in this seems far more likely to be a causal factor than variance in a few elite offensive players at the top.

So that must be it, the goalies now just suck. Especially Shesterkin, what an overrated Russian prick.

(I hope I don’t actually need to add this sarcasm tag)

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Lets figure something out. Yes or no, league scoring is solely dependent on how many elite players are in the league?

A few comments ago you said:



So which is it?

Do you think that there are multiple factors involved, or is it simply down to the number of elite players?

No, overall league scoring is based on a multitude of factors, with the number of elite players being one of them.

But, as I've been saying, the number of elite scorers who are capable of challenging other elite scorers for the scoring title is solely dependent on the number of elite players in the league, and beating guys who aren't elite isn't proof that you had a better season than an elite guy who placed 5th behind 4 other elite guys, which means raw trophy counts and scoring ranks are meaningless without context.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

No, overall league scoring is based on a multitude of factors, with the number of elite players being one of them.

K. This is what I have been saying since the start. I disagreed with you saying league wide scoring is solely based on how many elite players are in the league.

But, as I've been saying, the number of elite scorers who are capable of challenging other elite scorers for the scoring title is solely dependent on the number of elite players in the league, and beating guys who aren't elite isn't proof that you had a better season than an elite guy who placed 5th behind 4 other elite guys, which means raw trophy counts and scoring ranks are meaningless without context.

I have never once mentioned how difficult it is to win scoring titles, so Im not sure why you keep bringing this up with me. I think you have confused who you are talking to.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

K. This is what I have been saying since the start. I disagreed with you saying league wide scoring is solely based on how many elite players are in the league.


I have never once mentioned how difficult it is to win scoring titles, so Im not sure why you keep bringing this up with me. I think you have confused who you are talking to.

It's not solely based on it, but when you only have one or two high end scorers skewing averages up, it certainly has a negative impact on overall scoring rates.

And I keep bringing it up because that was my initial claim, which so many people seem to have misunderstood as me saying something else. Everything else a tangent that someone else brought up and tried to claim proved me wrong.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

It's not solely based on it, but when you only have one or two high end scorers skewing averages up, it certainly has a negative impact on overall scoring rates.

And I keep bringing it up because that was my initial claim, which so many people seem to have misunderstood as me saying something else. Everything else a tangent that someone else brought up and tried to claim proved me wrong.

k.

 

[daver]

It's not solely based on it, but when you only have one or two high end scorers skewing averages up, it certainly has a negative impact on overall scoring rates.

So 2012 to 2016 had only "one or two high end scorers" which brought the league GPG from about 3.00 to 2.73. And now that there are more than "one or two high end scorers" starting in 2017, the league GPG has risen to about 3.14.

Let's assume that a "high end scorer" brings his team, what, 10 to 15 more goals vs. an average first liner. Guess how many more total goals do you think it takes to move the league GPG from 2.74 to 3.14.

About a thousand.

So by your theory, the four more "high end scorers" that have come into the league since 2017 have accounted for an average of 250 more goals scored.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Prior to his 153 point season mcdavids best season was likely 17-18 with 108 points but was especially supernatural at ev. He got better with age but that mcdavid puts up much more in todays league even at 21. Scoring levels matter

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

So 2012 to 2016 had only "one or two high end scorers" which brought the league GPG from about 3.00 to 2.73. And now that there are more than "one or two high end scorers" starting in 2017, the league GPG has risen to about 3.14.

Let's assume that a "high end scorer" brings his team, what, 10 to 15 more goals vs. an average first liner. Guess how many more total goals do you think it takes to move the league GPG from 2.74 to 3.14.

About a thousand.

So by your theory, the four more "high end scorers" that have come into the league since 2017 have accounted for an average of 250 more goals scored.

Sort of, but you're way off on a few things.

League scoring has only been 3.0 or higher once since 1995-96, and that was mostly because in 2005-06, the league was handing out power plays like they were Halloween candy. 96-97, 2006-07 and 2008-09 were the only 3 other years over 2.9. Other than that, scoring was consistently pretty low (2.54 - 2.79 GPG) for almost 20 years.

Over that time, the range between the top and bottom players shrunk. Low end guys coming into the league got better, elite guys coming into the league got fewer and farther between, and averages stayed pretty much the same. By the time 2011-12 rolled around, all the previously elite guys had aged out of the league, leaving only really Crosby, Malkin and OV as the truly elite players in the NHL. Over the next 4 years, one of Malkin/Crosby was generally hurt, and OV was more about scoring goals than amassing 100+ points, so the race for the Ross was wide open for that next tier of guy to jump into the top 5, and we saw guys who were clearly not at that same level, like Benn and Getzlaf and Seguin either take home hardware or finish in the top 5. And Crosby beating Getzlaf, Giroux, and Seguin isn't the same level of accomplishment as Crosby beating Thornton, Lecavalier, and Heatley. He won both years, but one is much more impressive, right? So why do they both count the same? This is why I detest using raw trophy counts and scoring ranks as evidence of anything.

Starting in 2013, drafts started getting much better and by 2017, there were a handful of new elite guys at the top of the scoring charts, putting up 100+ point seasons. The next year, there were more. The year after that, even more. In addition to the elite guys, the non-elite guys these new elite guys played with are scoring more too. And a lot of the next tier of guys are now on 2nd lines instead of the top of the scoring charts, and scoring more than 2nd liners from before. The only way averages don't go up significantly in this scenario is if there's also a lot more guys who can't score for shit coming into the league, but that obviously didn't happen. And none of this happens without the plethora of elite talent from the post 2013 drafts at the top of the league today. That's what finally drove scoring up so much, without any question in my mind. And we keep adding more elite talent, so I'm not sure when scoring is going to come back down. Probably not until there's another long string of weak drafts, based on what I'm seeing.

If you want to claim it's some other reason, you're going to need some pretty strong evidence to convince me.

 

[Offtheboard412]

And Crosby beating Getzlaf, Giroux, and Seguin isn't the same level of accomplishment as Crosby beating Thornton, Lecavalier, and Heatley. He won both years, but one is much more impressive, right?

Eh not really. Most people seem to rank his 13/14 season above his 06/07 season. He won by a much larger margin in 13/14 than he did in 06/07. Thornton stands out as the best of the bunch, but I don't see much of a gap between the others. Giroux has multiple top 5 finishes, including coming in second to McDavid in 17/18 when all those supposed better players had arrived. Lecavalier has the one big season in 06/07 and a strong 07/08 season but outside of that was never a consistently elite player. I also don't think it's out of the question that prime Getzlaf could have put up 100+ in 06/07 when Lecavalier did it. As for Seguin, he has been disappointing since then but for a couple years there he and Jamie Benn were a great duo and I really don't think he was that far off from Heatley offensively.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Eh not really. Most people seem to rank his 13/14 season above his 06/07 season. He won by a much larger margin in 13/14 than he did in 06/07. Thornton stands out as the best of the bunch, but I don't see much of a gap between the others. Giroux has multiple top 5 finishes, including coming in second to McDavid in 17/18 when all those supposed better players had arrived. Lecavalier has the one big season in 06/07 and a strong 07/08 season but outside of that was never a consistently elite player. I also don't think it's out of the question that prime Getzlaf could have put up 100+ in 06/07 when Lecavalier did it. As for Seguin, he has been disappointing since then but for a couple years there he and Jamie Benn were a great duo and I really don't think he was that far off from Heatley offensively.

What most people seem to think means very little to me. To paraphrase George Carlin, half the people out there are dumber than average, and average isn't that smart to begin with.

I agree that Giroux and Lecavalier aren't far apart, and Getzlaf could plausibly reach that level during his career best offensive season with 6+ minutes of PP time per night, but I absolutely put Heatley up there with Thornton in terms of offensive talent. 625 points over his first 589 games, 89 points in 77 games prior to the lockout. A couple of 100 point seasons after it, including back to back 50 goal seasons. To me, that's significantly better than anything Giroux did in his career, and probably 2 or 3 tiers above Seguin or Benn's best seasons.

So, 2006-07, Crosby beat three of the 4 best guys I listed. To me, that's much more impressive than beating lesser competition by a larger margin. Best against best is where it's at, not the best beating up on lesser players.

 

[Givememoneyback]

I'd put it more as

McDavid, MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Kucherov >>>>>>>>>>>> Getzlaf, Seguin, Benn, Hall, therefore winning the Ross is harder today, and raw trophy counts are meaningless.

But, yeah, pretty much.



No, I said it was easier to finish top 10 in scoring and win the Ross.

You left Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kane and a few others off the less than.

Regarding the original post, validity is a formal thing. Bad questions can be all together valid.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You left Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kane and a few others off the less than.

Regarding the original post, validity is a formal thing. Bad questions can be all together valid.

Why would I put Crosby in the list of guys Crosby was legitimately competing with for the Ross in 2013-14 and 14-15?

Or Malkin, who wasn't top 10 in scoring in 2013-14 or 2014-15 due to injuries?

Or Kane who also wasn't top ten in scoring either of those years?

Or even OV, who was barely over PPG despite scoring 50+ goals each year and finished 8th behind Crosby and then 4th behind Benn? Was he really a legit threat for the Ross those years?

Or am I wasting my time even bothering to ask these questions because you've contributed nothing to the conversation up to this point and will most likely just put a laughing emoji on my post while running away again?

 

[Givememoneyback]

Why would I put Crosby in the list of guys Crosby was legitimately competing with for the Ross in 2013-14 and 14-15?

Or Malkin, who wasn't top 10 in scoring in 2013-14 or 2014-15 due to injuries?

Or Kane who also wasn't top ten in scoring either of those years?

Or even OV, who was barely over PPG despite scoring 50+ goals each year and finished 8th behind Crosby and then 4th behind Benn? Was he really a legit threat for the Ross those years?

Or am I wasting my time even bothering to ask these questions because you've contributed nothing to the conversation up to this point and will most likely just put a laughing emoji on my post while running away again?

You put Crosby in it, because you put Mack in the list of guys he was competing with.

Regarding wasting your time, the details in your argument speak for themselves f. So, I think you answered your question.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You put Crosby in it, because you put Mack in the list of guys he was competing with.

Regarding wasting your time, the details in your argument speak for themselves f. So, I think you answered your question.

No, I put Mack in the list of guys Crosby would have to compete with today. The fact you can't grasp something even this simple is a great example of why I don't care what "most people" think.

And I have no problem with my argument speaking for itself. So far, no one has made a counter argument that even makes me question it, let alone think I'm wrong.

 

[Givememoneyback]

No, I put Mack in the list of guys Crosby would have to compete with today. The fact you can't grasp something even this simple is a great example of why I don't care what "most people" think.

And I have no problem with my argument speaking for itself. So far, no one has made a counter argument that even makes me question it, let alone think I'm wrong.

Cool. Glad you used your words to say what you meant when you didn't say that the first time. Quit wasting your time, your argument has too many unsound premises and comes off as a bad game of darts.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Cool. Glad you used your words to say what you meant when you didn't say that the first time. Quit wasting your time, your argument has too many unsound premises and comes off as a bad game of darts.

Cool. Glad to know I need to explain things in great detail, no matter how blatantly obvious they are, so you can follow along.

And if you think my premises are "unsound", explain which ones and why. Otherwise, you're continuing to add nothing to to the conversation, and your attempts to claim I'm wrong come off as you being too dumb to understand.

 

[Offtheboard412]

What most people seem to think means very little to me. To paraphrase George Carlin, half the people out there are dumber than average, and average isn't that smart to begin with.

I agree that Giroux and Lecavalier aren't far apart, and Getzlaf could plausibly reach that level during his career best offensive season with 6+ minutes of PP time per night, but I absolutely put Heatley up there with Thornton in terms of offensive talent. 625 points over his first 589 games, 89 points in 77 games prior to the lockout. A couple of 100 point seasons after it, including back to back 50 goal seasons. To me, that's significantly better than anything Giroux did in his career, and probably 2 or 3 tiers above Seguin or Benn's best seasons.

So, 2006-07, Crosby beat three of the 4 best guys I listed. To me, that's much more impressive than beating lesser competition by a larger margin. Best against best is where it's at, not the best beating up on lesser players.

I just don't see how you can say what Heatley accomplished was significantly better than Giroux. Giroux has the higher scoring finishes playing with lesser linemates.Better playoff performances. Only thing Heatley has going for him is his goal scoring.

 

[daver]

Starting in 2013, drafts started getting much better and by 2017, there were a handful of new elite guys at the top of the scoring charts, putting up 100+ point seasons. The next year, there were more. The year after that, even more.

Players who put up 100 point seasons in 2017/18 and 2018/19 with age and draft year:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Kucherov - twice (age 24/25) - 2011
McDavid - twice (age 21/22) - 2015
Kane - (age 31) - 2007
Draisaitl - (age 23) - 2014
Giroux - (age 30) - 2006
Marchand - (age 30) - 2006
Crosby - (age 31) - 2005

Two of seven players drafted after 2012.

How about we keep going with the 90 point scorers. Surely all those "much better" players will start showing up.

MacKinnon - 2013
Gaudreau - 2011
Stamkos - 2008
Malkin - 2004
Barkov - 2013
Marner - 2015
Hall - 2010
Point - 2014
Kopitar - 2005
Kessel - 2006
Huberdeau - 2011
Wheeler - 2004

Four of twelve players drafted after 2012


Six players of the nineteen "elite scorers" were drafted AFTER 2012.

Eight players of the nineteen "elite scorers" were drafted BEFORE 2009.


Is there any more shit you want to throw against the wall to see what sticks? You may want to stretch before trying to spin this.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I just don't see how you can say what Heatley accomplished was significantly better than Giroux. Giroux has the higher scoring finishes playing with lesser linemates.Better playoff performances. Only thing Heatley has going for him is his goal scoring.

I can say it very easily, because I don't give a shit about scoring finishes across different years. As I keep saying, beating lesser competition doesn't make a player better.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I can't believe an actual human being watched Giroux and Heatley in their primes and determined Heatley was the better player.

Ignore scoring finishes. It's just a complete failure at talent evaluation.

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

There is only one debate that matters. The Nate Debate. And it is here...

No.

It really, really isn't.

You can debate jugglers, hot air balloons, and Doordash drivers.

But this one? Not really.