Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Big Phil, Dec 22, 2018.
He does lol. I’ve been to lazy to correct that guy myself. He’s 22
ok so he's 21 instead of 20. Doesn't change my point.
We did a top 40 playoff performers of all time on this forum a few years ago. Top 6 included, Richard, Beliveau, and Harvey.
Richard's first playoff run was at age 22.
Beliveau's first playoff run was at age 22
Harvey's first playoff run was at age 24. His first decent playoff run - probably after that.
The point is he's young. Don't start projecting about how McDavid will have a weak playoff resume in his career when he's barely 21. Give it 5-6 more years to see how things shape out before you start making such assumptions.
Fair enough, of course Mario needed 5 seasons before he played in the playoffs. His first 6 seasons he played in the playoffs once. Of course, right after that in 1991 and 1992 he put on an epic display matched perhaps just by Gretzky and then even when he was bounced out in 1993 and 1996 had a good run as well as in 2001 before the semis. 1994 and 1997 his other postseasons were first round exits but he still put up modest enough points (for him).
Let's hope for the better of the game McDavid eventually gets in the postseason regularly and excels in similar ways. It is bad for the game (thank you Chiarelli) for him to have his season end in early April. Which is looks like it will in 2019 too.
PPG has its purpose. Crosby just simply had some gaudy numbers in PPG compared to the rest of the league at one point that it is hard to ignore and I factor in that he had missed time as well which always favours PPG. It still is impressive. Not as much as point finishes of course, but it has some purpose.
I think points - including the all of the sudden partially useless secondary assist - are the best barometer to decide a player's contribution to offense and goals. The point of the matter is that Crosby has historically contributed to goals more than Ovechkin more or less because he has his arsenal spread out a bit more offensively. If that includes "secondary assists" well, then so be it. That's still contributing and sometimes a driving force behind the goal.
True, because scoring was much higher in 06/07. Comparing 06/07 to 10/11 is like comparing 16/17 to 17/18.
... media coverage
Sure, now Crosby gets extra credit for scoring goals as a center, even though goal-scoring centers abound: Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Stamkos, Yzerman.
Out of 20 top goal-scorers ever 7 are centers if you go by total goals and 6 are centers if you go by best-7-year VsX goals. I.e., centers take exactly their third of prolific goalscorers (for each center, there are two wingers).
Yet, when someone brings up that assists are harder to rack up from the wing, you hear from 5 posters at once that Ovechkin cannot get extra credit for being a winger, and many would go against Hart votes to argue that Crosby was better in any season when he had more points.
Malkin was not there for OV his whole career, until the last 3-4 seasons, Caps did not have a bona fide 2C. Why don't we pin all OV's playoff struggles prior to 15/16 on Caps being a one-line team? Malkin wasn't there, like you said.
... and had Crosby not collected a random 2nd A in the middle of the streak, his start of 10/11 would have looked way differently.
Media coverage, like I said. Yes, his streak was trumpeted non-stop. No, it does not start to matter because it was.
... and more media coverage.
Many more players fit the mold than just Ovechkin. For example, the same set of criteria makes me rank Bobby Hull #5 all-time, and many folks agree.
Sometimes I just coincide with the majority (e.g., I would rank Richard top10 all-time because of his goal-scoring, and most folks having him top10 do so because of his playoff heroics). Or I would maintain that Iginla>St Louis because of goal-scoring, even though peak St Louis was better at collecting points, but I know some people say Iginla>St Louis because of longevity.
Sometimes I disagree with the consensus: for example, I still think Jagr is underrated (even though time is slowly taking care of that, and it will likely take care of Crosby vs. Ovechkin ranking too). I was also pretty mad HHOF made Bure wait that long, and I will be equally mad about them snubbing Kovalchuk for a time (or maybe even forever).
He won those with very small margins its certainly not a lock. Heck when Patrick Kane won his ross he scored 17 points more than 2nd place. Im not saying Mcdavid isn't the favorite to win it, I'm just saying he does have a LOT of quality competition. MacKinnon, Rant, and a few others are definitely in the race and its a lot closer than most think.
I think that most of us agree that the late-80's Penguins were Lemieux (plus Coffey in the last couple of seasons) trying to drag a poor team to any measure of success, right?
Here are the ranked VsX scores of the 1987-88 Penguins (a bubble team that just missed, 4th best offense with Lemieux, 16th "best" defense) versus the VsX scores of the 2018-19 Oilers so far (21st "best" offense with McDavid, 22nd "best" defense):
At every ranking, with the exception of Draisaitl being above Quinn, the Penguins were uniformly better scorers than the Oilers at their respective rankings (especially that Mario Lemieux guy.)
I thought Ovechkin missed games due to his grandfather's passing.
As for the whole secondary assist thing benefiting Crosby, this is an assertion that can (and honestly needs to) be analyzed.
SeasonAgeGPGAPTS+/-2nd APrimary PTSPrimary PTS/GP200618813963102-119831.022007197936841201035851.08200820532448721815571.08200921773370103319841.092010228151581091522871.07201123413234662014521.2720122422829371513241.09201325361541562613431.192014268036681041834700.8820152777285684525590.77201628803649851921640.80201729754445891717720.9620183082296089027620.76Totals86441170511161652748420.97Best 3-yr stretch995510415961401191.20
SeasonAgeGPGAPTS+/-2nd APrimary PTSPrimary PTS/GP200620815254106218881.0920072182464692-1914780.9520082282654711228111011.23200923795654110822881.112010247250591094522871.21201125793253852423620.7820122678382765-813520.6720132748322456211450.9420142878512879-3511680.8720152981532881107740.91201630795021712115560.7120173182333669616530.6520183282493887318690.84Totals10036075151122872019210.92Best 3-yr stretch23317116033181552761.18
In terms of primary points, Crosby is the better per-game producer over a 13-season stretch (0.97 vs 0.92), as well as over their respective best 3-season stretches (1.20 vs 1.18). Crosby surpasses 1 primary point per game for 8 straight seasons, while Ovechkin has managed that 4 times. As usual, the main advantage Ovechkin has over Crosby is durability, which is a valid consideration (we are talking about athletes here).
Thanks for doing this analysis - it's long overdue for someone to take a look. A few quick observations:
Over the course of their careers, both players had virtually the same percentage of secondary assists relative to total assists (38.9% of Crosby's assists are secondary, compared to 39.0% of Ovechkin). My ballpark estimate suggests that, in the modern NHL, 40% of all assists are secondary, so they're both right where they should be.
However, when you look at secondary assists relative to total production, Crosby was much more reliant (24.9% of Crosby's points are secondary, compared to 17.9% of Ovechkin). This intuitively makes sense - since Crosby is more of a playmaker (relatively speaking), his total production is more reliant on secondary assists - though it's also more reliant on primary assists. (Ovechkin's, obviously, is more reliant in goals).
I've seen a number of people try to dismiss secondary assists because they're less consistent and repeatable from year to year. In Crosby's case, on a seasonal per-game, he's almost equally consistent in goals, primary assists, and secondary assists (this is calculated as standard deviation divided by the mean). In the case of Ovechkin, he's actually more consistent at generating secondary assists than primary assists (that is, there's more variance from year to year in his 1A production, compared to his 2A production).
(For those curious, Crosby has outscored Ovechkin 48-45 as of New Years Day in the 2019 season. I counted 8 secondary assists for Crosby, and 6 for Ovechkin. This means Crosby has pulled one primary point closer to Ovechkin so far this year).
I'm sure that ardent Crosby supporters will interpret this post to suit their purposes, and I'm equally sure that the ardent Ovechkin supporters will do the same.
I just like to stay consistent on that issue. A secondary assist is the same in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2019. The same players can benefit from it and the better players benefit from it more because they are involved in a play more. If Crosby for instance had a game where he had 4 assists but 3 of them, or even 4 of them were all secondary do we not still say he had a great game? Chances are he did have a great game and he was incredibly noticeable out there. Just like any other player in NHL history who did the same thing, chances are you noticed him being involved in the play a lot.
Put it this way, it was a secondary assist that cost John Tavares an Art Ross trophy in 2015. Jamie Benn got one with under a minute left in the final game of the season. Does that not still count? Sure it does, because Benn helped cause the goal that was scored.
You are comparing the fantasy achievements of three different players to one player. So McDavid has to be as good as Ovechkins, Malkins and Crosbys best seasons combined and stay perfectly healthy.
Your method doesn't make sense. If McDavid wins eight straigth Art Rosses he's much better than Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin level.
Bingo (well at least sort of). I think as a point producer, Connor is better than Sid/Ovie/Geno. Not saying that he is the better player all things considered, but points seem to come to him very easily. And he doesnt have similar competition as the big three had. Time will tell if I'm completely wrong with this, but nothing suggests otherwise currently.
I know we can go too far with the bad teammates thing, but for perspective the Oilers are currently icing an NHL team where the most goals scored by any winger this season is 2.
This assumes that Drai, and to a lesser extent, Nugent-Hopkins, aren't playing wing when they are on the ice with McDavid, or that McDavid isn't playing wing himself?
Do you see a any statistical pattern where McDavid's production is affected by the team's performance (which makes the sketchy presumption that that he has no control over his team's performance)? I.e. when the team plays better, his numbers go up. He has two Art Ross wins of similar strength on teams that had dramatically different seasons.
His PPG this year has been pretty much the same during the Oilers initial resurgence with the hiring of Hitch and their current six game losing streak.
I think his numbers speak for themselves. If one wants to argue that his numbers are more impressive because of the quality of his team, then one could argue that he has not shown he can carry a line of lower depth linemates to allow Draisatl to try to consistently centre a #2 line. That the Oilers are so reliant on one line for offense is a huge factor in their performance over the past two seasons.
There doesn't seem to be any statistical conclusions to draw from those numbers and no statistical reason to dig any deeper. If the purpose is to put any 2nd assist discussion to bed once and for all would that be a biased position?
BTW, their playoff primary point stats are as follows:
Crosby - 160 games played, 137 primary points, PPG - 0.87
Ovechkin - 121 games played, 92 primary points, PPG - 0.76
My expectations for Crosby after 2007 were very high.
In 2003(Crosby is 16) you have Gretzky answering the question of if a player might break his records one day with; "Yes, Sidney Crosby. He's the best player I've seen since Mario [Lemieux].". Nowadays we all kinda realize that Gretzky just likes to say things like this but at the time this was huge. Fast forward less than 4 years later and Crosby becomes (and still is) the only teenager to win a scoring title among the major NA professional sports. It looked like the sky was the limit.
Then the injuries come.
Maybe Crosby keeps trending upwards if he doesn't get the high ankle sprain. Maybe Crosby gets a true peak period in his career if some doofus doesn't plow into his head in 2011. Maybe he has a more impressive trophy case if Brooks Orpik could hit the broad side of a barn with a slapshot. But those injuries happened. Sucks, but..
That Crosby is still arguably a top 4-5 player ever at his position despite the injuries says enough about him as a player I think.
Also this thread was really hijacked into another Crosby/OV debate? People for the most part made up their minds on these players years ago and it's not going to change.
Count me as someone rooting for McDavid to dominate in a way Crosby did not. All of the people who complain/don't watch the game nowadays are truly missing out this year. Halfway through and this season feels special. Like one people will wax poetics about 20 years from now.
I didn't believe you i had to look it up
Alex Chiasson has 16 goals.
Puljujarvi has 3
And of course Drai/RNH sometimes play Wing too.
Still - damn that's pretty bad.
2006/07 was an interesting year as it saw him with an unusually high ratio of PP points vs. ES points compared to any other of his other years even when considering the amount of PPs called at the time.
If you look at his ES scoring, you see a much more expected rise in scoring as he reaches his peak.
In his rookie year he was T7th in ES points, 10th the next year (likely lower because of the PP success), 2nd in ESPPG in 07/08, 4th in 08/09, 3rd in 09/10, then first by far in ESPPG from 10/11 to 13/14 to 2nd best over the 14/15 to 16/17 period.
So perhaps this unusually high amount PP points in 06/07 created unrealistic expectations as to matching Wayne and Mario's rise in scoring.
I think if he had closed out either 10/11 or 2013, the aura of unfinished business would be greatly decreased. He would have the one legacy season he is missing in comparison to the three forwards who may stay above him in all-time rankings (Richard, Hull and Beliveau).
He’s not barely 21. He turns 22 in a week
How does this have anything to do with my argument? lol
Next thing I know you'll try to correct my spelling and grammar too.
Either admit what I say makes sense and move on - or counter the logic of what I'm saying with something of consistence.
ie - it's waaaaay to early to project McDavid as a weak playoff performer in his career. Give it 5-6 more years and see where things stand.
p.s. Sakic is another great example. First playoff run at 23 - but his first real "good" one was at age 26. It turned out pretty good for him playoff-wise...
I agree with you it is to early. But you keep saying he is 20. Then switched too barely 21. No he’s 22 years old all I’m saying lol
McDavid is in on 52.2% of his team's goals this year. Remember how people say Mario's 57% in 1989 can never be touched? Looks like it can be close at least. The kid just got saddled with the worst GM in the last 20 years.
He’s 4th in scoring as a 22 year old. How is that extra special?
The current NHL season feels special. Not just McDavid specifically.
Chiasson isn't playing these days.
Someone has already shown that even-strength shot quality is improved when preceded by multiple passes, which makes sense complex plays are more likely to move the goalie out of position. As such, secondary assists do measure real offensive contribution. The contention has always been that it's not necessarily a measure of player skill.
That second part I'm a bit iffy about. Since secondary assists measure real offensive contribution, players should be rewarded for it. Everything washes out in the long run, anyway. If something isn't "repeatable" by a player, the player won't be able to repeat it consistently. It's like what Sather mused about Doug Weight after his 104-point campaign in 1995-96 during contract negotiations. To paraphrase, "the question is whether he is a 100-point player or a player who scored 100 points". (Spoiler alert: it's the second answer.)
That being said, it wouldn't kill the NHL to separate the A column into "A1" and "A2" all the way back to 1937. The just went through every game ever played, after all. Let the (page) viewers decide!
Thanks for doing that! I was a bit too sleepy yesterday to keep going. The result doesn't surprise me at all. If Crosby, allegedly unworthy benefactor of secondary assists, was actually the better primary point producer than Ovechkin in the regular season anyway...
Truthfully, I was trying to stay out of yet another Crosby/Ovechkin argument, but there were too many assertions being thrown about without any numbers. My bias is for arguments backed by numbers.
Seriously, the same arguments just recycle themselves. Replace "Pittsburgh" supposedly over-awarding secondary assists with "Chicago", replace "Sidney Crosby" with "Max Bentley", replace "Alex Ovechkin" with "Maurice Richard", and lo and behold, it's the same arguments as in 1947.
Except, Crosby isn't just going to fade away quickly like Bentley, and we probably have another half decade or more of this to look forward to. Yay!*
Separate names with a comma.