Toggle sidebar

Assuming Kucherov wins third Art Ross, he is above which of these groups of players...

A third Art Ross will put Kucherov in group...

  • Total voters
    153
Garbageyuk said:
“Pretty easily”? If that was the case he’d have them instead of having 0.

Best not go down that road. If we start splitting hairs like that, Crosby should have zero, Ovechkin as well, and Gretzky should have 4.

You lose the plot pretty quick that way, and it just becomes fantasy.
Click to expand...
He's lead the playoffs in scoring 3 times.
 
tabness said:
I had a script that actually ran through these numbers historically but unfortunately got lazy in the past few years to get the recent year data and now the NHL changed the way the expose the data lol...

As is Kucherov feasts on points on various favorable situations to a degree that isn't matched by him actually driving the play. He also plays in an era which greatly minimizes the impact to the areas where he is lacking physically.

Which is fine and all, and he's obviously a genius and an all time playmaker, but you know what, so was a guy like Adam Oates, who also had a ton of points and all but nobody at the time thought he was as good as his statline.
Click to expand...
Because Adam Oates wasn't winning scoring titles.
 
bert said:
I cant help if you think Kucherov isn't amazing. You struggle to understand basic hockey concepts.
Click to expand...
Where did I say anything like that? Show me. “Basic hockey concepts” lmao you literally do not understand what an opinion is by the way you react every time someone disagrees with you 😂
 
DFC said:
Because Adam Oates wasn't winning scoring titles.
Click to expand...

See, for me, it's just a useless comparison given who was playing when Oates was. There was that stat going around for most points in a multi year timeframe where Oates was tops for some stretch in the early nineties, then you consider all the centers that were considered to be better than Oates in that same stretch who he was outscoring.

I get that in our data driven milieu the points and stats are more available and thus more important for many, but I'm old school I guess, so like I don't care if Kucherov outscored MacKinnon or Draisaitl, I think both are better, just think they do more things on the ice, they are more physically gifted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast, x Tame Impala and authentic
tabness said:
See, for me, it's just a useless comparison given who was playing when Oates was. There was that stat going around for most points in a multi year timeframe where Oates was tops for some stretch in the early nineties, then you consider all the centers that were considered to be better than Oates in that same stretch who he was outscoring.

I get that in our data driven milieu the points and stats are more available and thus more important for many, but I'm old school I guess, so like I don't care if Kucherov outscored MacKinnon or Draisaitl, I think both are better, just think they do more things on the ice.
Click to expand...

He's also winning Art Rosses in the McDavid era.

This is just a strange take. I think you're adding a lot of legendary status to players based on when they played. Gretzky and Lemieux I'll give you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: enj92 and bert
Garbageyuk said:
“Pretty easily”? If that was the case he’d have them instead of having 0.

Best not go down that road. If we start splitting hairs like that, Crosby should have zero, Ovechkin as well, and Gretzky should have 4.

You lose the plot pretty quick that way, and it just becomes fantasy.
Click to expand...
Lol crosby 0? So whos winning the 2017 smythe?
 
DFC said:
He's also winning Art Rosses in the McDavid era.

This is just a strange take. I think you're adding a lot of legendary status to players based on when they played. Gretzky and Lemieux I'll give you.
Click to expand...

I mean sure, that's the main point, unless one is gonna put McDavid on Gretzky/Lemieux level even as just a point producer? Tough sell, maybe McDavid can get close early nineties Gretzky, but early nineties Gretzky is another case of a player who's stats are flattering to his level of play
 
  • Like
Reactions: bert
ViD said:
When you win 3 Art Rosses over arguably a top 5 player all time you’re certainly top 20
Click to expand...

Well not really since he’s played under 70 games in two of those seasons, and in the other season he wasn’t playing at his top 5 all-time level yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garbageyuk
La Bamba said:
Kucherov doesn't get enough respect. He's in the Joe Sakic/Peter Forsberg tier for me. Two cups and 2 Art Ross' in an era with McDrai
Click to expand...

Anyone placing him higher I truly don’t understand. He isn’t on track to have a better career than Sakic (similar level at best), and he isn’t a better player than Forsberg was.
 
bert said:
So your logic is again unsound. As everyone once again acknowledges.
Click to expand...
You lack reading comprehension and the ability to understand nuance and implication, even when it comes to your own posts. You clearly just showed up in this thread with an axe to grind with me, and aren’t even making sense at this point. Embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
tabness said:
I had a script that actually ran through these numbers historically but unfortunately got lazy in the past few years to get the recent year data and now the NHL changed the way the expose the data lol...

As is Kucherov feasts on points on various favorable situations to a degree that isn't matched by him actually driving the play. He also plays in an era which greatly minimizes the impact to the areas where he is lacking physically.

Which is fine and all, and he's obviously a genius and an all time playmaker, but you know what, so was a guy like Adam Oates, who also had a ton of points and all but nobody at the time thought he was as good as his statline.
Click to expand...

Who thinks that? idiots?
 
tabness said:
I mean sure, that's the main point, unless one is gonna put McDavid on Gretzky/Lemieux level even as just a point producer? Tough sell, maybe McDavid can get close early nineties Gretzky, but early nineties Gretzky is another case of a player who's stats are flattering to his level of play
Click to expand...

McDavid in the playoffs is already peak Gretzky level, for 70 straight games (only 74 games in his playoff career, vs. Gretzky’s best consecutive 70).

I agree about Kucherov though (he’s probably the closest comparable to LA Kings Gretzky, a healthy McDavid is easily better than that), sure he’s the very slightly better offensive producer than MacKinnon but anyone watching these two can see MacKinnon does more on the ice. He’s like a Brayden Point and a Kucherov combined with his goal scoring, puck carrying ability and playmaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: x Tame Impala
La Bamba said:
Kucherov doesn't get enough respect. He's in the Joe Sakic/Peter Forsberg tier for me. Two cups and 2 Art Ross' in an era with McDrai
Click to expand...
1. It would be 3 rosses

2. There is no Mcdrai Era. Its the Mcdavid era. Draisaitl is #3/4 from this era after Kucherov for sure and probably after Mackinnon too
 
We'll see where he ends up once his career is over. I'd expect he'll be in Group D, but I'd also have Yzerman in there.
a 3rd Ross isn't the make or break for that placement for me. Dude could get injured in the PO and never play another game, that would definitely impact where he ends up all time more than a 3rd Ross would
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom