Can Connor McDavid break up the "big 4"?

[TANK200]

Where does one find this R-On/R-Off data?

 

[norrisnick]

Lemieux has something that no else has done

Become a full owner of a big 4 Sport franchise while still in his 30’s

And then came out of retirement to play for them (at a high Level)

Majority, not full.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Where does one find this R-On/R-Off data?

@overpass calculated all the data but was kind enough to share a copy with me. I don't think either of us have ever posted a comprehensive summary. If you search through my post history, you'll see I have a few dozen posts where I've presented data for specific players. I usually including some commentary to explain how to interpret the numbers. (In the case of Bobby Orr in this thread - I didn't think that was necessary, since he's going to be off the charts no matter how much context we consider).

 

[Staniowski]

Nobody in hockey would ever use R-on/R-off for anything because the ratio (or number) created has virtually no meaning. It is dependent on a very wide variety of factors, and it is not transferable from team to team (unlike, say, points, which has a lot of transferability) for any player. Any change in circumstances for the player, other players, etc. would often cause wild changes in the ratio.

It's literally the dumbest metric I've ever seen in hockey.

R-on/R-off is a plus-minus metric....that is, it's derived from plus-minus. The data is plus-minus minus SH.

R-on is basically plus-minus (minus SH) of the player in question.

Plus-minus is a very important stat in hockey, but, as everybody knows it (whether or not SH is included) has limited uses. The core problem with plus-minus is in isolating an individual player among the 12 players on the ice whenever a plus or minus is recorded, plus-minus being recorded for 10 of the 12 players (but influenced by all 12).

I actually like plus-minus a lot, the concept is hockey at its core. But it's really only useful within a team environment. There have always been many coaches who've found plus-minus useful for their teams. It's especially useful for line combinations, monitoring the roles of certain players (defensive specialists), etc.

Plus-minus has little use, though, in comparing players on different teams, and even within a team - even comparing players on the same team, a player who's +10 can certainly be better - and more important - than a player who's +50.

R-off is basically the plus-minus (minus SH) of everything that happens when the player in question is not on the ice. Just a note - as far as I know, this refers to what actually happens when they're not on the ice; it's not referring to what would happen if they weren't playing at all, which would be something very different....for example, if Serge Savard were the player in question, the R-off would not only exclude Savard, but it would also exclude Robinson, and possibly 60% or 70% of Lafleur, Lemaire, Shutt also...and obviously this wouldn't be the case if Savard wasn't playing at all.

So, R-on and R-off are then compared.

Plus-minus has been widely criticized in the hockey world (other than for its valuable, limited usages)....and yet R-on/R-off doubles down on it.

The basic and fatal problem here is that the ratio that's produced is influenced significantly by a whole bunch of things, including the player, the coaching/style of play of the team, the overall quality of the team, the offensive quality and defensive quality of the team, the players who are sharing the ice (linemates, D partners), the players who are not sharing the ice, etc. on and on.

For most players, the ratio can change dramatically from season-to-season, for many reasons.

It's just an extremely bad metric. It's not a valid hockey metric.

 

[JackSlater]

Where does one find this R-On/R-Off data?

The excel file has been posted a few times.

Nobody in hockey would ever use R-on/R-off for anything because the ratio (or number) created has virtually no meaning. It is dependent on a very wide variety of factors, and it is not transferable from team to team (unlike, say, points, which has a lot of transferability) for any player. Any change in circumstances for the player, other players, etc. would often cause wild changes in the ratio.

It's literally the dumbest metric I've ever seen in hockey.

R-on/R-off is a plus-minus metric....that is, it's derived from plus-minus. The data is plus-minus minus SH.

R-on is basically plus-minus (minus SH) of the player in question.

Plus-minus is a very important stat in hockey, but, as everybody knows it (whether or not SH is included) has limited uses. The core problem with plus-minus is in isolating an individual player among the 12 players on the ice whenever a plus or minus is recorded, plus-minus being recorded for 10 of the 12 players (but influenced by all 12).

I actually like plus-minus a lot, the concept is hockey at its core. But it's really only useful within a team environment. There have always been many coaches who've found plus-minus useful for their teams. It's especially useful for line combinations, monitoring the roles of certain players (defensive specialists), etc.

Plus-minus has little use, though, in comparing players on different teams, and even within a team - even comparing players on the same team, a player who's +10 can certainly be better - and more important - than a player who's +50.

R-off is basically the plus-minus (minus SH) of everything that happens when the player in question is not on the ice. Just a note - as far as I know, this refers to what actually happens when they're not on the ice; it's not referring to what would happen if they weren't playing at all, which would be something very different....for example, if Serge Savard were the player in question, the R-off would not only exclude Savard, but it would also exclude Robinson, and possibly 60% or 70% of Lafleur, Lemaire, Shutt also...and obviously this wouldn't be the case if Savard wasn't playing at all.

So, R-on and R-off are then compared.

Plus-minus has been widely criticized in the hockey world (other than for its valuable, limited usages)....and yet R-on/R-off doubles down on it.

The basic and fatal problem here is that the ratio that's produced is influenced significantly by a whole bunch of things, including the player, the coaching/style of play of the team, the overall quality of the team, the offensive quality and defensive quality of the team, the players who are sharing the ice (linemates, D partners), the players who are not sharing the ice, etc. on and on.

For most players, the ratio can change dramatically from season-to-season, for many reasons.

It's just an extremely bad metric. It's not a valid hockey metric.

Your massive hyperbole makes whatever point you are attempting to make outside of shaking your fist at clouds (I think mainly that, no shit, context matters) all but lost. Some people may want to know how well a team did with a player on the ice versus how well the team did with the player off the ice. Most of us don't assume that everyone else is a moron who requires the most obvious things pointed out, but spiced with ridiculous comments for variety I guess.

 

[Staniowski]

The excel file has been posted a few times.



Your massive hyperbole makes whatever point you are attempting to make outside of shaking your fist at clouds (I think mainly that, no shit, context matters) all but lost. Some people may want to know how well a team did with a player on the ice versus how well the team did with the player off the ice. Most of us don't assume that everyone else is a moron who requires the most obvious things pointed out, but spiced with ridiculous comments for variety I guess.

The problem is, it's very difficult to isolate the player. When Savard is off the ice, Robinson is also off the ice. Therefore, what is being measured? And these individual stories exist for every player in every situation. That's why plus-minus has such huge swings.

 

[JackSlater]

The problem is, it's very difficult to isolate the player. When Savard is off the ice, Robinson is also off the ice. Therefore, what is being measured? And these individual stories exist for every player in every situation. That's why plus-minus has such huge swings.

Very little can be isolated really, in hockey anyway. What you're railing against is a look at how a team did with a player on the ice in terms of goal differential vs how the team did with that player off the ice, at even strength. It's nothing more than that. People can make conclusions on that or on anything else, but usually the results are pretty much what you'd expect. The cases where the results are not expected are the ones worth looking at and usually there are unusual team factors (competitiom, usage, whatever else) at play.

 

[MadLuke]

And at least the force will tend to in the "good" direction going into it.

The better your teammate when you are on the ice, usually better the rest of the team will also tend to be to compensate has you are on a better team and better the opposition will be against you.

 

[Stephen]

Of course he can and here are some conditions:

1) Elevate from the peak achieved this season next year, and maybe the year after.
2) Maintain or gently taper down from this point over the next half dozen or so years, basically putting together an ironclad 15 year run.
3) More healthy longevity after this is bonus territory.
4) Individual trophy case will take care of itself.
5) Win a Stanley Cup, (and as many as possible after that).

 

[wetcoast]

He's going to need to win at least one.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in principal but he will never make it into a big 5 without winning cups.

I hear what you are saying but then again that position doesn't mean that much if people are absolutists about it either.

I mean if he has 3-4 regular seasons like this one and/or a couple of individual playoff performances like last year it won't really matter would it?

I think he's quite possibly going to end up being that guy.

BUT, he very badly needs to win at least one Stanley Cup or we're going to have a rich-man's-Dionne argument on our hands forever. Especially in the media where narratives get simplified.

At this point, someone has to be "that guy" and I love Dionne but McDavid is much more than a rich-mans-Dionne at this point.

 

[wetcoast]

It's true and I'd honestly rather him win a Stanley Cup just to get rid of that story down the road. I couldn't care less about Washington or even Ovechkin but I was glad when Washington won the 2018 Stanley Cup just so that the mindless talk of Ovechkin not being able to win a Stanley Cup would be gone.

True enough.

At some point one of the best players ever is going to retire without a Stanley Cup and it's going to be so tedious to hear the arguments that will ensue.

But the thing is that a certain portion of casual/serious fans are always going to hold that viewpoint and the fact they might have changed their perception of Ovi after winning the SC, those same fans didn't change their views on the "SC thing" .

 

[tarheelhockey]

At this point, someone has to be "that guy" and I love Dionne but McDavid is much more than a rich-mans-Dionne at this point.

He is, but that won’t stop the argument from going on and on and on.

 

[wetcoast]

Gretzky and Orr are out of the question.

McDavid wont have a prime that comes near the length of Howe's. So he's out.

Lemieux is all that is within striking distance and while McDavid has blinding speed, Mario was fear on skates. Like nothing I've ever seen.

When Connor carries his team to the Finals on at least 2 occasions the way Le Magnifique did, then we can revisit this topic.

IMO only Gretzky is out of the question and I'm a huge fan of Orr but it's still only 657 games.

 

[crobro]

Majority, not full.

Yeah that’s pretty much what I meant

Thank you

 

[JackSlater]

True enough.


But the thing is that a certain portion of casual/serious fans are always going to hold that viewpoint and the fact they might have changed their perception of Ovi after winning the SC, those same fans didn't change their views on the "SC thing" .

There will always be mindless takes. Certainly if McDavid never wins a Stanley Cup I expect most fans will hold it against him to varying degrees.

 

[Staniowski]

Very little can be isolated really, in hockey anyway. What you're railing against is a look at how a team did with a player on the ice in terms of goal differential vs how the team did with that player off the ice, at even strength. It's nothing more than that. People can make conclusions on that or on anything else, but usually the results are pretty much what you'd expect. The cases where the results are not expected are the ones worth looking at and usually there are unusual team factors (competitiom, usage, whatever else) at play.

The results are what you'd expect for the situation, if you know everything there is to know about that situation.

The fatal problem of R-on/R-off is that it doesn't measure anything In particular. It measures something completely different for each player. And that's why it's a nothing metric.

 

[JackSlater]

The results are what you'd expect for the situation, if you know everything there is to know about that situation.

The fatal problem of R-on/R-off is that it doesn't measure anything In particular. It measures something completely different for each player. And that's why it's a nothing metric.

It measures how well a team did in terms of goal differential while a player was on the ice, and how the same team did when the player was off the ice. Like anything else it doesn't drop a conclusion into your lap and that's fine.

 

[bobholly39]

Lemieux has something that no else has done

Become a full owner of a big 4 Sport franchise while still in his 30’s

And then came out of retirement to play for them (at a high Level)

Him becoming an owner is obviously something special, especially when you connect that to how it probably saved the franchise in Pittsburgh. But that should have exactly 0 bearing on his ranking all-time as a player, which is what the "big 4" is usually about.

Him coming out of retirement in 2001 is of course quite spectacular and a big part of his arc as a player.

 

[wetcoast]

Not sure that's something we can give him 'credit' for. McDavid has always been the most important player on the Oilers powerplay. The fact that it did so poorly that year also reflects on him and his performance.

To be fair that's not exactly a whose who of PP QB's that the Oilers trotted out on defense that year which probably explains part of that.

Never mind the wingers he had that year and oh yeah let's not forget that he actually did win the Art Ross that year and killed it at ES.

 

[MadLuke]

The results are what you'd expect for the situation, if you know everything there is to know about that situation.

The fatal problem of R-on/R-off is that it doesn't measure anything In particular. It measures something completely different for each player. And that's why it's a nothing metric.

Maybe, maybe not, why Forsberg result so much better than Sakic result for example.

Does it tell us really nothing about the 2, 100% explain by one having better wingers-zone deployment-assignement ?

If a statistics about how much better or worst your team is when you are on the ice vs when you are on the bench is a nothing metric, what metric would not be one ? (If we keep in mind that the only thing that matter is how much you outscore a team or not, nothing else and certainly not how you achieve to do that)

 

[JianYang]

Needs cup wins

Multiple

I know the optics would suggest that you need cups to get yourself into legendary status.

But if Lemieux couldn't do it with those ordinary penguin teams in the 80s, and if Gretzky couldn't do it without those great oiler teams, then why should we expect mcdavid to do it with a very flawed team?

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

He's definitely the best player in hockey history who hasn't won a cup.

 

[rfournier103]

If Alex Ovechkin breaks Gretzky's all-time NHL Goals Record, then it becomes a "Top/Big Five." If Connor McDavid eclipses 2000 points, it becomes a Top Six.

Ordering of that Top Six will be up for debate much the same as the debate over the ordering of the Top Four are now.

 

[jigglysquishy]

If Alex Ovechkin breaks Gretzky's all-time NHL Goals Record, then it becomes a "Top/Big Five."

This is, quite frankly, a ludicrous position with no merit. 892 goals, and he's arguably outside the top 15, 895 goals and he's arguably number 2? It makes zero sense.

He has far and away the lowest peak out of the Big Four + Ovi and McDavid.

I get why it is a good talking point, but in terms of serious discussion Ovechkin is closer to 20 than to 5.

Ovechkin was voted in at 22 by this forum in 2018. And followed it up with point finishes of 15, 19, 66, 16. Hart finishes of 7, 13, 10.

The strength of the top 10 players is just too high for these seasons to move the needle much.

It just such a very different world than a McDavid who since 2018 has added point finishes of 2,2,1,1,1. Hart finishes of 3,5,1,2,1.

McDavid is legitimately making a case for #5. Ovechkin stopped making his case in 2010.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I love those..."if he hits 1000 points...then he's [this]...." ...well, what if he hits 998 before a tough scoring change in his last game...? Now he's out of the HOF or whatever?

I'm not saying that Ovechkin continuing to throw pucks into the net at will is unimpressive...it certainly is. And part of me wonders if him playing in the "more information" era (take that as you will) actually hurts him (and others) compared to historical players...but the whole "895 is this, 893 is that" or whatever is just illogical to me...