Crosby vs. Ovechkin: a progressive ranking from 2006 to today (#1 -2005/06)

[Midnight Judges]

Blame OP. He needs to do a better job of explaining the question. A few have already raised the question about "more impressive due to age?". I think saying Crosby's rookie season is more impressive due to age (18 vs 20) is probably a defendable position. OP didn't explain it well enough.

If it's strictly better season - this should be Ovi pretty unanimously.

He says "establish who had the better season" to update rankings.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Poll results are an absolute joke and just show the bias against OV. 124-4 in 1st place Calder votes, more pts, way more goals, better PPG, way better GPG, way better hart finish, lindsay finalist, 1st AST, worse supporting cast. There is absolutely ZERO argument for Crosby in this season. Spare me the "he was 18 and OV was 20" bs. OV had to adapt to a new culture, new language, new style of game which more than makes up for a 2 year age gap but of course OP and everyone else failed to mention that. Not surprising at all for this board though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Crosby had a better rookie season for me. 100 points as an 18 year old on a perennial last place team is more impressive than someone coming out of the second best league in the world at age 20 and doing something similar...close, but 18 and 20 are a huge difference. One is a regular junior age. The other is not. Even hockey doesn't recognize them in the same light...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Poll results are an absolute joke and just show the bias against OV. 124-4 in 1st place Calder votes, more pts, way more goals, better PPG, way better GPG, way better hart finish, lindsay finalist, 1st AST, worse supporting cast. There is absolutely ZERO argument for Crosby in this season. Spare me the "he was 18 and OV was 20" bs. OV had to adapt to a new culture, new language, new style of game which more than makes up for a 2 year age gap but of course OP and everyone else failed to mention that. Not surprising at all for this board though.

It's not appropriate to use the results of this poll to make a characterization of the History forum, since this is an open poll and anybody can drop in and vote.

As of now (12:30AM EST on November 26th), the results are currently showing the following:

Ovechkin by a lot	14	23.3%
Ovechkin by a little	29	48.3%
Crosby by a little	14	23.3%
Crosby by a lot	3	5.0%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

72% of the voters picked Ovechkin. But what happens if we back out people who aren't History regulars? To add some rigour to the process, I'll count anybody with at least 75 posts on the History forum this calendar year (ie January 1st to today) as a regular. (I could have eye-balled the list and picked out who's a "regular" here with about 95% accuracy, but this way anybody can verify my results).

Here are the results for the non-History regulars:

Ovechkin by a lot	12	29.3%
Ovechkin by a little	14	34.1%
Crosby by a little	12	29.3%
Crosby by a lot	3	7.3%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

First, the interesting thing is more than two-thirds of the voters aren't History regulars. That alone suggests that using the poll results to talk about the consensus on this sub-forum doesn't really make sense. Second, the non-regulars voted for Ovechkin only 63% of the time (less than the overall group).

Here are the results for the History regulars only:

Ovechkin by a lot	2	10.5%
Ovechkin by a little	15	78.9%
Crosby by a little	2	10.5%
Crosby by a lot	0	0.0%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

History regulars voted for Ovechkin by a 17-2 margin (89.5%). And yes, one of the two people who voted for Crosby here is a Pittsburgh fan (though he posted his reasoning).

The results from History regulars (as I've defined them... someone else can do the legwork if they want to propose another definition) are decisively voting for Ovechkin here. Since it's an open poll, the results are skewed by people who rarely (or never) post here, as they account for 15 of the 17 votes for Crosby.

I think the data is actually showing the opposite of what you claim - History regulars are voting decisively for Ovechkin, and non-regular posters who are dropping by are much more evenly split (they're welcome to drop by of course, but we shouldn't pretend that their vote speaks for the group).

(The 19 regulars, as I've defined them, are - Big Phil, bobholly39, buffalowing88, daver, DeysArena, Hockey Outsider, JackSlater, jigglysquishy, Midnight Judges, Mike Farkas, overpass, seventieslord, The Asgardian, VanIslander, Vegito, Voight, wetcoast, YippieKaey, Yozhik v tumane).

 

[Plural]

It's not appropriate to use the results of this poll to make a characterization of the History forum, since this is an open poll and anybody can drop in and vote.

As of now (12:30AM EST on November 26th), the results are currently showing the following:

Ovechkin by a lot	14	23.3%
Ovechkin by a little	29	48.3%
Crosby by a little	14	23.3%
Crosby by a lot	3	5.0%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

72% of the voters picked Ovechkin. But what happens if we back out people who aren't History regulars? To add some rigour to the process, I'll count anybody with at least 75 posts on the History forum this calendar year (ie January 1st to today) as a regular. (I could have eye-balled the list and picked out who's a "regular" here with about 95% accuracy, but this way anybody can verify my results).

Here are the results for the non-History regulars:

Ovechkin by a lot	12	29.3%
Ovechkin by a little	14	34.1%
Crosby by a little	12	29.3%
Crosby by a lot	3	7.3%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

First, the interesting thing is more than two-thirds of the voters aren't History regulars. That alone suggests that using the poll results to talk about the consensus on this sub-forum doesn't really make sense. Second, the non-regulars voted for Ovechkin only 63% of the time (less than the overall group).

Here are the results for the History regulars only:

Ovechkin by a lot	2	10.5%
Ovechkin by a little	15	78.9%
Crosby by a little	2	10.5%
Crosby by a lot	0	0.0%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

History regulars voted for Ovechkin by a 17-2 margin (89.5%). And yes, one of the two people who voted for Crosby here is a Pittsburgh fan (though he posted his reasoning).

The results from History regulars (as I've defined them... someone else can do the legwork if they want to propose another definition) are decisively voting for Ovechkin here. Since it's an open poll, the results are skewed by people who rarely (or never) post here, as they account for 15 of the 17 votes for Crosby.

I think the data is actually showing the opposite of what you claim - History regulars are voting decisively for Ovechkin, and non-regular posters who are dropping by are much more evenly split (they're welcome to drop by of course, but we shouldn't pretend that their vote speaks for the group).

(The 19 regulars, as I've defined them, are - Big Phil, bobholly39, buffalowing88, daver, DeysArena, Hockey Outsider, JackSlater, jigglysquishy, Midnight Judges, Mike Farkas, overpass, seventieslord, The Asgardian, VanIslander, Vegito, Voight, wetcoast, YippieKaey, Yozhik v tumane).

I feel bad that I've dropped out of the regular position...

 

[daver]

Crosby had a better rookie season for me. 100 points as an 18 year old on a perennial last place team is more impressive than someone coming out of the second best league in the world at age 20 and doing something similar...close, but 18 and 20 are a huge difference. One is a regular junior age. The other is not. Even hockey doesn't recognize them in the same light...

To be fair, you can argue from a developmental perspective, Ovechkin was only a year ahead (if they both went through the same development system which they didn't). I don't think Ovechkin was two years ahead in terms of eligibility in the U18 and U20. Ironically, the Russian league was the best league in the world in 04/05.

You can certainly argue that Crosby's rookie year was more impressive given he was almost two years younger with zero pro experience, and once he got his feet wet after the first 1/4 season, he was the 3rd best scorer in the league the rest of the way and dominated the WHC's in an unprecedented fashion.

But to be consistent with the OP, Ovechkin had the superior season regardless of this and whether you thought Crosby had potentially a higher ceiling.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I feel bad that I've dropped out of the regular position...

Gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket. (Or so says Mark Hanna - from "Wolf of Wall Street" - in reference to something very different than posting here).

 

[Plural]

Gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket. (Or so says Mark Hanna - from "Wolf of Wall Street" - in reference to something very different than posting here).

Damn. I really dropped lately. Used to be a solid 3rd line PK winger. Now I barely crack an AHL roster.

 

[jigglysquishy]

While I ultimately voted for Ovechkin, I think the age angle is still critical. Here's a thought test for you:

Ovechkin was eligible in the 04-05 NHL season (if it happened). Assuming the season happened under conditions similar to 05-06 (lots of penalties and much lower obstruction), what can of season does Ovechkin have? In his 04-05 season he would still have been 11 months older than Crosby was in 05-06, but it is a far more fair comparison.

Crosby's PPG increased from 1.26 in 05-06 to 1.52 in 06-07. That's an increase of 20.6%, or 0.26 raw.
Gretzky's PPG increased from 1.73 in 79-80 to 2.05 in 80-81. That's an increase of 18.5%, or 0.32 raw.
Malkin's PPG increased from 1.09 in 06-07 to 1.29 in 07-08. That's an increase of 18.4% or .20 raw.

I think we can all agree that Ovechkin would reasonably do better at age 20 (his 05-06 season) than at age 19 (a hypothetical 04-05 season). I know he had a sophomore slump in real life, but we can work backwards on the math here a bit.

Ovechkin in 05-06
81 GP 52 G 54 A 106 P 1.31 PPG

Ovechkin in 04-05 played under similar conditions to 05-06, assuming the same G/A ratio as in 05-06. This is just decreasing his PPG by 18%
82 GP 45 G 46 A 91 P 1.11 PPG

And Crosby's 05-06 season for reference:
81 GP 39 G 63 A 102 P

Still a tremendous season, but I think comparing a hypothetical Ovechkin 04-05 and a real Crosby 05-06 helps contextualize the age gap.

The hypothetical Ovechkin 04-05 season would STILL be one of the best rookie seasons of all time.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

While I ultimately voted for Ovechkin, I think the age angle is still critical. Here's a thought test for you:

Ovechkin was eligible in the 04-05 NHL season (if it happened). Assuming the season happened under conditions similar to 05-06 (lots of penalties and much lower obstruction), what can of season does Ovechkin have? In his 04-05 season he would still have been 11 months older than Crosby was in 05-06, but it is a far more fair comparison.

Crosby's PPG increased from 1.26 in 05-06 to 1.52 in 06-07. That's an increase of 20.6%, or 0.26 raw.
Gretzky's PPG increased from 1.73 in 79-80 to 2.05 in 80-81. That's an increase of 18.5%, or 0.32 raw.
Malkin's PPG increased from 1.09 in 06-07 to 1.29 in 07-08. That's an increase of 18.4% or .20 raw.

I think we can all agree that Ovechkin would reasonably do better at age 20 (his 05-06 season) than at age 19 (a hypothetical 04-05 season). I know he had a sophomore slump in real life, but we can work backwards on the math here a bit.

Ovechkin in 05-06
81 GP 52 G 54 A 106 P 1.31 PPG

Ovechkin in 04-05 played under similar conditions to 05-06, assuming the same G/A ratio as in 05-06. This is just decreasing his PPG by 18%
82 GP 45 G 46 A 91 P 1.11 PPG

And Crosby's 05-06 season for reference:
81 GP 39 G 63 A 102 P

Still a tremendous season, but I think comparing a hypothetical Ovechkin 04-05 and a real Crosby 05-06 helps contextualize the age gap.

The hypothetical Ovechkin 04-05 season would STILL be one of the best rookie seasons of all time.

You didn’t account for lower scoring levels in 2003-04, I think? 91 points would have been supremely impressive in Well I was just about to point out that St. Louis won the Art Ross with 94 points or a seven point margin in the much lower scoring previous season before I came to my senses and realized that you meant what the hypothetical not-cancelled 04-05 season would have been like for Ovie in a 05-06 scoring environment. Interesting proposal. Good night.

 

[wetcoast]

It's not appropriate to use the results of this poll to make a characterization of the History forum, since this is an open poll and anybody can drop in and vote.

As of now (12:30AM EST on November 26th), the results are currently showing the following:

Ovechkin by a lot	14	23.3%
Ovechkin by a little	29	48.3%
Crosby by a little	14	23.3%
Crosby by a lot	3	5.0%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

72% of the voters picked Ovechkin. But what happens if we back out people who aren't History regulars? To add some rigour to the process, I'll count anybody with at least 75 posts on the History forum this calendar year (ie January 1st to today) as a regular. (I could have eye-balled the list and picked out who's a "regular" here with about 95% accuracy, but this way anybody can verify my results).

Here are the results for the non-History regulars:

Ovechkin by a lot	12	29.3%
Ovechkin by a little	14	34.1%
Crosby by a little	12	29.3%
Crosby by a lot	3	7.3%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

First, the interesting thing is more than two-thirds of the voters aren't History regulars. That alone suggests that using the poll results to talk about the consensus on this sub-forum doesn't really make sense. Second, the non-regulars voted for Ovechkin only 63% of the time (less than the overall group).

Here are the results for the History regulars only:

Ovechkin by a lot	2	10.5%
Ovechkin by a little	15	78.9%
Crosby by a little	2	10.5%
Crosby by a lot	0	0.0%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

History regulars voted for Ovechkin by a 17-2 margin (89.5%). And yes, one of the two people who voted for Crosby here is a Pittsburgh fan (though he posted his reasoning).

The results from History regulars (as I've defined them... someone else can do the legwork if they want to propose another definition) are decisively voting for Ovechkin here. Since it's an open poll, the results are skewed by people who rarely (or never) post here, as they account for 15 of the 17 votes for Crosby.

I think the data is actually showing the opposite of what you claim - History regulars are voting decisively for Ovechkin, and non-regular posters who are dropping by are much more evenly split (they're welcome to drop by of course, but we shouldn't pretend that their vote speaks for the group).

(The 19 regulars, as I've defined them, are - Big Phil, bobholly39, buffalowing88, daver, DeysArena, Hockey Outsider, JackSlater, jigglysquishy, Midnight Judges, Mike Farkas, overpass, seventieslord, The Asgardian, VanIslander, Vegito, Voight, wetcoast, YippieKaey, Yozhik v tumane).

I took Ovechkin by a little given ther first NHL seasons but I also brought this up in the next season thread, that Crosby was head and shoulders the better player at the WHC and to me that should be part of the overall equation when evaluating full bodies of work when comparing 2 players.