Historical relevance of Kucherov and MacKinnon's 2024 season?

[daver]

The more I look at things, the less I believe that neither of the seasons being discussed are good parallels. But I also don't believe that the comparison between two different seasons worked. Expected or not, there were, simply put, more outliers this season than last season. I don't see what whether they were expected or not has anything to do with it. With the suggestion that Panarin may be an outlier, that's complicated ever further.

What do you mean by "outlier"? That Panarin also had an unusual spike year? Or that his 1.46 PPG is also a statistical outlier?

If it's the former, Panarin had hit 1.38 twice and was 3rd in PPG from 19/20 to 20/21.

If it's the latter, what is the threshold for determining an "outlier".

That Panarin is being considered an "outlier" at all indicates a flaw in the VsX calculation.

 

[daver]

That invokes the question: If a player like Bernie Nicholls can have such a strong outlier season, why can't a player of Kucherov's calibre? It looks like that is exactly what happened.

However, if scoring is similar at the very top next season, we will either have to upgrade Kucherov and/or MacKinnon... or if different players have such strong outliers, find an explanation as to why that sort of thing is happening more frequently and perhaps account for that in comparison methods.

Hard to say that Kucherov and Nicholls were in the same situation given Wayne's presence. The similarity is that two outlier seasons happened in the same season like this year; one of which was done by a player whose resume/offensive ceiling was similar to Kucherov and MacKinnon.

 

[Staniowski]

Kucherov and MacKinnon are two of the very best scorers in the history of the sport. I think it's just going to take a while for everybody to accept it.

Kucherov is a very special player, some of his talents are unique and among the very best ever. He's also had some significant injuries which have slowed him down. His scoring would otherwise have been even better.

MacKinnon is on track to put up some big career numbers, and will likely reach some career points milestones at a younger age than either Crosby or Ovechkin. MacKinnon is a better scorer (goals + assists) than Ovechkin, obviously.

 

[daver]

I think there has to be some recognition of the fundamental change in the scoring environment for the elite offensive players in the league since 2018.

From '22' to '24, there has been 28 hundred point scorers and 13 others that were at a 100 point pace (min. 50 games).

From '14 to '16, there were only 2 hundred point scorers and zero others at a 100 point pace (min. 50 games).

From '02 to '04, there were 3 hundred point scorers and 1 other that was at a 100 point pace (min. 50 games).


The Top Ten PPG scorers from '22 to '24 averaged a 1.39 PPG. The league GPG average was 3.14

The Top Ten PPG scorers from '14 to '16 averaged a 1.03 PPG. The league GPG average was 2.73

The Top Ten PPG scorers from '07 to '09 averaged a 1.20 PPG. The league GPG average was 2.88

The Top Ten PPG scorers from '02 to '04 averaged a 1.07 PPG. The league GPG average was 2.62


While the overall league GPG went up 15% from '14/'16 to '22/'24, the elite scorers' average went up 35%

There should be a correlation with the increase in average TOI for the elite offensive forwards.

 

[Sentinel]

Let's all be honest here, I know there are some who feel like the old time stars of the past are not appreciated as much as they should be, but Howe was never in the Gretzky/Lemeiux/Orr tier talent-wise/based on skills and abilities. He's a clear tier below, which is not an insult - that's the second highest tier ever achieved in hockey history after all with only a handful of players attaining it. But the real reason why he is ranked in the 'big 4' is because of his unsurpassed longevity along with his physically dominating all-round game. Had he been just a little less physically dominate, or had his longevity been normal instead of freakish, he wouldn't be in the Big 4. McDavid is having a Howe-like offensive career, but he doesn't have the same physically dominating presence and until only recently his defensive play has not be notable either. So how can he possibly be elevated to the same level when lacking in many other important variables? Quite simply he cannot.

So the fact that Howe has as many Harts as Orr and Lemiuex COMBINED does not mean he was on their level?

 

[daver]

More interesting data:

Comparing the early transition years from the high scoring '80s to the DPE. League GPG was significantly higher but the top end scorers were close.

90/91 to 91/92 (League GPG of 3.47):

Mario - 1.96 PPG
Wayne - 1.87
Hull - 1.59
Oates - 1.52
Sakic - 1.36
Lafontaine - 1.35

22/23 to 23/24 (League GPG of 3.14):

McDavid -1.80
MacKinnon - 1.64
Kucherov - 1.58
Draisaitl - 1.45
Pasternak - 1.36
Rantanen - 1.29

 

[TheStatican]

So the fact that Howe has as many Harts as Orr and Lemiuex COMBINED does not mean he was on their level?

Trophy count are we? Oh yeah I forgot, that's hf boards favorite pastime after all It's a little easier to win when your dealing with less competition, you realize that right? Lemieux was competing in a league of 7 to 8 hundred players, Orr 4 to 5 hundred players. And how many players was Howe up against in total? About 150. It's one thing if the difference was 20, 30 or 40% but it's quite another when we're talking about a difference of several multiples. Besides, we all know that the voters suffered from the mental Pejorative Sluration known as regency bias in Orr's & Lemieux's cases in multiple years. They were never going to win in years they should have when they were the best and most valuable players on the ice unless they really out did themselves.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Trophy count are we? Oh yeah I forgot, that's hf boards favorite pastime after all It's a little easier to win when your dealing with less competition, you realize that right? Lemieux was competing in a league of 7 to 8 hundred players, Orr 4 to 5 hundred players. And how many players was Howe up against in total? About 150. It's one thing if the difference was 20, 30 or 40% but it's quite another when we're talking about a difference of several multiples. Besides, we all know that the voters suffered from the mental Pejorative Sluration known as regency bias in Orr's & Lemieux's cases in multiple years. They were never going to win in years they should have when they were the best and most valuable players on the ice unless they really out did themselves.

Not to mention for lemieux finished second in hart voting to gretzky twice. One in gretzkys 215 and the other getting robbed while scoring 199 freaking points. Lemieux should have four hart trophies right now and would have 5 without Gretzky.

 

[MadLuke]

Gretzky beating you for the Hart is obviously a good argument about Lemieux relative "low" count, but I am not sure adding 400 players to the nhl make beating Hull, mikita, Beliveau, the pre 1955 were maybe lower competition but the post one were probably really good.

 

[daver]

All we know about Howe is that he was clearly on another level from his era competition. He had multiple seasons that matched the best ONE season of Hull (65/66), Beliveau (55/56), and Mikita (66/67), and one season that clearly surpassed those ONE seasons. He was "beatable" after the age of 26 but was still arguably the league's best player for another six/seven years. It is debatable whether he was "beatable" in some of his peak seasons if era competition played at the same time as him.

All we know about Wayne, Mario and Orr is that they introduced video game numbers before there were video games during a period where the league expanded four/five over times over and saw the highest scoring levels all-time.

McDavid has dominated his direct competition offensively like Howe, with multiple peak seasons at a level that his competition (Kucherov, Matthews, MacKinnon) have only hit once. Crosby and Jagr both hit similar levels of domination as McDavid albeit in partial seasons, and not right off the get go, respectively.

There has been a somewhat unprecedented jump in scoring by the elite offensive forwards since 16/17 that has offensive-minded forwards putting up point totals/PPGs and goal totals that the league hasn't seen in over 30 years save for Mario and a Jagr with Mario.

So what does this say about Kucherov and MacKinnon? Did they benefit from this offensive jump that moved them from being clearly statistically behind McDavid (and Crosby, peak Ovechkin and peak Malkin?) before 23/24 to being what Hull/Beliveau/Mikita were to Howe?

 

[Staniowski]

Trophy count are we? Oh yeah I forgot, that's hf boards favorite pastime after all It's a little easier to win when your dealing with less competition, you realize that right? Lemieux was competing in a league of 7 to 8 hundred players, Orr 4 to 5 hundred players. And how many players was Howe up against in total? About 150. It's one thing if the difference was 20, 30 or 40% but it's quite another when we're talking about a difference of several multiples. Besides, we all know that the voters suffered from the mental Pejorative Sluration known as regency bias in Orr's & Lemieux's cases in multiple years. They were never going to win in years they should have when they were the best and most valuable players on the ice unless they really out did themselves.

Your conclusion is correct....but the issue is not the number of players or the number of teams in the NHL. Rather, the real issue with respect to Howe is that there was little talent in the league in the 1950s, especially in the first half of the decade when the talent was quite low.

The simple difference between Howe and Lemieux is that Howe wouldn't come close to winning ANY scoring titles in Lemieux's era; and Lemieux would (with decent health) win 20 scoring titles in Howe's era. In other words, they are not close, even though Howe was a great scorer.

Howe was the 2nd-best scorer of the 1950s, behind Beliveau.

And, currently, McDavid and Kucherov are much better scorers than Howe was.

 

[TheGuiminator]

Time will tell, but if 140 points becomes the new 120 points, their seasons will definitely feel less special.

 

[Sentinel]

Trophy count are we? Oh yeah I forgot, that's hf boards favorite pastime after all It's a little easier to win when your dealing with less competition, you realize that right? Lemieux was competing in a league of 7 to 8 hundred players, Orr 4 to 5 hundred players. And how many players was Howe up against in total? About 150. It's one thing if the difference was 20, 30 or 40% but it's quite another when we're talking about a difference of several multiples. Besides, we all know that the voters suffered from the mental Pejorative Sluration known as regency bias in Orr's & Lemieux's cases in multiple years. They were never going to win in years they should have when they were the best and most valuable players on the ice unless they really out did themselves.

Yes, counting trophies. My favorite past time.

Orr played in the weakest era of all time: the first expansion.

Besides, "we know" nothing of the sort because you just made it up.

 

[Michael Farkas]

- To be fair, you are probably the most binary regular here.
- As someone that just spent the last several weeks watching backwards through time of the last 97 years of available film, there's absolutely no chance that's true.
- I have no thought on the third point, but I go for parallelism when possible