Is Connor Mcdavid a "tier above" Sidney Crosby as a player?

[x Tame Impala]

On the flip side, how many points do we think McDavid would be putting up a season from 2010-2016? 120? 130??

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It's interesting to dig into some of the underlying numbers for Crosby's shortened seasons.

PDO is an "advanced" stat, which is the sum of a player's on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage. (I'm looking at 5v5 here - this isn't a meaningful metric for PP or PK situations). Over large sample sizes, most players end up between (approx) 98 and 102. If a player does better than that, they're either very good, or very lucky.

Crosby (per hockey-reference.com) is at 101.4% for his career. That makes sense - it's a very strong result, but it's also sustainable. He's been >100 in sixteen of his nineteen seasons.

What about his injury-shortened peak (2011 to 2013)? His PDO is more than 105 across those three seasons (with no less than 104 in each year). That's an extraordinarily high result. Those are the three highest results in his career. Does that mean that Crosby was historically dominant, or just lucky? It's a bit of both, but I think the evidence suggests that there was a lot of luck.

First, what really bugs me is Crosby never came close to that PDO immediately before and after 2011-2013. He was actually really consistent - his PDO rounds to 101 in each of 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. If Crosby was truly a "105" level player (ie historically dominant), wouldn't he have repeated that at some point at age 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 or 29? Even once?

Second, we can compare Crosby to other top scorers. Each of McDavid, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Kane, MacKinnon, Kucherov and Malkin are either 101 or 102 for their careers. McDavid, Kane and MacKinnon never reached 105 in a season. Ovechkin did it once (in 2010 - which was probably his highest level of play, but it wasn't quite a full season). Malkin, Kucherov and Stamkos have come close, but fallen short (of course, Kucherov and Stamkos were teammates, playing on close to a dynasty-level team). I also checked the top two-way forwards (Bergeron, Kopitar and Toews) - none of them ever reached that level over a 50+ game season. This is why the "he was actually that good" argument falls apart. It seems unlikely that Crosby played at a 105 level for three straight years - when even historically great talent like McDavid and Ovechkin struggle to reach that even once in their careers. Crosby was great - but he wasn't that much better than everyone else.

What "baggage" am I bringing to this discussion? I currently rank Crosby above McDavid all-time. And not only is Crosby one of several players with a case for #5 all-time, he might have a stronger case than any other player in hockey history. I'm not approaching this as a Crosby "hater". At the same time - I recognize that the "advanced" stats strongly suggest that, during those 99 games spread across three seasons, Crosby was probably playing at a level that was unsustainable.

(If all this is too complicated - let's go back to the famous "pace". In the four years surrounding 2011 to 2013, Crosby averaged, per 82 games, the following number of points - 110, 110, 107, and 89. It just doesn't make sense that Crosby suddenly learned how to score at a 130 point pace, which magically happened only during these abbreviated seasons, and he never came close to that again, even though he was still in his 20's both before and after).

 

[Regal]

It's interesting to dig into some of the underlying numbers for Crosby's shortened seasons.

PDO is an "advanced" stat, which is the sum of a player's on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage. (I'm looking at 5v5 here - this isn't a meaningful metric for PP or PK situations). Over large sample sizes, most players end up between (approx) 98 and 102. If a player does better than that, they're either very good, or very lucky.

Crosby (per hockey-reference.com) is at 101.4% for his career. That makes sense - it's a very strong result, but it's also sustainable. He's been >100 in sixteen of his nineteen seasons.

What about his injury-shortened peak (2011 to 2013)? His PDO is more than 105 across those three seasons (with no less than 104 in each year). That's an extraordinarily high result. Those are the three highest results in his career. Does that mean that Crosby was historically dominant, or just lucky? It's a bit of both, but I think the evidence suggests that there was a lot of luck.

First, what really bugs me is Crosby never came close to that PDO immediately before and after 2011-2013. He was actually really consistent - his PDO rounds to 101 in each of 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. If Crosby was truly a "105" level player (ie historically dominant), wouldn't he have repeated that at some point at age 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 or 29? Even once?

Second, we can compare Crosby to other top scorers. Each of McDavid, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Kane, MacKinnon, Kucherov and Malkin are either 101 or 102 for their careers. McDavid, Kane and MacKinnon never reached 105 in a season. Ovechkin did it once (in 2010 - which was probably his highest level of play, but it wasn't quite a full season). Malkin, Kucherov and Stamkos have come close, but fallen short (of course, Kucherov and Stamkos were teammates, playing on close to a dynasty-level team). I also checked the top two-way forwards (Bergeron, Kopitar and Toews) - none of them ever reached that level over a 50+ game season. This is why the "he was actually that good" argument falls apart. It seems unlikely that Crosby played at a 105 level for three straight years - when even historically great talent like McDavid and Ovechkin struggle to reach that even once in their careers. Crosby was great - but he wasn't that much better than everyone else.

What "baggage" am I bringing to this discussion? I currently rank Crosby above McDavid all-time. And not only is Crosby one of several players with a case for #5 all-time, he might have a stronger case than any other player in hockey history. I'm not approaching this as a Crosby "hater". At the same time - I recognize that the "advanced" stats strongly suggest that, during those 99 games spread across three seasons, Crosby was probably playing at a level that was unsustainable.

(If all this is too complicated - let's go back to the famous "pace". In the four years surrounding 2011 to 2013, Crosby averaged, per 82 games, the following number of points - 110, 110, 107, and 89. It just doesn't make sense that Crosby suddenly learned how to score at a 130 point pace, which magically happened only during these abbreviated seasons, and he never came close to that again, even though he was still in his 20's both before and after).

PDO can be useful for team luck but I don’t see how Crosby’s on-ice save percentage is useful for his production luck. I think just using on-ice shooting percentage makes more sense, though obviously this is still high.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

It's interesting to dig into some of the underlying numbers for Crosby's shortened seasons.

PDO is an "advanced" stat, which is the sum of a player's on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage. (I'm looking at 5v5 here - this isn't a meaningful metric for PP or PK situations). Over large sample sizes, most players end up between (approx) 98 and 102. If a player does better than that, they're either very good, or very lucky.

Crosby (per hockey-reference.com) is at 101.4% for his career. That makes sense - it's a very strong result, but it's also sustainable. He's been >100 in sixteen of his nineteen seasons.

What about his injury-shortened peak (2011 to 2013)? His PDO is more than 105 across those three seasons (with no less than 104 in each year). That's an extraordinarily high result. Those are the three highest results in his career. Does that mean that Crosby was historically dominant, or just lucky? It's a bit of both, but I think the evidence suggests that there was a lot of luck.

First, what really bugs me is Crosby never came close to that PDO immediately before and after 2011-2013. He was actually really consistent - his PDO rounds to 101 in each of 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. If Crosby was truly a "105" level player (ie historically dominant), wouldn't he have repeated that at some point at age 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 or 29? Even once?

Second, we can compare Crosby to other top scorers. Each of McDavid, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Kane, MacKinnon, Kucherov and Malkin are either 101 or 102 for their careers. McDavid, Kane and MacKinnon never reached 105 in a season. Ovechkin did it once (in 2010 - which was probably his highest level of play, but it wasn't quite a full season). Malkin, Kucherov and Stamkos have come close, but fallen short (of course, Kucherov and Stamkos were teammates, playing on close to a dynasty-level team). I also checked the top two-way forwards (Bergeron, Kopitar and Toews) - none of them ever reached that level over a 50+ game season. This is why the "he was actually that good" argument falls apart. It seems unlikely that Crosby played at a 105 level for three straight years - when even historically great talent like McDavid and Ovechkin struggle to reach that even once in their careers. Crosby was great - but he wasn't that much better than everyone else.

What "baggage" am I bringing to this discussion? I currently rank Crosby above McDavid all-time. And not only is Crosby one of several players with a case for #5 all-time, he might have a stronger case than any other player in hockey history. I'm not approaching this as a Crosby "hater". At the same time - I recognize that the "advanced" stats strongly suggest that, during those 99 games spread across three seasons, Crosby was probably playing at a level that was unsustainable.

(If all this is too complicated - let's go back to the famous "pace". In the four years surrounding 2011 to 2013, Crosby averaged, per 82 games, the following number of points - 110, 110, 107, and 89. It just doesn't make sense that Crosby suddenly learned how to score at a 130 point pace, which magically happened only during these abbreviated seasons, and he never came close to that again, even though he was still in his 20's both before and after).

Crosby at age 20 had a season of 1.04 PDO..

 

[PainForShane]

Just like the comments that say the best offensive playoff performer since Mario Lemieux is somehow not good enough to win a cup not only look stupid today, but will look even stupider in the future looking back.

No one is saying that.

The only thing that looks stupid here is your inability to understand a basic argument.

 

[Offtheboard412]

I guess I'm not sure why you are bringing up how he has changed his game.

It will be interesting to see how McDavid changes his game as he ages and loses his speed I guess

We where discussing what aspects of the game Crosby is better at than McDavid. I was stating that I felt Crosby was always a bit better a reading the ice, and has only gotten better in that regard as he's aged.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

Like I said above, Crosby subjectively feels like we would have peaked as a 120-point guy if he had better luck with his health. Adjusting for leaguewide scoring rates gets him closer to McDavid’s peak, leaving a gap of around 20 points. That’s still quite a lot… we all know the difference between a 40 and 60 point scorer, 60 and 80, 80 and 100. That’s not the kind of gap that gets completely washed out with better defense and grit.

But it is the kind of gap that gets more than completely washed out with better defense and grit, and worse goaltending.

McDavid is doing exactly what we thought Sid would have done if he didn't get hurt lol. But he's actually doing it in front of our eyes for full seasons

Does this make McDavid 'a tier above' Crosby?

On the flip side, how many points do we think McDavid would be putting up a season from 2010-2016? 120? 130??

Barring a season where everything goes his way, he'd top out at 110.

 

[pi314]

Having 4 points in a 4-1 game after the game is out of hand…

…isn’t the same as even 1 clutch point in a game 7.

The point of the game is to win.

Excuses don’t change that fact.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Having 4 points in a 4-1 game after the game is out of hand…

…isn’t the same as even 1 clutch point in a game 7.

The point of the game is to win.

Excuses don’t change that fact.

I believe they are called "relevant points"

 

[GreatGonzo]

Having 4 points in a 4-1 game after the game is out of hand…

…isn’t the same as even 1 clutch point in a game 7.

The point of the game is to win.

Excuses don’t change that fact.

Do you realize how much you contradict yourself?

If the whole point of the game is to win, why does it matter if he had 4 points in a 4-1 win? He won….. Doesn’t the same logic apply to Crosby? 3 points in 7 games, -3…..0 points In games 6 and 7….BUT HE WON THOUGH!!!

“One clutch point in a game 7.” You mean what Crosby didn’t have in ‘09?

 

[Frank Drebin]

Do you realize how much you contradict yourself?

If the whole point of the game is to win, why does it matter if he had 4 points in a 4-1 win? He won….. Doesn’t the same logic apply to Crosby? 3 points in 7 games, -3…..0 points In games 6 and 7….BUT HE WON THOUGH!!!

“One clutch point in a game 7.” You mean what Crosby didn’t have in ‘09?

He's hinting at the magical abilities that Crosby and Ryan O'Reilly have that McDavid lacks.

Ryan OReilly captain magical clutch
7GP 5G 4A 9Pts 2 way play

Better than any final series by Sid TBH.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Crosby at age 20 had a season of 1.04 PDO..

He also had 68 points in 41 games. That’s a 136 point pace. He had 23 goals and 45 assists. That’s 46 goals and 90 assists. He ended with 120 points(36 goals, 84 assists).

 

[Ogelthorpe]

A good team wins you the Cup.

Edmonton has a good team.

all I gotta say is Sidney Crosby has to be the luckiest SOB to constantly end up on good teams his whole life, because he’s basically won at every level…. Dude must be blessed to have landed on so many championship caliber teams.

 

[tarheelhockey]

He did the same pace over multiple seasons.

Are people really that disingenuous to pretend Crosby would not have produced in his best years if he wasn’t Steckeled?

He’s produced for 20 years.

Why bring “disingenuous” into it? We’re having a civil discussion here. Accusing people of dishonesty isn’t called for.

And no, he did not produce at that pace over multiple full seasons. The highest PPGs of Crosby’s career occurred in seasons of 22, 36, and 41 games. The pace gap between his best PPG and his best actual result is worth 13 points, which is not an insignificant thing. It’s the difference between an 82 point season and a 69 point season… that’s an offensive tier’s worth of difference.

To believe that he would have actually had a 137 point season, he would have needed to actually do that at some point in his career. Or at least do it for, say, 65 games or something. Pacing for it for a couple dozen games simply isn’t proof of concept.

Kucherov's production only jumped once goalie equipment shrunk, he was a sub 100 point player before that

He was always on a steady growth curve, though. He went from a nothing rookie to a 30-goal scorer to a 40-goal scorer in his first four years, and then made the jump to 100 points, then up to being an Art Ross winner. His career track was a very linear upward curve, independent of whatever was going on with goalie equipment.

In any case, his growth dramatically outpaced the general effects of scoring increase. He’s pretty clearly an all-timer and as a scorer only, he’s a lot closer to a Crosby level than people are giving him credit for. I’m kind of fine with that because he’s an ass, but for the sake of this argument he does deserve the credit that’s due to him.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Edmonton has a good team.

all I gotta say is Sidney Crosby has to be the luckiest SOB to constantly end up on good teams his whole life, because he’s basically won at every level…. Dude must be blessed to have landed on so many championship caliber teams.

Pretty lucky I'd say.

What was his teams record with him in and out of the lineup anyway?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Edmonton has a good team.

Right, and as soon as they added some depth they immediately came within a sphincter-tightening crease scramble of winning the Cup. That’s how this works, it’s not the NBA. Mario Lemieux’s early career is informative on the topic.

all I gotta say is Sidney Crosby has to be the luckiest SOB to constantly end up on good teams his whole life, because he’s basically won at every level…. Dude must be blessed to have landed on so many championship caliber teams.

Well yeah, he was on a star-studded Penguins team and otherwise plays for Team Canada. At what level did he not play on a powerhouse team?

 

[Video Nasty]

Crosby had a poor start in 2010-11 and his ppg was steadily increasing as the season went on. And I don't know that it's true that almost every player's place slows down over the season. You're going to have to show your work here.

Let’s take a look at how Crosby himself fared throughout his career when he was relevant in scoring races.

You can hold me if you like. It’s always unpleasant when the curtain is lifted from your childhood hero and the myth that holds little basis in reality gets deconstructed.

2006-2007

95 points in first 56 games (1.70 PPG)
25 points in final 23 games (1.09 PPG)

2007-2008

40 points in first 27 games (1.48 PPG)
23 points in next 18 games before injury (1.28 PPG)

2008-2009

50 points in first 40 games (1.25 PPG)
53 points in final 37 games (1.43 PPG)

2009-2010

48 points in first 43 games (1.12 PPG)
61 points in final 38 games (1.61 PPG)

As noted before, he had 15 points in his first 13 games of 2010-2011 and 12 points in his first 8 games of 2011-2012, which are a bit off from the 76 in 42 that he had collectively at the other points of those two seasons.

2012-2013

45 points in first 26 games (1.73 PPG)
11 points in final 9 games (1.22 PPG) before getting knocked out a minute into game 36 and missing final 12 (1.10 PPG)

2013-2014

66 points in first 46 games (1.44 PPG)
38 points in final 34 games (1.12 PPG)

2014-2015

50 points in first 40 games (1.25 PPG)
34 points in final 37 games (0.92 PPG)

2015-2016

19 points in first 30 games (0.63 PPG)
66 points in final 50 games (1.32 PPG)

2016-2017

54 points in first 40 games (1.35 PPG)
35 points in final 35 games (1.00 PPG)

There we have it. In general, the guy could never really put together two complete electric halves of a season. He has a couple of instances where he had a pretty good 2/3rds of a season run, whether it was the first 2/3rds or the last 2/3rds, but there is almost no evidence that he could run it front to back like McDavid has proven constantly.

 

[Mathews28]

It's like the Bure vs Kucherov debate... one is a Lamborghini with all flash no substance (McDavid) and one is a reliable winner and leader (Sid).

No substance? Or much worse team?

 

[admiralcadillac]

I missed this comment at the time, but please see my reply a few posts above. Projecting a 22-game season into an 82-game pace is really not a valid argument when it comes to NHL scoring patterns.

41 game season lol

 

[admiralcadillac]

It's interesting to dig into some of the underlying numbers for Crosby's shortened seasons.

PDO is an "advanced" stat, which is the sum of a player's on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage. (I'm looking at 5v5 here - this isn't a meaningful metric for PP or PK situations). Over large sample sizes, most players end up between (approx) 98 and 102. If a player does better than that, they're either very good, or very lucky.

Crosby (per hockey-reference.com) is at 101.4% for his career. That makes sense - it's a very strong result, but it's also sustainable. He's been >100 in sixteen of his nineteen seasons.

What about his injury-shortened peak (2011 to 2013)? His PDO is more than 105 across those three seasons (with no less than 104 in each year). That's an extraordinarily high result. Those are the three highest results in his career. Does that mean that Crosby was historically dominant, or just lucky? It's a bit of both, but I think the evidence suggests that there was a lot of luck.

First, what really bugs me is Crosby never came close to that PDO immediately before and after 2011-2013. He was actually really consistent - his PDO rounds to 101 in each of 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. If Crosby was truly a "105" level player (ie historically dominant), wouldn't he have repeated that at some point at age 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 or 29? Even once?

Second, we can compare Crosby to other top scorers. Each of McDavid, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Kane, MacKinnon, Kucherov and Malkin are either 101 or 102 for their careers. McDavid, Kane and MacKinnon never reached 105 in a season. Ovechkin did it once (in 2010 - which was probably his highest level of play, but it wasn't quite a full season). Malkin, Kucherov and Stamkos have come close, but fallen short (of course, Kucherov and Stamkos were teammates, playing on close to a dynasty-level team). I also checked the top two-way forwards (Bergeron, Kopitar and Toews) - none of them ever reached that level over a 50+ game season. This is why the "he was actually that good" argument falls apart. It seems unlikely that Crosby played at a 105 level for three straight years - when even historically great talent like McDavid and Ovechkin struggle to reach that even once in their careers. Crosby was great - but he wasn't that much better than everyone else.

What "baggage" am I bringing to this discussion? I currently rank Crosby above McDavid all-time. And not only is Crosby one of several players with a case for #5 all-time, he might have a stronger case than any other player in hockey history. I'm not approaching this as a Crosby "hater". At the same time - I recognize that the "advanced" stats strongly suggest that, during those 99 games spread across three seasons, Crosby was probably playing at a level that was unsustainable.

(If all this is too complicated - let's go back to the famous "pace". In the four years surrounding 2011 to 2013, Crosby averaged, per 82 games, the following number of points - 110, 110, 107, and 89. It just doesn't make sense that Crosby suddenly learned how to score at a 130 point pace, which magically happened only during these abbreviated seasons, and he never came close to that again, even though he was still in his 20's both before and after).

So you’re saying it doesn’t make sense that in his prime he wouldn’t go from 120 to 130 points, only regress to 110? These posts are making less sense every word.

 

[tarheelhockey]

41 game season lol

It’s still only half a season. A couple years before that, he was pacing for 143 after his first 47 games. After that, his pace dropped by 33% and he landed at 120 when it was all said and done.

lol it all you want, but this dynamic comes up every single season with a wide range of players. Being on pace for 100 points at Christmas does not carry the same value as finishing with 100 points in April.

 

[wetcoast]

277 points from games that were never played.

That pace really helped the Pens in the games he missed. Surely tipped the scales in their favor...

TY for making my point once again as that's not what the stat is and frankly you are smart enough to know that but you keep doing you it's a bad look and the other poster brought yet another distortion/distraction in his response as well.

 

[pi314]

I believe they are called "relevant points"

I believe the point of the game is to win.

Points are your false god.

They don’t tell the whole story of winning and losing.

You over value points… in a higher scoring era… and undervalue the thing that actually matters.

 

[norrisnick]

TY for making my point once again as that's not what the stat is and frankly you are smart enough to know that but you keep doing you it's a bad look and the other poster brought yet another distortion/distraction in his response as well.

The post of mine you quoted was specifically talking about the absurd graphic that's been posted a few times now that attempts to give credit to Crosby for 188 games he did not play. Period. Hell, 34 of those games didn't exist at all because of a lockout.

You come swinging in talking about pace and intellectual dishonesty as if you have any legs to stand on with regards to intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
But keep coming back claiming people don't know what pace means. We know exactly what pace means. We also know pace...
Does. Not. Matter. In. Games. A. Player. Does. Not. Play.

It's like dividing by zero... doesn't matter what you start with.

 

[Felidae]

I've been on this board long enough to remember Crosby not being the best player on his own team threads and people having legitimate arguments for Malkin.Or livewell68 murduring arguments that Crosby was better that JJ.
McDavid meanwhile is breaking Mario and Wayne records..
Crosby has greatness but when all is said and done McDavid is carving a Rushmore career.

Man, livewell68 stopped posting when Jagr left the NHL it seems. Are we sure he wasnt the man himself?