MacKinnon has 150 points in his last 82 games

[tfwnogf]

Crosby came back after the concussion and proceeded to run away with the scoring title in 12/13 before breaking his jaw, then won the scoring title by a large margin in 13/14. He was not the same goal scorer after the concussions (while still managing to win a Rocket mind you). I feel you're exaggerating the fall off a bit here.

I'm not saying Sid and Ovi blow Mackinnon and Kucherov away or anything. But in that time period I mentioned, only Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby even paced for close to or above 120 points. The fall off they went you're claiming they went through is exaggerated by how low scoring dropped.

Yeah true I exaggerated the fall off, when I said their production wasn't great during the post 2012 years I meant by their own insanely high standards. It's possible they hit 140+ today. But there's so many what ifs in hockey, this is just another one imo.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Maybe they do maybe they don't. But they didn't, so who cares.

When you're claiming Kucherov and MacKinnon are at or better than Crosby and Ovechkin the era-difference matters.

Even if you adjust the numbers to equalize scoring context, McDavid/Kucherov/MacKinnon have been putting up numbers the past couple of years that significantly exceed anything Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin did.

Just as an example, the league in 2007 wasn’t so much lower scoring as to close the gap between Crosby’s career high 120 and McDavid’s 153. Not only is there still a gap, but it’s a decent sized one (hockey-reference has it as 122-146, which is really quite substantial any way you cut it). And that was back when Crosby was still a bit soft and defensively leaky compared to what he became later.

It's an interesting debate. On one hand having watched the big 3 in their prime and this generation's big 3 I feel comfortable saying Crosby and Ovechkin dominated a tougher league at a level beyond what MacKinnon and Kucherov are capable of. On the other, at what point does nostalgia make it impossible to say players are better than than others when comparing eras?

FWIW I don't think the exact conversion of scoring rates is completely accurate when comparing eras. Like +/- I think it's a generalized indicator of scoring rates across the entire league. Last season the NHL had...

-25 players finish PPG or higher
-17 players had 90+ points
-9 players had 100+ points
-Pastrnake was 5th in scoring with 110 points and Panarin 4th with 120

Crosby's BEST statistical year he had 120 points, which ties him for 4th this year. In 07/08 there were 2 guys over 100 points, 08/09 there were 3, 09/10 there were 4, 10/11 there was 1, 11/12 there was 1, 12/13 there was 2 if you pace it out, 13/14 there was 1, 14/15 there wasn't even a 90 point scorer, 15/16 there was one, 16/17 there was 1.

The league changes over time as it should but there's more context to explain player's stats than just GF conversion rates by year

 

[dirtydanglez]

Did you miss the example right after that?

• "Fascinating!" (capitalized because it's the start of the sentence)
• "That’s fascinating." (not capitalized because it’s in the middle of the sentence)

The sarcastic tone doesn’t affect the capitalization rule. It’s purely based on where the word appears in the sentence. So, if you're at the start of a sentence, capitalize it, but if it's in the middle, leave it lowercase.

I could not care less how you type. I will simply block you, but you'll continue to appear illiterate to everyone else. Trying to help.

maybe just one more time.

 

[Regal]

They sure didn't. They played in the DPE 2.0, where scoring levels were largely indistinguishable from the DPE.

And probably even worse than the DPE at the top of the lineup in the 2013-2017 era. The DPE was lower scoring 5v5, but there were more PPs so scoring tended to be more concentrated at the top

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Who knows. My point is they never did it, while Kuch, McDavid and Mack did. Talking eras is silly. This is not 80s level of scoring today and Ovi/Crosby/Malkin didn't play in the dead puck era. Scoring went down after their primes but not during.

Crosby lead the NHL in points per game 6 times. MacKinnon 0. Of course era matters. And you have it the other way around, scoring went up after their primes.

 

[The Panther]

So, super recency bias is probably the problem here.

At the same age vs. MacKinnon:

- MacKinnon = 791gp, 899pts, 1.14ppg
- Crosby = 70gp, 933pts, 1.33ppg

At the same age vs. Kucherov:

- Kucherov = 725gp, 873pts, 1.20ppg
- Crosby = 864gp, 1,116pts, 1.29ppg

So, even with all his injury trouble that hit when he was just starting to dominate the league, he still has more raw points than both at this points in their respective careers and Crosby did that during a much lower scoring era.

Also, looking at where they finish in the scoring in terms of raw points and PPG:

Points:

- Number 1 - Crosby (2), Mack (0), Kuch (2)
- Top 2 - Crosby (3), Mack (1), Kuch (2)
- Top 3 - Crosby (8), Mack (3), Kuch (4)
- Top 4 - Crosby (9), Mack (3), Kuch (4)
- Top 6 - Crosby (10), Mack (4), Kuch (5)

PPG:

- Number 1 - Crosby (6), Mack (0), Kuch (2)
- Top 2 - Crosby (8), Mack (1), Kuch (3)
- Top 3 - Crosby (9), Mack (3), Kuch (3)
- Top 5 - Crosby (11), Mack (5), Kuch (6)
- Top 6 - Crosby (12), Mack (6), Kuch (6)

This is just on offensive production as well....I think most would separate Crosby from these two for various other reasons.

Sure, if you look at the span of their whole careers then Crosby and Ovi look better, as they started at peak form from the very beginining. But I'm personally not really interested in whole careers in player comparisons. I'm interested in comparing each player's extended prime. In other words, at each player's best for a sustainable period. In this, I don't really see a difference between Crosby, Ovechkin, MacKinnon, Kucherov.

I mean, we could certainly argue that MacKinnon's 150 points over 82 consecutive games is an offensive level beyond Crosby (and almost certainly Ovechkin). We could also reasonably argue that Kucherov's 2020 and 2021 playoff runs are better than any Crosby or Ovechkin has had.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Seriously, the game has changed. Gathering that much speed through the neutral zone simply wasn't possible back then, pp efficiencies are sky high due to smaller goalie pads, and en points are abundant due to coaches pulling goalies earlier. All the changes provide outsized advantages to top scorers. You can even look at Crosby's numbers - 84 points at age 27, 94 points at age 36.

Kane won the Ross, Hart, and Lindsay with 106 points in an insanely dominant season at 27 years old. 2 years later he had a 110 point year and finished 3rd in scoring…18 points away from first.

From 2018 to 2022 he had 352 points in 285 games, a 101 point pace, from ages 30-33. Better numbers than he ever put up in his 20’s for the most part.

Scoring went up like crazy and star players really shined. It’s not like Kane got that much better as a player in his 30’s than he was in the prime of his life.

 

[The Panther]

Crosby lead the NHL in points per game 6 times. MacKinnon 0. Of course era matters. And you have it the other way around, scoring went up after their primes.

I count 5 for Crosby in raw numbers, but 3 or 4 in reality. Certainly 2011 doesn't count as he didn't play enough games.

It's certainly true that MacKinnon hasn't led the NHL in points per game (yet), but he likely would have at least once (2018) if not for McDavid, the best offensive talent since Mario, and a level of competition in scoring Crosby has never had (we pause here to remember prime Crosby being outscored by Benn and Sedin, and being outscored in points-per-60 by 43-year-old Jagr).

 

[Romang67]

Sure, if you look at the span of their whole careers then Crosby and Ovi look better, as they started at peak form from the very beginining. But I'm personally not really interested in whole careers in player comparisons. I'm interested in comparing each player's extended prime. In other words, at each player's best for a sustainable period. In this, I don't really see a difference between Crosby, Ovechkin, MacKinnon, Kucherov.

I mean, we could certainly argue that MacKinnon's 150 points over 82 consecutive games is an offensive level beyond Crosby (and almost certainly Ovechkin). We could also reasonably argue that Kucherov's 2020 and 2021 playoff runs are better than any Crosby or Ovechkin has had.

That's quite the take. How would you rank Brodeur, Hasek, Roy, and Tim Thomas?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Malkin's 11/12 season adjusts very close to what they're doing. Ovechkin's 09/10 does as well. Definitely not a significant gap.

How do you figure? Again using the H-R adjustment Malkin’s 11-12 adjusts to 122 and Ovechkin’s 09-10 adjusts to 117. That same formula has Crosby’s 2007 at 122 and McDavid’s 2023 at 146.

I’m not saying those numbers are 100% accurate but 24 points is a BIG gap. I’m open to understanding how H-R’s math is so wildly wrong that a 24 point gap would show up as a phantom.

It's an interesting debate. On one hand having watched the big 3 in their prime and this generation's big 3 I feel comfortable saying Crosby and Ovechkin dominated a tougher league at a level beyond what MacKinnon and Kucherov are capable of. On the other, at what point does nostalgia make it impossible to say players are better than than others when comparing eras?

I’ve definitely seen people make similar arguments about other generations being tougher to play in. Honestly I remember having those arguments around 2006-10 when things were opened up and a lot of people felt the scoring rise was artificial compared to the DPE, or even to the 1980s where they felt the high scoring was more “real”. Personally I think there is indeed quite a bit of nostalgia wrapped up in that sort of argument, but there are certain cases where the nostalgia is valid. I remember a lot of people going to the mat and saying a Paul Coffey could not exist in a modern league, and statistical models being built to show that Coffey’s 120 points was equal to Lidstrom’s 80. Then Karlsson came along and it was like… oh. Turns out the league was just missing a certain “feature” for a while.

As another example, the amount of ENG happening right now is a good example of where a Kucherov can rack up garbage time points that a Brett Hull wouldn’t have accepted even if they had been available. So sometimes the long-term perspective is actually valid and not just nostalgia. We just have to have our eyes open for those situations, with a critical mindset toward what the numbers are telling us.

FWIW I don't think the exact conversion of scoring rates is completely accurate when comparing eras. Like +/- I think it's a generalized indicator of scoring rates across the entire league. Last season the NHL had...

-25 players finish PPG or higher
-17 players had 90+ points
-9 players had 100+ points
-Pastrnake was 5th in scoring with 110 points and Panarin 4th with 120

Crosby's BEST statistical year he had 120 points, which ties him for 4th this year. In 07/08 there were 2 guys over 100 points, 08/09 there were 3, 09/10 there were 4, 10/11 there was 1, 11/12 there was 1, 12/13 there was 2 if you pace it out, 13/14 there was 1, 14/15 there wasn't even a 90 point scorer, 15/16 there was one, 16/17 there was 1.

The league changes over time as it should but there's more context to explain player's stats than just GF conversion rates by year

I guess the question is, if Crosby’s best season had him win the scoring race 120-114 (or 104-87 which would probably be regarded as the better year for him) and McDavid’s best season has him winning it 153-113 (excluding his own teammate who shared points with him) then isn’t it just self evident that McDavid is more dominant? It’s hard to imagine any scoring adjustment which could close that gap.

 

[Offtheboard412]

How do you figure? Again using the H-R adjustment Malkin’s 11-12 adjusts to 122 and Ovechkin’s 09-10 adjusts to 117. That same formula has Crosby’s 2007 at 122 and McDavid’s 2023 at 146.

I’m not saying those numbers are 100% accurate but 24 points is a BIG gap. I’m open to understanding how H-R’s math is so wildly wrong that a 24 point gap would show up as a phantom.

Personally I have no problem projecting their season out to 82 games in this instance. They played 72 and 75 games respectively those years, so I feel more than comfortable giving them an 82 game projection on those seasons. Also I am personally not a big fan of H-R's adjusted stats. Just looking at league goals per game does not tell the whole story. For instance, going by goals per game 07/08 and the 15/16 season will seem very similar, yet there were other factors that drove down scoring for top line forwards in the latter season.

 

[benfranklin]

You do know there were more teams in 13/14 right?

As for your point, Jagr had a great comeback year in 05/06 after tanking since 00/01. He obviously has the talent to do so but may have been especially motivated that year. He was outside the Top 10 in PPG in 03/04 and in 06/07, so hard to say that he was playing at Art Ross threat level in his 30s.

He had one season, w/o Mario, that was more dominant than Crosby relative to their peers.

Compared to 1995, yes, but I think we agreed that 1995 was still crazy scoring right, but still dont know what youre getting at outside of arguing to argue at this point. Can we go back to MacKinnon?

So summary Jagrs best was better than Crosbys best, but only once, not 5 times like another poster said? But only without Mario while ignoring Malkin?

 

[The Panther]

That's quite the take. How would you rank Brodeur, Hasek, Roy, and Tim Thomas?

I think you're implying that Thomas didn't do enough to rate with those other guys -- I completely agree. That's why I focus on extended prime, not peak.

 

[Three On Zero]

Sure, if you look at the span of their whole careers then Crosby and Ovi look better, as they started at peak form from the very beginining. But I'm personally not really interested in whole careers in player comparisons. I'm interested in comparing each player's extended prime. In other words, at each player's best for a sustainable period. In this, I don't really see a difference between Crosby, Ovechkin, MacKinnon, Kucherov.

I mean, we could certainly argue that MacKinnon's 150 points over 82 consecutive games is an offensive level beyond Crosby (and almost certainly Ovechkin). We could also reasonably argue that Kucherov's 2020 and 2021 playoff runs are better than any Crosby or Ovechkin has had.

Ovechkin as going to be the league leaders in goals scored, Crosby is going to retire as the 5th best player to ever play. Also factor
In that Crosby and Ovechkin had to play in some low scoring seasons.

I would say they’ve both had better primes and careers than MacKinnon and Kucherov.

 

[Romang67]

I think you're implying that Thomas didn't do enough to rate with those other guys -- I completely agree. That's why I focus on extended prime, not peak.

In particular, I think each of those goalies had a much larger impact because they did what they did over such a long time compared to Thomas. Thomas's peak was 08-11, when he won two Vezina trophies. He was an elite goalie for 5 years.

What is an extended prime, exactly?

 

[The Panther]

What is an extended prime, exactly?

By that. I mean consecutive seasons in a row at prime level.

 

[Romang67]

By that. I mean consecutive seasons in a row at prime level.

And then you take... what, exactly? The average of those seasons? Because otherwise you must surely think Crosby's nigh on 20 straight seasons as an elite player has to be above MacKinnon's 7?

 

[The Panther]

And then you take... what, exactly? The average of those seasons? Because otherwise you must surely think Crosby's nigh on 20 straight seasons as an elite player has to be above MacKinnon's 7?

It's not by addition. It's the level of one's extended prime. How long a "prime" is obviously varies per player, but it has to be of some substantial length -- probably seven or eight full(ish) seasons, but this depends a bit on circumstance.

If two players performed at comparable levels, and one did it for twenty seasons and the other for eight, then obviously I would rank the twenty season guy higher. But if the eight season guy was at a slightly higher level than the twenty season guy, I'd rank him higher.

This is why, for example, on the History forum, I seem to rank Eric Lindros quite a bit higher than most.

 

[Romang67]

It's not by addition. It's the level of one's extended prime. How long a "prime" is obviously varies per player, but it has to be of some substantial length -- probably seven or eight full(ish) seasons, but this depends a bit on circumstance.

If two players performed at comparable levels, and one did it for twenty seasons and the other for eight, then obviously I would rank the twenty season guy higher. But if the eight season guy was at a slightly higher level than the twenty season guy, I'd rank him higher.

This is why, for example, on the History forum, I seem to rank Eric Lindros quite a bit higher than most.

Well, at least you're consistent.

 

[x Tame Impala]

How do you figure? Again using the H-R adjustment Malkin’s 11-12 adjusts to 122 and Ovechkin’s 09-10 adjusts to 117. That same formula has Crosby’s 2007 at 122 and McDavid’s 2023 at 146.

I’m not saying those numbers are 100% accurate but 24 points is a BIG gap. I’m open to understanding how H-R’s math is so wildly wrong that a 24 point gap would show up as a phantom.



I’ve definitely seen people make similar arguments about other generations being tougher to play in. Honestly I remember having those arguments around 2006-10 when things were opened up and a lot of people felt the scoring rise was artificial compared to the DPE, or even to the 1980s where they felt the high scoring was more “real”. Personally I think there is indeed quite a bit of nostalgia wrapped up in that sort of argument, but there are certain cases where the nostalgia is valid. I remember a lot of people going to the mat and saying a Paul Coffey could not exist in a modern league, and statistical models being built to show that Coffey’s 120 points was equal to Lidstrom’s 80. Then Karlsson came along and it was like… oh. Turns out the league was just missing a certain “feature” for a while.

As another example, the amount of ENG happening right now is a good example of where a Kucherov can rack up garbage time points that a Brett Hull wouldn’t have accepted even if they had been available. So sometimes the long-term perspective is actually valid and not just nostalgia. We just have to have our eyes open for those situations, with a critical mindset toward what the numbers are telling us.



I guess the question is, if Crosby’s best season had him win the scoring race 120-114 (or 104-87 which would probably be regarded as the better year for him) and McDavid’s best season has him winning it 153-113 (excluding his own teammate who shared points with him) then isn’t it just self evident that McDavid is more dominant? It’s hard to imagine any scoring adjustment which could close that gap.

Oh I’m just talking about Kucherov and MacK. I think McDavid is probably a small level above peak Crosby

 

[The Panther]

Well, at least you're consistent.

I am consistent. Lindros played 9 seasons in a row (but 9 of 10, in his case, as he missed one entirely, late in that span) at a very high / elite level. He played most of the games in this span (like, 80% or more each season), so I specifically mention him at he's sort-of my litmus test for what an "extended prime" can be at minimum (since you asked me this question).

In other words, if someone's extended prime were shorter by games / seasons (esp. games) than Lindros's, I probably would rank that player lower than many others because the extended prime isn't significant enough. But if someone's extended prime were at least as long as Lindros's, then I have no problem with ranking that player higher than someone whose prime is much longer. Guy Lafleur might be another comparable player to Lindros, in this example.

The relevance of this is that both MacKinnon and (esp.) Kucherov are reaching the career stages where their extended primes are reaching the "Lindros-litmus-test-level". So, I'm starting (just starting, mind) to rank them alongside players like Crosby and Ovechkin, as I think the highest levels and extended primes of all of them are very comparable.

 

[Romang67]

I am consistent. Lindros played 9 seasons in a row (but 9 of 10, in his case, as he missed one entirely, late in that span) at a very high / elite level. He played most of the games in this span (like, 80% or more each season), so I specifically mention him at he's sort-of my litmus test for what an "extended prime" can be at minimum (since you asked me this question).

In other words, if someone's extended prime were shorter by games / seasons (esp. games) than Lindros's, I probably would rank that player lower than many others because the extended prime isn't significant enough. But if someone's extended prime were at least as long as Lindros's, then I have no problem with ranking that player higher than someone whose prime is much longer. Guy Lafleur might be another comparable player to Lindros, in this example.

The relevance of this is that both MacKinnon and (esp.) Kucherov are reaching the career stages where their extended primes are reaching the "Lindros-litmus-test-level". So, I'm starting (just starting, mind) to rank them alongside players like Crosby and Ovechkin, as I think the highest levels and extended primes of all of them are very comparable.

I wasn't sarcastic. I definitely disagree with you, but you are consistent.

 

[x Tame Impala]

f two players performed at comparable levels, and one did it for twenty seasons and the other for eight, then obviously I would rank the twenty season guy higher. But if the eight season guy was at a slightly higher level than the twenty season guy, I'd rank him higher.

MacKinnon's 8 years is not at a slightly higher level than Crosby's and Crosby has been an excellent player his entire career. Something MacKinnon has already disqualified himself from due to his slow start the first four seasons of his career.

MacKinnon has 1 Hart, 1 Pearson, a Calder, a Cup win, two 2nd place and a 3rd place Hart finish. There's zero case for MacKinnon's "extended prime" over Crosby's.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Personally I have no problem projecting their season out to 82 games in this instance. They played 72 and 75 games respectively those years, so I feel more than comfortable giving them an 82 game projection on those seasons. Also I am personally not a big fan of H-R's adjusted stats. Just looking at league goals per game does not tell the whole story. For instance, going by goals per game 07/08 and the 15/16 season will seem very similar, yet there were other factors that drove down scoring for top line forwards in the latter season.

That’s fair, I didn’t think about the GP differential there.

 

[authentic]

Crosby lead the NHL in points per game 6 times. MacKinnon 0. Of course era matters. And you have it the other way around, scoring went up after their primes.

I think this is it although we can safely say this past season and the beginning of this one are atleast close to peak Crosby level. Although as good as MacKinnon has been in the playoffs he still doesn’t compare to Crosby with runs of 25 points in 15 games, Crosby had 28 in his first 17 games in a lower scoring era, 21 in 12 and 19 in 13 compared to 15 in 10 and 14 in 11, once again in lower scoring seasons. MacKinnon with 165 points in his last 94 regular season games is amazing but Crosby had 170 in 99 when everyone else was scoring like this…

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

So the reason I say it is close is because I don’t think Crosby keeps that pace playing the full seasons, but it still would’ve been better than MacKinnon’s recent pace adjusted for era.