Mario "relying on the PP"?

[daver]

Thought this topic deserves a thread of it's own since it seems to be an accepted narrative that Mario's numbers are inflated due to the PP and need to be adjusted.

His 92/93 season would appear to disprove the claim that Mario would have been less dominant in eras with lower amounts of PPs or when PP time was more evenly distributed amongst forwards.

In 92/93, the Pens were #14 in PP opportunities and Mario's ES and PP paces adjusted accordingly. He lead the league in ES scoring and was ahead of the #2 ES scorer by a greater % (10% over Yzerman) than he was over the 2nd place scorer (8% over Lafontaine). He was 6th in PP points (15% behind the leader).

This difference in ES scoring vs. PP scoring is similar to Wayne's during his peak.

Click to read more...

 

[Dingo]

11-2 Wayne to Mario in times leading the league in even strength points. Jagr has 3, and also more second places than Mario.

Nobody thinks he ‘relied on the powerplay to the point where his numbers need adjusting. But, as we discuss details here, it is worth noting.

He was very likely the most talented and gifted player to ever play, imo, but i dont think he was the three zoner or the digger that many top players have been. Powerplays are part of the game, no one youd rather have out there, and no one wants to adjust numbers - only to point out that he wasnt quite the same level of monster at even strength - although injuries of course have a lot to do with him not leading more often.

 

[CrosbyIsKing87]

I did a double take when i saw that he was 6th in PP points until I remembered that he missed twenty some games that year.Mario feasted on the power play as did Gretzky. Lemieux had 31 PP goals in 88-89. Joke.In 1992-93 there was a (so called) crackdown on obstruction, especially at the beginning of the year so PP opportunities did go up that year.

 

[Dingo]

I did a double take when i saw that he was 6th in PP points until I remembered that he missed twenty some games that year.Mario feasted on the power play as did Gretzky. Lemieux had 31 PP goals in 88-89. Joke.In 1992-93 there was a (so called) crackdown on obstruction, especially at the beginning of the year so PP opportunities did go up that year.

woah! i need more info about that last part. that would really explain that season and its outlier-ness... much like 2005-06 and 06-07

 

[Overrated]

Goals are goals. ES or PP it shouldn't matter.

 

[daver]

11-2 Wayne to Mario in times leading the league in even strength points. Jagr has 3, and also more second places than Mario.

Nobody thinks he ‘relied on the powerplay to the point where his numbers need adjusting. But, as we discuss details here, it is worth noting.

He was very likely the most talented and gifted player to ever play, imo, but i dont think he was the three zoner or the digger that many top players have been. Powerplays are part of the game, no one youd rather have out there, and no one wants to adjust numbers - only to point out that he wasnt quite the same level of monster at even strength - although injuries of course have a lot to do with him not leading more often.

Read through the Howe/Mario peak thread. Many feel this is exactly the case.

 

[Vilica]

Let's do some calculations, using Lemieux's full seasons, and ignoring the years he missed significant time - so removing 90-91, 93-94, 00-01, and 01-02, in addition to the full years Lemieux missed. If you add up all the Power Play stats for those 11 full years, you end up with 991 PPGs in 892 games on 4542 opportunities, with Mario putting up 202 PPG and 406 PPA for 608 PPP. Converted to per-game numbers, you end up with this small table:

	GP	GF	GF/G	PPG	PPO	PPG/G	PPO/G	PP%	Lemieux GP	PPG	PPA	PPP	PPG%	PPP%
Total	892	3416	3.83	991	4542	1.11	5.09	0.218	764	202	406	608	0.204	0.614

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Compare that to Ovechkin's totals, both with the 05-06 season and without, through the 18-19 season (I did these calculations back when that was the latest year):

	GP	GF	GF/G	PPG	PPO	PPG/G	PPO/G	PP%	PPG	PPA	PPP	PPG%	PPP%
Total	1114	3367	3.022	843	4073	0.76	3.66	0.207	247	217	464	0.293	0.550
Total	1032	3137	3.040	771	3583	0.75	3.47	0.215	226	186	412	0.293	0.534

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

If you apply the post-lockout level of PP opportunities for the Capitals to Lemieux's career, his team PPG is reduced to around 666 from 991 (this is omitting the 05-06 year). If we divide that loss of 325 PPGs by the 11 years, and assume Lemieux retains his PPP% of 0.614, that's an average of 18 PPP lost per year, just on the reduced number of Power Play opportunities.

Thinking about it, that's probably just the floor, or the most points lost. Given that Pittsburgh led the league in PPOs during Lemieux's career (using 84-85 through 96-97 as a crude approximation, 5152 opportunities to Kings 2nd place at 5054), it might be more accurate to calculate off that - whether it be the league leading Hurricanes PPO of 3854, or the Pittsburgh 2nd place of 3838, compared to the Capitals' 18th placing. Whether you use 3800, 3838, or 3900, you end up between 494 and 507, which are per-year PPP losses between 9 and 11.

FWIW, I have the same numbers for Gretzky, and over his career his teams averaged 4.39 PPO/G, and if you just do an average for their overlapping years (84-85 through 96-97), Gretzky's teams averaged 4.56 to Lemieux's 5.10.

 

[Minar]

Thought this topic deserves a thread of it's own since it seems to be an accepted narrative that Mario's numbers are inflated due to the PP and need to be adjusted.

His 92/93 season would appear to disprove the claim that Mario would have been less dominant in eras with lower amounts of PPs or when PP time was more evenly distributed amongst forwards.

In 92/93, the Pens were #14 in PP opportunities and Mario's ES and PP paces adjusted accordingly. He lead the league in ES scoring and was ahead of the #2 ES scorer by a greater % (10% over Yzerman) than he was over the 2nd place scorer (8% over Lafontaine). He was 6th in PP points (15% behind the leader).

This difference in ES scoring vs. PP scoring is similar to Wayne's during his peak.

i don't like the term 'inflated'. To me points are points, goals are goals. What is with this inflated stuff? If the puck goes in the net and you put it in there or made a play to make it happen, that helps your team towards a win. Inflated points is a silly term.

 

[blogofmike]

This would usually come up only in a Big 4 discussion. A large margin of victory in a scoring race can end a Lemieux vs. Yzerman discussion. It's the price of admission to be in the conversation with Gretzky.

Thought this topic deserves a thread of it's own since it seems to be an accepted narrative that Mario's numbers are inflated due to the PP and need to be adjusted.

His 92/93 season would appear to disprove the claim that Mario would have been less dominant in eras with lower amounts of PPs or when PP time was more evenly distributed amongst forwards.

In 92/93, the Pens were #14 in PP opportunities and Mario's ES and PP paces adjusted accordingly. He lead the league in ES scoring and was ahead of the #2 ES scorer by a greater % (10% over Yzerman) than he was over the 2nd place scorer (8% over Lafontaine). He was 6th in PP points (15% behind the leader).

This difference in ES scoring vs. PP scoring is similar to Wayne's during his peak.

Bolded statements are patently false.

In 1986 Gretzky led in ES points by 59%. Gretzky would have beat Lemieux for the Art Ross without scoring a single PP point (or SH point). Again the goal posts move when the conversation does. "Is Mario Lemieux a Top 4 player of all time?" produces a different conversation than "is Mario Lemieux comparable to Wayne Gretzky?"

In almost any other conversation Lemieux is a great ES scorer. In this conversation he's very far behind.

Here's Gretzky's 3 highest scoring years against Lemieux's 2 highest scoring years:

	PPGF	TmPPGF	PP Ice Time Share	TmPP%	Tm PP Chances	Player Points
Lemieux 87-88 to 88-89	216	229	94.3%	23.2%	987	159
Gretzky 83-84 to 85-86	199	233	85.4%	25.8%	903	145

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In TWO years the Penguins had MORE PP chances than the Oilers had in THREE.

Lemieux missed 7 games over 2 seasons against Gretzky missing 6 in 3, yet Lemieux still is out there for a larger share of his team's PP compared to Gretzky. Lemieux had a very high PP usage, even compared to Gretzky.

Without accounting for that high PP usage, an Oilers PP chance was just as likely to end with a Gretzky point (16.11 points per 100 team chances) as a Pens PP would end in a Lemieux point (16.05 points per 100 team chances). When you account for the usage difference, Gretzky is a more productive PP scorer (18.80 points per 100 vs 17.08) AND has a lower opportunity cost because being off the ice gives teammates a chance at scoring PP points (which are easier to score).

As for the 93 Pens being #14 in PP chances, it was 1992-93. They still had 440 chances. That's middling by Pens standards, but still astronomical compared to the 1986 Oilers who had 297 and finished 21st.

i don't like the term 'inflated'. To me points are points, goals are goals. What is with this inflated stuff? If the puck goes in the net and you put it in there or made a play to make it happen, that helps your team towards a win. Inflated points is a silly term.

Having a lot of PP chances correlates with having more PP points. If you feel differently, then I assume you feel Randy Carlyle was a legitimate Norris winner, Dennis Maruk had a year where he was better than peak Crosby, and the best offensive seasons of the last 15 years just happened to occur in 2006 and 2007.

 

[Stephen]

I did a double take when i saw that he was 6th in PP points until I remembered that he missed twenty some games that year.Mario feasted on the power play as did Gretzky. Lemieux had 31 PP goals in 88-89. Joke.In 1992-93 there was a (so called) crackdown on obstruction, especially at the beginning of the year so PP opportunities did go up that year.

I'm glad you said the word "feasted." Mario feasted on the powerplay. He didn't "rely" on it. It was a celebration of pure offensive dominance.

 

[Big Phil]

Here is the thing with Mario. He was built more than perhaps any other player in NHL history for the power play. Gretzky was more the natural go with the flow type. His game wasn't fit for the power play as much. 4 defensive players standing around slowing the game down wasn't Gretzky's forte, I don't think. Granted, it wasn't as if he wasn't lethal on the power play either. He was. But his game revolved more around the element of surprise and seeing the gave with peripheral vision. I guess the same thing could be said about Guy Lafleur. Apparently he screwed it up every time the Habs practiced for the power play. It wasn't in him to be standing still trying to score goals. Lafleur was about speed.

Mario as we all know could score in any sort of environment regardless of who was on the ice, but why I think he excelled on the power play more than anyone else is because the way a power play is set up catered to his sort of style. Mario loved slowing the game down. He had gears and he could - as Paul Kariya said in regards to Lemieux in the 2002 Olympics - "flat out fly". But he was so good at standing along the left side and just hanging onto the puck and waiting for a defenseman to flinch before he made a pass to an open man or even his one-timer was quite good. Mario could score at so many different angles. I wouldn't say he had the sort of one-timer Ovechkin or Stamkos or Brett Hull had, but he could do it well. That's why I think he was so lethal.

He led the NHL in goals three times in his career. Once at even strength, twice on the power play and three times shorthanded. So it isn't as if there are discrepancies here. Here is an interesting stat. Mario was on the ice 28 times in 1996 when he was scored against shorthanded. He had 9 shorthanded points that year including 8 goals. I don't know why the 1996 season often gets singled out as a time when he relied on the power play as if it were a knock. He took a year off hockey and came back and had a season where he averaged a point per game on the PP and ES. That's just insane. I remember that season clearly, he was easily the best player in the NHL still. Jagr was after that, and Lindros certainly was right with Jagr more or less as well, but 1996 was all Mario.

He had a career of being +114 despite never playing on a team that was defensively sound. Does anyone criticize Crosby's 2007 season because he had 61 PP points compared to 59 ES? No, because we all remember he was the best player in the NHL that year.

Three seasons where Mario had more PP points than ES. That was 1988, 1996 and his injury riddled final half season in 2006 where he was basically clinging onto the game. Does anyone really care? I don't.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

i don't like the term 'inflated'. To me points are points, goals are goals. What is with this inflated stuff? If the puck goes in the net and you put it in there or made a play to make it happen, that helps your team towards a win. Inflated points is a silly term.

Agreed, it’s akin to “compiler” as an irksome, knee-jerkingly overused term for me, though context usually matters.

When someone defends Theodore’s Hart win over Art Ross winner Iginla in 2002, it seems fair to point out that Iginla’s team had been out of the playoffs for a long time and instead committed to “inflating” his stats to finish the season.

If there’s a particularly bad team present in the league (say, the 1992-93 Sens or Sharks), that a player scored a disproportionate number of points against, calling that out also strikes me as fair.

 

[Dingo]

Here is the thing with Mario. He was built more than perhaps any other player in NHL history for the power play. Gretzky was more the natural go with the flow type. His game wasn't fit for the power play as much. 4 defensive players standing around slowing the game down wasn't Gretzky's forte, I don't think. Granted, it wasn't as if he wasn't lethal on the power play either. He was. But his game revolved more around the element of surprise and seeing the gave with peripheral vision. I guess the same thing could be said about Guy Lafleur. Apparently he screwed it up every time the Habs practiced for the power play. It wasn't in him to be standing still trying to score goals. Lafleur was about speed.

Mario as we all know could score in any sort of environment regardless of who was on the ice, but why I think he excelled on the power play more than anyone else is because the way a power play is set up catered to his sort of style. Mario loved slowing the game down. He had gears and he could - as Paul Kariya said in regards to Lemieux in the 2002 Olympics - "flat out fly". But he was so good at standing along the left side and just hanging onto the puck and waiting for a defenseman to flinch before he made a pass to an open man or even his one-timer was quite good. Mario could score at so many different angles. I wouldn't say he had the sort of one-timer Ovechkin or Stamkos or Brett Hull had, but he could do it well. That's why I think he was so lethal.

He led the NHL in goals three times in his career. Once at even strength, twice on the power play and three times shorthanded. So it isn't as if there are discrepancies here. Here is an interesting stat. Mario was on the ice 28 times in 1996 when he was scored against shorthanded. He had 9 shorthanded points that year including 8 goals. I don't know why the 1996 season often gets singled out as a time when he relied on the power play as if it were a knock. He took a year off hockey and came back and had a season where he averaged a point per game on the PP and ES. That's just insane. I remember that season clearly, he was easily the best player in the NHL still. Jagr was after that, and Lindros certainly was right with Jagr more or less as well, but 1996 was all Mario.

He had a career of being +114 despite never playing on a team that was defensively sound. Does anyone criticize Crosby's 2007 season because he had 61 PP points compared to 59 ES? No, because we all remember he was the best player in the NHL that year.

Three seasons where Mario had more PP points than ES. That was 1988, 1996 and his injury riddled final half season in 2006 where he was basically clinging onto the game. Does anyone really care? I don't.

i degrade crosby’s season slightly in my own mind. it was a perfect storm season, and his best was yet to come, imo. his season of 104 in 2014 was when he was truly the best over a full season. had a two way game, other top forwards had tailed off, lidstrom, who i considered the best in 07, wasnt in the league....

in 07 i thought of crosby as one of the very top players in the league, but the 120pts didnt do it for me any more than thorntons 125 the year before.

 

[Dingo]

all else being equal, ill take the even strength dominant player over the powerplay dominant player. especially when whistles are put away in big games.
Lemieux compares favourably to nearly everyone ever at even strength, anyways, but it does matter to me that his insane totals are effected favourably by more pp tries and on an insane unit. those are favourable advantages that increase the perceived gap between him and the next best.

 

[daver]

all else being equal, ill take the even strength dominant player over the powerplay dominant player. especially when whistles are put away in big games.
Lemieux compares favourably to nearly everyone ever at even strength, anyways, but it does matter to me that his insane totals are effected favourably by more pp tries and on an insane unit. those are favourable advantages that increase the perceived gap between him and the next best.

Any evidence to back up this claim? How do you explain that he was able to win the Art Ross in 92/93 on the strength of his ES scoring, which, BTW, was at a pace that rivalled Wayne's best ES paces.

 

[daver]

i degrade crosby’s season slightly in my own mind. it was a perfect storm season, and his best was yet to come, imo. his season of 104 in 2014 was when he was truly the best over a full season. had a two way game, other top forwards had tailed off, lidstrom, who i considered the best in 07, wasnt in the league....

in 07 i thought of crosby as one of the very top players in the league, but the 120pts didnt do it for me any more than thorntons 125 the year before.

There is no reason to think that Crosby doesn't clearly lead the league in scoring that year under any other circumstances.

 

[Dingo]

There is no reason to think that Crosby doesn't clearly lead the league in scoring that year under any other circumstances.

arguable, yet irrelevant to what i said.

 

[Dingo]

Any evidence to back up this claim? How do you explain that he was able to win the Art Ross in 92/93 on the strength of his ES scoring, which, BTW, was at a pace that rivalled Wayne's best ES paces.

that is one year, Daver. cmon.

 

[blogofmike]

Any evidence to back up this claim? How do you explain that he was able to win the Art Ross in 92/93 on the strength of his ES scoring, which, BTW, was at a pace that rivalled Wayne's best ES paces.

Mario Lemieux Points and PP Chances by season

	PPO/GP	Lemieux PTS	PP Pts	PP Pts/GP
1985	4.5	100	33	0.452
1986	5.2	141	66	0.835
1987	4.4	107	38	0.603
1988	6.3	168	80	1.039
1989	6.1	199	79	1.039
1990	5.0	123	49	0.831
1991	4.9	45	13	0.500
1992	5.3	131	47	0.734
1993	5.2	160	55	0.917
1994	4.8	37	15	0.682
1996	5.1	161	79	1.129
1997	4.1	122	37	0.487

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Red seasons are under 5 PP chances per game, blue seasons are over 5 PP chances per game. Blue seasons are also in the top third of all seasons from 1985-97 in terms of PP chances per game (if not for 1990's 5.04, they're all in the top 25%).

His 7 highest point totals all came in blue seasons. Part of that is because his best scores for PP Points per game are all in blue seasons.

Even then, the red seasons are over 4.0 chances per game. Gretzky scored 200+ points on multiple occasions when his team was under 4.0 PP chances per game. In fact Gretzky did so in 2 of the 13 lowest PP chance seasons any team received from 1985-1997). And he was over 200 and under 4.0 in 1984 too, but that's outside the Lemieux career span search I did. If you expand the search to 1984, then the 84, 85,86, and 87 Oilers are all in the bottom 40 PP chance seasons, which is roughly the bottom 13%.

 

[daver]

that is one year, Daver. cmon.

Vs. zero years where you can say unequivocally "see how Mario's production went down when he didn't get the chance to wrack up PP points.

To the contrary, he was a much more productive player later in his career vs. Wayne and Howe based on his ability to score on the PP.

Not sure why it is seemingly accepted as gospel that Mario should be penalized for his PP production when there is no evidence to back up a claim he doesn't do as well in other eras/scoring environments.

 

[MadLuke]

I made a very little study of 91-92 and 92-93 season (season with a big sample of Mario game and somewhat non trivial sample of Non mario games) of the Penguins trying to see if we could see if mario added power plays to is team and it is not obvious to me (games log on hockey reference not showing ppo).

Gave me this:

Column1	91-92 lemieux	91-92 no lemieux	92-93 Le	92-93 no lemieux
Game	64.00	16.00	60.00	24.00
GF	4.52	3.38	4.77	3.38
GA	3.77	4.19	3.28	2.96
PPG	1.13	1.25	1.40	0.88
PPGA	0.92	1.13	0.87	0.83
Shots	31.80	31.69	33.27	30.38
Shots against	30.94	30.94	31.50	28.79
Oponent PIM	23.64	25.69	19.88	23.00
Penguins PIM	23.55	24.25	19.50	24.67
Lemieux PP pts	0.73		0.92
Lemieux non pp pts	1.31		1.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

If I combine them (weighted by game played)

	Lemieux	NoLemieux
Game	124.00	40.00
GF	4.64	3.38
GA	3.53	3.45
PPG	1.26	1.03
PPGA	0.90	0.95
Shots	32.51	30.90
Shots against	31.21	29.65
Oponent PIM	21.82	24.08
Penguins PIM	21.59	24.50
Lemieux PP pts	0.82	0.00
Lemieux non pp pts	1.52	0.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The Penguins scored .23 power play goals by game with Mario (.82) and 1.03 non power play more goals by game with Mario (1.52).

Mario scoring .82 pp points translated in .23 PP goals, a 28% point efficacy.
Mario scoring 1.52 non pp points translated in .1.03 non pp more goals, a 67% point efficacy.

Each es-sh point adding .66 goal by point to a team for an elite player make sense, .28 for a pp point on a team that has Francis-Jagr-Stevens-Tocchet (or Recchi), Murhpy and so on has well and express very well the idea that es point are more valuable to me.

The 3.38 goal for a game for both season is not a typo.

Would be interesting to do something similar for the rest of is career where game played - missed are large and for other elite player that missed game to try to access the added team offense of a pp point vs a es point vs a sh point, which I can see moving over time depending on what the PP% look like.

 

[blogofmike]

Vs. zero years where you can say unequivocally "see how Mario's production went down when he didn't get the chance to wrack up PP points.

To the contrary, he was a much more productive player later in his career vs. Wayne and Howe based on his ability to score on the PP.

Not sure why it is seemingly accepted as gospel that Mario should be penalized for his PP production when there is no evidence to back up a claim he doesn't do as well in other eras/scoring environments.

That's because you ignore the fact that Lemieux was an equivalent scorer in 1996 and 1997. Same level of ES production, but far fewer overall points. Part of the difference is losing 1.0 PP chances per game.

There is a colour coded table up there where you can see Mario's production is lower in seasons where he's below 5 PPO/GP. And the Lemieux from those red seasons isn't getting anywhere close to 150-160 points.

Here's the same table with ES scoring to show that he was relatively steady as an ES scorer while his overall totals ebbed and flowed with PP chances.

	PPO/GP	Lemieux PTS	PP Pts	PP PPG	ES PTS	ES PPG
1985	4.5	100	33	0.45	67	0.92
1986	5.2	141	66	0.84	75	0.95
1987	4.4	107	38	0.60	69	1.10
1988	6.3	168	80	1.04	74	0.96
1989	6.1	199	79	1.04	102	1.34
1990	5.0	123	49	0.83	71	1.20
1991	4.9	45	13	0.50	31	1.19
1992	5.3	131	47	0.73	74	1.16
1993	5.2	160	55	0.92	96	1.60
1994	4.8	37	15	0.68	22	1.00
1996	5.1	161	79	1.13	73	1.04
1997	4.1	122	37	0.49	79	1.04

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As for late career production that beats Howe and Gretzky...

Lemieux was 31 when he won his last Art Ross. Starting from age 32, Gretzky and Howe still have post-season All-Star nods and an Art Ross win each in their futures, and are Top 3 in points as late as ages 37 and 40 (Lemieux's last was at age 31). Howe will win go on to win a Hart and Gretzky will have 76 playoff points in 52 games.

 

[Big Phil]

i degrade crosby’s season slightly in my own mind. it was a perfect storm season, and his best was yet to come, imo. his season of 104 in 2014 was when he was truly the best over a full season. had a two way game, other top forwards had tailed off, lidstrom, who i considered the best in 07, wasnt in the league....

in 07 i thought of crosby as one of the very top players in the league, but the 120pts didnt do it for me any more than thorntons 125 the year before.

You had Lidstrom as #1? Alright, I never had Lidstrom as the best player in the NHL. His best shot for that is probably 2002. But not by 2007. I am just wondering, who do you think was better at least as a forward than Crosby in 2007? To me it was him. Not to mention 2007 was a season of big years from forwards, while 2014 it wasn't. I'll agree Crosby was better at both ends of the rink by 2014 but I don't think it was necessarily more impressive than 2007 as a 19 year old.

 

[Dingo]

You had Lidstrom as #1? Alright, I never had Lidstrom as the best player in the NHL. His best shot for that is probably 2002. But not by 2007. I am just wondering, who do you think was better at least as a forward than Crosby in 2007? To me it was him. Not to mention 2007 was a season of big years from forwards, while 2014 it wasn't. I'll agree Crosby was better at both ends of the rink by 2014 but I don't think it was necessarily more impressive than 2007 as a 19 year old.

no, just lidstrom. Crosby was becoming the top forward, but i thought the hype was a bit in front of the reality still. I didnt know at that time that he had more of his points on the pp, but it makes sense that it was something of an outlier season for a young Crosby, as Ovechkin and even Malkin were arguably better for him for the next few years.
I felt, that season, that ‘best forward’ was still up in the air. really, it hadnt been since 2003 that i felt certain of that title, and wasnt until 2010 that I was certain again. Perhaps thats why i defaulted to Lidstrom, who was, year in and out, the best dman.

Admittedly, I have an innate contrarianism to being told how to think, and the sid hype was making me angry all

edit - sorry, cannot finish thought. no more posting until new ipad. this is going to give me an aneurysm.

 

[Big Phil]

no, just lidstrom. Crosby was becoming the top forward, but i thought the hype was a bit in front of the reality still. I didnt know at that time that he had more of his points on the pp, but it makes sense that it was something of an outlier season for a young Crosby, as Ovechkin and even Malkin were arguably better for him for the next few years.
I felt, that season, that ‘best forward’ was still up in the air. really, it hadnt been since 2003 that i felt certain of that title, and wasnt until 2010 that I was certain again. Perhaps thats why i defaulted to Lidstrom, who was, year in and out, the best dman.

Admittedly, I have an innate contrarianism to being told how to think, and the sid hype was making me angry all

edit - sorry, cannot finish thought. no more posting until new ipad. this is going to give me an aneurysm.

I agree, I can't stand when things are pushed that don't need to be. Scott Niedermayer is a good example of this. You'd think he is Denis Potvin. There are times when I see the media portray a player in a way that I can't see it either.

I'll say this with Crosby though, as much as he became a media darling, I think it still made sense at that time.

Crosby had 120 points in his 2nd season. Gretzky had 164, Lemieux had 141. I think Gretzky easily still had the better season as a 19 year old, but I think you could compare Crosby and Mario's 2nd seasons and there was this idea that he was parallel with Mario for the first two years. So there was definitely some anticipation about him. As it was, Mario obviously had seasons where he hit his superstardom status that Crosby never hit. I think many of us thought he would get even better after 2007. He didn't offensively, but I think in 2007 there was this idea that he could.