Regular season team success vs. individual regular season performances

[daver]

Generally speaking, the former is ignored in a historical sense while the latter is revered. The 2019 Tampa Bay Lightning and the 2023 Boston Bruins were are among the greatest President Trophy winners of all-time but with no Cup to accompany this, their accomplishment is relegated to almost a trivial level. At best, an all-time great regular season can be the icing on the cake of a Cup win like the '76 Habs. At worst, they can almost drag a team down like the mid-90s Wings until they win a Cup.

Meanwhile individual regular seasons are, generally speaking, the backbone of a player's all-time rating. There are a few exceptions but the very best individual regular season performers are rated the greatest of all-time.

I think winning the Cup is everything in most people's eyes but there is a range in how individual playoff performances are judged from being on equal footing with RS performances to merely being a "sample" of a player's career however many games that may be.

Why is there such a discrepancy in the treatment of team success and player evaluation?

Click to read more...

 

[DitchMarner]

The people that evaluate playoff performances irrespectively of whether a player's team won the Stanley Cup or not are doing it right.

When people talk about the greatest player regular seasons of all-time, does anyone ask how many President's Trophies a player's team won? When Gretzky is compared to Lemieux, do people ask which player's team had more 100 point regular seasons? Ovechkin has been on three teams that have won the President's Trophy. Crosby and McDavid combined have been on none. Does anyone care?

Teams have four lines and three defense pairings and goaltending can be a huge factor in who wins a game, series or Cup. It's best to focus on things like scoring output (if you're evaluating an offensive player), defensive play, special teams contributions and overall impact on goal differential at Even Strength than to muddle the picture by bringing up whether a player's team won a series or won it all.

 

[MadLuke]

It is a bit of double standard, most double standard have a good reason to be and fine, here I am not sure.

We a large sample size tell us more than a small one reflex for player that we do not have for teams in that regard, the 1996 Wings...

And we will create narrative, the 2019 super teams was a super team and a very similar edition won it 2 in a row to prove it, we will focus on the small change between, they learned to win, etc....

Telling the story about luck and noisy small sample size to explain why they loose in 4 in 2019 then win 2 in a row, break the magic of the sport too much, what the point of it if we cannot use who won the cup to judge who was the best team that year, may as well have a soccer tournament of who win the most games in 50 regular season game, win the tournament....

Now lot of people would have the 1993 Pens, 1996 Wings and 2019 Lighting over a lot of cup winner and everyone that people put in their top 10 of all time had both strong regular season and playoff performer and Marcel Dionne-Joe Thornton are hurt by their playoff.

The Bruins won a single cup since 1972, but in the last 15 years they are quite highly rated because of their large amount of non cup winning success and higher than some team that have won 2 cups in the last 50.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin has been on three teams that have won the President's Trophy. Crosby and McDavid combined have been on none. Does anyone care?

I can guarantee you with near certainty that if the reverse were true, it would be cited on a daily basis.

 

[MadLuke]

Teams have four lines and three defense pairings and goaltending can be a huge factor in who wins a game, series or Cup.

But that true for team in the regular seasons.

the question is not why we judge team by their team results than players by their teams results, that a bit obvious why.

Is why we weight the playoff for teams more than we do for players.

I think one big reason is every team enter the playoff with an ability to shine in the playoff and the good team even more than others with their seed and home ice advantage, making comparing what they did over other team (that years and other years) feel fair.

For players they depend on their teammate to reach the playoff and win rounds, which make it often really hard to use playoff for a comparison points, while there is a giant bigger regular season and more similar sample of regular season to use right there.

 

[DitchMarner]

But that true for team in the regular seasons.

the question is not why we judge team by their team results than players by their teams results, that a bit obvious why.

Is why we weight the playoff for teams more than we do for players.

I think one big reason is every team enter the playoff with an ability to shine in the playoff and the good team even more than others with their seed and home ice advantage, making comparing what they did over other team (that years and other years) feel fair.

For players they depend on their teammate to reach the playoff and win rounds, which make it often really hard to use playoff for a comparison points, while there is a giant bigger regular season and more similar sample of regular season to use right there.

Yep. Hockey is a team sport and the Stanley Cup is the ultimate goal for teams. Obviously you have to be harsher on great teams that fail to win than on great players who do because the Cup is a team award and not an individual award.

If the question is whether we should put more weight or emphasis on player playoff performances than we do, then the measuring stick for success cannot be whether a player's team won the Cup (that is a team goal and accomplishment). But it seems people aren't too keen on heralding great playoff runs that don't result in a Cup win to begin with and often players are forgiven for pedestrian showings (by their standards) if they happen to be part of a winning team.