Thoughts on Crosby's completely cherry-picked best stretch of hockey

[daver]

Inspired by the Best 82 game stretch thread, this is Crosby's best stretch of hockey which took place between Nov. 28, 2009 (after shaking off his Cup hangover) to Nov. 8, 2014 (before a viral illness kicked in).

NHL Stats

Despite playing 42% less games than the scoring leader during this stretch, he is only 3% behind in points.

The average PPG of other Top Ten PPGs during this time (min. 200 games) is 1.06. Crosby's PPG of 1.50 is 41% better.

For comparison,

Here is McDavid's completely cherry-picked best stretch of hockey over a similar amount of games:

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

McDavid is the scoring leader by 11%.

The average PPG of other Top Ten PPGs during this time (min. 200 games) is 1.28. McDavid's PPG of 1.65 is 34% better.

Here is Jagr's (with Mario in 95/96 and 96/97):

NHL Stats

Jagr is the leading scorer by 16%

The average PPG of other Top Ten PPGs during this time (min. 200 games) is 1.21. Jagr's PPG of 1.56 is 29% better.

Here is Jagr's without Mario in the lineup:

NHL Stats

Jagr is the leading scorer by 19%

The average PPG of other Top Ten PPGs during this time (min. 200 games) is 1.16. Jagr's PPG of 1.48 is 28% better.


At the end of the day, pretty similar numbers although hard to not ignore Crosby's more dominant PPG gap completely.

Very impressive career start for McDavid. Crosby's PPG gap over a similar amount of games also from his 2nd season onwards was 32% but similar to the other stretch, he is not the points leader due to missed games.

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

Crosby is pretty good.

However, level of top end competition in those stretches I'd rank:

#1. McDavid
#2. Jagr
#3. Crosby

So - I think that helps him quite a bit. Obviously Malkin/Ovechkin are great - but that stretch includes Ovi's down years, and some pretty inconsistent ones for Malkin, and no one else really stands out.
It's not that dissimilar an exercise than looking at margins of victories Howe had in his peak for art ross - great numbers and all, but top end competition is a bit weaker in those years so #s look a bit better than they were.

I think there's an argument for Crosby being better than McDavid/Jagr in this comparison, but it's definitely not by as big as a gap as the numbers here indicate with PPG over #2.

 

[daver]

Crosby is pretty good.

However, level of top end competition in those stretches I'd rank:

#1. McDavid
#2. Jagr
#3. Crosby

So - I think that helps him quite a bit. Obviously Malkin/Ovechkin are great - but that stretch includes Ovi's down years, and some pretty inconsistent ones for Malkin, and no one else really stands out.
It's not that dissimilar an exercise than looking at margins of victories Howe had in his peak for art ross - great numbers and all, but top end competition is a bit weaker in those years so #s look a bit better than they were.

I think there's an argument for Crosby being better than McDavid/Jagr in this comparison, but it's definitely not by as big as a gap as the numbers here indicate with PPG over #2.

You may have missed this:

"Crosby's PPG gap over a similar amount of games also from his 2nd season onwards was 32%"

This stretch includes OV's and Malkin's peaks (both of which are higher than any of McDavid's competition). Not that this makes a huge difference when you looking at a decent sample size of their peers.

 

[blogofmike]

You may have missed this:

"Crosby's PPG gap over a similar amount of games also from his 2nd season onwards was 32%"

This stretch includes OV's and Malkin's peaks (both of which are higher than any of McDavid's competition). Not that this makes a huge difference when you looking at a decent sample size of their peers.

I don't think you can say this is peak Ovechkin. That would probably be 2008-10, where he led the league in PPG. For the 50-ish game sliver of his peak here, he narrowly outscores Crosby by PPG. He then promptly has 2 of the lower scoring seasons of his career.

But the low GP is why I'd rank it 3rd as well. Jagr and McDavid were playing full seasons while you say Crosby was 42% behind in missed games. That's huge, because it's easier to maintain the higher averages over lower GP counts. Crosby's competition is forced to maintain a high PPG over more than an extra season worth of games, which skews the comparison.

Crosby's best season is in this span (2013-14), but it brings his average down because he actually played the full year.

 

[MadLuke]

It's not that dissimilar an exercise than looking at margins of victories Howe had in his peak for art ross - great numbers and all, but top end competition is a bit weaker in those years so #s look a bit better than they were.

One would think it would be, something like the Top 10 PPG would me magnitude less affected by an elite member of the group down year having only 1.01 ppg instead of is good year 1.25 than in the Art Ross margin exercise in a single season of a multiple year stretch. The more volume (games and players) the less noisy it should tend to become.

One could look at the second best player lead and see how little it change.

Malkin: 12.2%
Kucherov: 10%
Lindros: 9.9%

Which could not strait too much from the notion of:

#1. McDavid
#2. Jagr
#3. Crosby

That said considering how close Draisaitl is to be the number 2 in ppg during that time frame despite having been elite for only 2 season I am not sure he beat the Sakic-Forsberg-Selanne-Kariya-Lindros-Leclair-Gretzky-Bure-Turgeon competition of Jagr, those were all elite from the get go in 1995.

There is a obviously a their career are over now factor, but name tag wise, Jagr group was maybe close to the best of all time, the only one not fully in is prime able to crack it was Gretzky, in McDavid days the name are impressive but the Malkin-Crosby-Stamkos have clearly better version of themselve in their past and some became elite midways like Kucherov, Drai and MacKinnon.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I appreciate that the OP is completely clear about being cherry-picked. Helps put the value of these observations into perspective (no sarcasm... it really does help explain why Crosby is remembered as a McDavid-like force of nature during his peak).

 

[MadLuke]

I appreciate that the OP is completely clear about being cherry-picked. Helps put the value of these observations into perspective (no sarcasm... it really does help explain why Crosby is remembered as a McDavid-like force of nature during his peak).

I think so, because scoring environment changed so fast around that time it will become really natural to overrated something done in 2005-2007 and underrated 2002-2004 or 2008 to 2016 or so down the line over time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think so, because scoring environment changed so fast around that time it will become really natural to overrated something done in 2005-2007 and underrated 2002-2004 or 2008 to 2016 or so down the line over time.

Gives us history board regulars some good job security. Someone has to explain this stuff to the rookies

 

[Perennial]

One would think it would be, something like the Top 10 PPG would me magnitude less affected by an elite member of the group down year having only 1.01 ppg instead of is good year 1.25 than in the Art Ross margin exercise in a single season of a multiple year stretch. The more volume (games and players) the less noisy it should tend to become.

One could look at the second best player lead and see how little it change.

Malkin: 12.2%
Kucherov: 10%
Lindros: 9.9%

Which could not strait too much from the notion of:


That said considering how close Draisaitl is to be the number 2 in ppg during that time frame despite having been elite for only 2 season I am not sure he beat the Sakic-Forsberg-Selanne-Kariya-Lindros-Leclair-Gretzky-Bure-Turgeon competition of Jagr, those were all elite from the get go in 1995.

There is a obviously a their career are over now factor, but name tag wise, Jagr group was maybe close to the best of all time, the only one not fully in is prime able to crack it was Gretzky, in McDavid days the name are impressive but the Malkin-Crosby-Stamkos have clearly better version of themselve in their past and some became elite midways like Kucherov, Drai and MacKinnon.

I'm not entirely sure what your post is trying to say... there are quite a few grammatical errors that make it a tough read...

But you ended your message by mentioning Kucherov, Drai, and MacKinnon, so I just wanted to point out that Panarin has actually finished 3rd in PPG the last 2 seasons behind McDavid and Draisaitl

 

[MadLuke]

I'm not entirely sure what your post is trying to say... there are quite a few grammatical errors that make it a tough read...

But you ended your message by mentioning Kucherov, Drai, and MacKinnon, so I just wanted to point out that Panarin has actually finished 3rd in PPG the last 2 seasons behind McDavid and Draisaitl

Trying to say it in simpler time.

Looking at how many in McDavid competition group during the 2016-2021 started outside their prime in 2016 (Drai being a very good example of that) or far from their peak by the end of it I am not sure it was higher competition than the others previous group, how much the #2 dominated pointing to a similar conclusion.

 

[Rengorlex]

I don't know if that is McDavid's best stretch of hockey. Looking at games played, a similarly long stretch to Crosby's would actually be McDavid from Feb 5th 2018 to now:

235 138+245 = 383 1.63 p/gp

Using your metric, the average of other top 10 scorers in this timeframe is 1.254 and McDavid's is 31.4% higher.

Obviously he's mid-peak so everything can still change drastically.

 

[MadLuke]

Using your metric, the average of other top 10 scorers in this timeframe is 1.254 and McDavid's is 31.4% higher.

Wonder where the discrepancy come from with my excel sheet (maybe it is the 200 game minimum cut-off being used or not ?).

I have 1.228:
If I use the points directly
NHL Stats

1.37
1.31
1.26
1.26
1.19
1.18
1.18
1.15
1.15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And 1.211 if I am using the games total and points total of Drai to Matthews to remove rounding error. Using the exact number McDavid jump to 34.58% higher, exact number for Crosby stretch above is 42.17%

 

[daver]

I don't know if that is McDavid's best stretch of hockey. Looking at games played, a similarly long stretch to Crosby's would actually be McDavid from Feb 5th 2018 to now:

235 138+245 = 383 1.63 p/gp

Using your metric, the average of other top 10 scorers in this timeframe is 1.254 and McDavid's is 31.4% higher.

Obviously he's mid-peak so everything can still change drastically.

Good to add this info to the thread given that Crosby's missed time makes an absolute direct comparable for "peak play" to McDavid difficult.

My info shows that Crosby played at that level over five year period (Nov. '09 to Nov. '14) albeit with the obvious noted caveats. Your info is based on McDavid's performance over a three and half year period. That Crosby is almost the points leader in that stretch despite playing 40% less games should temper the "missed game" dynamic to a certain extent.

As you and I both mention, McDavid is seemingly mid-peak, and assuming he plays more games at his peak than Crosby, the % over the other Top Ten over a five year will likely go up.

I will add another piece of information. Here is Crosby's best stretch where he dominated in points:

NHL Stats

He is 21% higher than the next best scorer and has a 32% PPG gap over the Top Ten PPGs (min. 80 games).

Here it is for McDavid over his last 143 games:

NHL Stats

He is 5% higher than the next best scorer and has a 34% PPG gap over the Top Ten PPGs (min. 80 games).

For kicks and giggles, here is Crosby's best PPG stretch over a similar amount of games:

NHL Stats

He has a 50% PPG gap over the Top Ten PPGs.

 

[daver]

Wonder where the discrepancy come from with my excel sheet (maybe it is the 200 game minimum cut-off being used or not ?).

I have 1.228

Change the min. to 150 games and it is the 1.254 number.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Crosby's peak is highly underrated in terms of the level he reached.

In your range are his Aged 22-26 seasons.

When did Wayne Gretzky have his amazing peak? Aged 21-26.

Mario Lemieux? Aged 22-27

Gordie Howe? Aged 22-25

Bobby Orr? Aged 21-26.

They all dropped down a notch after that.

The pattern is clear.

We can abstract Crosby's peak because he was always injured, but everything is pointing to him being able to sustain his production level even in an hypothetical non-injured universe. Now he didn't actually do it, so he gets punished for that sure, but it's a reasonable speculation if we're wondering how good he was in vacuum at his absolute peak, and what his peak would look like if he didn't have injuries.

It's not a risky bet to say Crosby would have won 4 Art Ross in a row from 2011-2014 if he wasn't injured. The 2011 season he was demolishing the league before his injury, and in 2014 he demolished it. In the lock-out shortened season (2013), he easily led the league in point-per-game (1.56 to 1.25) over St. Louis, and came within 4 pts to win the Ross anyway. And what reason do we possibly have to believe he wouldn't have burned the NHL in 2012, when that season is surrounded by all this consistent greatness, and he scored at a 1.68 PPG pace in the 22 games he played? The only caveat, is that this was the big Malkin year, but the two stories are so connected, there is no way to say what would've happened between the two. If Crosby is there, does Malkin explode to that extent? Even if he does, does Crosby beat him in a tight two-way race? Either way Crosby's season would have been monstruous, so even if he doesn't win the Ross, it would be considered a great season and he'd be far ahead of the pack. It would be their own 1996.

 

[BenchBrawl]

And if Crosby wins those 4 Art Ross in a row, and then goes on to have the same post-2014 career, where do you guys think he ranks? He'd have almost the exact same resume structure as Gordie Howe.

My point with this double-post, is about the "if". I don't think it's that big of a "if".

 

[bobholly39]

And if Crosby wins those 4 Art Ross in a row, and then goes on to have the same post-2014 career, where do you guys think he ranks? He'd have almost the exact same resume structure as Gordie Howe.

My point with this double-post, is about the "if". I don't think it's that big of a "if".

The exercise has been done before - but if you project out Crosby's missed time at the top end side of optimistic projections, he looks very good vs Howe.

He gets an extra Ross in 2011, 2012, 2013. He might even get an extra Ross in 2008 and 2015. Certainly some extra Harts/Lindsays in there.
His level of domination at his peak would be pretty spectacular. Top scorer in 2011 got 104 points, would Crosby get 130+? 125? Top scorer in 2012 (Malkin) got 109, but then it was 97. Does Crosby again hit 130+? 125? Those are extremely impressive leads over the field if so.
In terms of consistency post 2014 - just look at all the hart trophy nominations he's had. Extremely consistent.

Yeah - I think in the absolute top end of projections, we're talking "big 5" instead of big 4.

Before I get flamed too much - this is the most optimistic of projections. It's very possible that without any injuries his numbers and pace goes down quite a bit in those seasons too, and he doesn't accomplish quite so much. I think with no injuries and more pessimistic projections, he still does enough to consolidate his spot as clear #5 all time, but would still be clearly behind the big 4.

 

[daver]

The exercise has been done before - but if you project out Crosby's missed time at the top end side of optimistic projections, he looks very good vs Howe.

He gets an extra Ross in 2011, 2012, 2013. He might even get an extra Ross in 2008 and 2015. Certainly some extra Harts/Lindsays in there.
His level of domination at his peak would be pretty spectacular. Top scorer in 2011 got 104 points, would Crosby get 130+? 125? Top scorer in 2012 (Malkin) got 109, but then it was 97. Does Crosby again hit 130+? 125? Those are extremely impressive leads over the field if so.
In terms of consistency post 2014 - just look at all the hart trophy nominations he's had. Extremely consistent.

Yeah - I think in the absolute top end of projections, we're talking "big 5" instead of big 4.

Before I get flamed too much - this is the most optimistic of projections. It's very possible that without any injuries his numbers and pace goes down quite a bit in those seasons too, and he doesn't accomplish quite so much. I think with no injuries and more pessimistic projections, he still does enough to consolidate his spot as clear #5 all time, but would still be clearly behind the big 4.

If we are projecting then you have to do the same with Mario and Orr, and maybe Howe if you believe he wasn't as good after his injury in 1955.

I think it becomes a Big 3 (Wayne, Mario, Orr) with an endless argument of how to weigh Howe's offensive dominance vs. Wayne and Mario.

 

[jigglysquishy]

And if Crosby wins those 4 Art Ross in a row, and then goes on to have the same post-2014 career, where do you guys think he ranks? He'd have almost the exact same resume structure as Gordie Howe.

My point with this double-post, is about the "if". I don't think it's that big of a "if".

If we assume he wins the 2011, 2012, 2013 Art Rosses in dominant fashion, and the rest of his career is the same, I think he's a lock for 5th all-time, with lots of people having his ahead of Mario.

In this scenario, Crosby has,

5 Art Ross
5 Hart Trophies
5 Pearson Awards
6x 1st AS
4x 2nd AS
2 Conn Smythe

compared to Lemieux at
6 Art Ross
3 Hart Trophies
4 Pearson Awards
5x 1st AS
4x 2nd AS
2 Conn Smythe

I think most would concede that Lemieux peaked a tier above Crosby, but that Crosby's extended back-end of his career makes up the difference. Crosby would likely overtake Howe in Hart Trophy shares. He is already ahead of Lemieux in real-life, let along in this fictional scenario where he picks up 3 extra Harts. Crosby would be picking up somewhere around 150-200 extra points. He would have a decent shot at finishing second all-time in points.

Ifs are ifs, but I've always been fascinating by the scenario where Crosby is healthy these three seasons.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The exercise has been done before - but if you project out Crosby's missed time at the top end side of optimistic projections, he looks very good vs Howe.

He gets an extra Ross in 2011, 2012, 2013. He might even get an extra Ross in 2008 and 2015. Certainly some extra Harts/Lindsays in there.

To quote myself from another thread:

Using some basic probability modelling, here's Crosby's probability of winning the Art Ross in these five seasons if he didn't miss any time:

• 2008 - 46.71%
• 2011 - 99.99%
• 2012 - 99.54%
• 2013 - 100.00%
• 2015 - 89.49%

Crosby was virtually certain to win five Art Rosses without injuries. 2012 is the only one that's questionable, since his teammate won the scoring title, and maybe Crosby playing the full season would have pushed Malkin's numbers higher (somewhat lowering his chances of catching him - but 99.54%, as a starting point, is as close to a sure thing as you can get).

Three obvious objections to this approach:

1. Injuries are part of the game, and ultimately what's accomplished on the ice is what really matters (not hypotheticals).
2. This analysis assumes that only Crosby avoids missing time. If we're assuming no injuries, we should probably assume no injuries for anyone. In most of these years, Crosby is so far ahead of everyone else that it doesn't matter. But in 2015, for example, Seguin (over 82 games) would probably reduce Crosby's chances of winning the Art Ross from 89% to maybe 60% (ballpark guess - and other players might whittle that down further)
3. "Butterfly effect" - suppose Crosby wins five Art Ross trophies in a row from 2011 to 2015, and picks up three Hart trophies. But maybe he loses a bit of his drive and, as a result, the Penguins no longer win the Stanley Cup in 2016 and 2017. His resume is still stronger overall in this scenario, but it's not as clear-cut as it could be (especially since his trump card over most players - an excellent playoff resume - is now weaker).

All that being said, it's remarkable that 118 games (11.4% of his current career total) potentially cost him four Art Ross trophies (enough to tie him with Howe and Lemieux).

 

[bobholly39]

To quote myself from another thread:

Using some basic probability modelling, here's Crosby's probability of winning the Art Ross in these five seasons if he didn't miss any time:

• 2008 - 46.71%
• 2011 - 99.99%
• 2012 - 99.54%
• 2013 - 100.00%
• 2015 - 89.49%

Crosby was virtually certain to win five Art Rosses without injuries. 2012 is the only one that's questionable, since his teammate won the scoring title, and maybe Crosby playing the full season would have pushed Malkin's numbers higher (somewhat lowering his chances of catching him - but 99.54%, as a starting point, is as close to a sure thing as you can get).

Three obvious objections to this approach:

1. Injuries are part of the game, and ultimately what's accomplished on the ice is what really matters (not hypotheticals).
2. This analysis assumes that only Crosby avoids missing time. If we're assuming no injuries, we should probably assume no injuries for anyone. In most of these years, Crosby is so far ahead of everyone else that it doesn't matter. But in 2015, for example, Seguin (over 82 games) would probably reduce Crosby's chances of winning the Art Ross from 89% to maybe 60% (ballpark guess - and other players might whittle that down further)
3. "Butterfly effect" - suppose Crosby wins five Art Ross trophies in a row from 2011 to 2015, and picks up three Hart trophies. But maybe he loses a bit of his drive and, as a result, the Penguins no longer win the Stanley Cup in 2016 and 2017. His resume is still stronger overall in this scenario, but it's not as clear-cut as it could be (especially since his trump card over most players - an excellent playoff resume - is now weaker).

All that being said, it's remarkable that 118 games (11.4% of his current career total) potentially cost him four Art Ross trophies (enough to tie him with Howe and Lemieux).

Great post. A few comments:

1. Injuries are of course part of the game, so he should get no credit for any of this - I just find it fun to speculate that's all

2. Regarding "assuming no injuries for anyone else too, to be fair" - we can, but I don't see the need. This is really more about looking at just one player under different circumstances. Of course you can do it for everyone, or no one - but I think looking at just Crosby is an interesting conversation.

3. Butterfly effect - I agree with this 100%, so much so. It's obviously all a guessing game - but you could absolutely be right, he wins more rosses, loses his drive, no playoff resurgence, no 2 more cups/smythes, and Crosby today is instead seen as a "playoff choker" - as Crosby/Malkin era are only good for 1 cup and a bunch of playoff failures. OR - at the other end of the spectrum - they add a 4th cup in 2012 or 2013 and a 3rd smythe for him, and his playoff legend grows even further. It's impossible to say. So you always have to talk these hypotheticals with an extra grain of salt.

One more very important thing - there's no way he's 99.54% likely to win the Ross in 2012. I think he's very likely, he's a favorite above Malkin because he was better at that point in-time, but Malkin had an unbelievable season. I'd say it's ~75-80% likely. I think that's one limitation with your probability modelling that just looks at number - because if you add a bit of critical thinking there, it's obvious his probability should go down somewhat.

 

[bobholly39]

If we assume he wins the 2011, 2012, 2013 Art Rosses in dominant fashion, and the rest of his career is the same, I think he's a lock for 5th all-time, with lots of people having his ahead of Mario.

In this scenario, Crosby has,

5 Art Ross
5 Hart Trophies
5 Pearson Awards
6x 1st AS
4x 2nd AS
2 Conn Smythe

compared to Lemieux at
6 Art Ross
3 Hart Trophies
4 Pearson Awards
5x 1st AS
4x 2nd AS
2 Conn Smythe

I think most would concede that Lemieux peaked a tier above Crosby, but that Crosby's extended back-end of his career makes up the difference. Crosby would likely overtake Howe in Hart Trophy shares. He is already ahead of Lemieux in real-life, let along in this fictional scenario where he picks up 3 extra Harts. Crosby would be picking up somewhere around 150-200 extra points. He would have a decent shot at finishing second all-time in points.

Ifs are ifs, but I've always been fascinating by the scenario where Crosby is healthy these three seasons.

Art Rosses are easier to project - Harts I think is a bit more complicated.

2011 - Hart is obvious
2012 - His biggest competition is his teammate. If we assume he's better than Malkin, he also wins the hart, this one is fairly ok too.
2013 - Ovechkin has a hell of a compelling hart case. Very bad start - but finishes the season going ~1 goal per game for 30 or so games, helps Caps make the playoffs - very compelling case for the hart. Crosby would win the Hart easily above Ovi if you only consider his 2013 season (no injury) - but if you add the caveat that this would be a 3rd hart in a row for Crosby after 2011/2012, voter fatigue would be a huge point against him. Voters would be looking for a reason to give the hart elsewhere, and I suspect Ovi would have a good chance.
2014 - I want to say Crosby could also lose this Hart for voter fatigue, but reality is no one else was really close enough.

As for Crosby vs Howe or Lemieux under this scenario - I think Crosby vs Howe is so much easier because it's apples to apples. Very comparable career path, longevity/consistency, with strong peak/prime, so I think it would be an easier case to make Crosby > Howe.
With Lemieux - it's more apples and oranges. Lemieux with the easily higher peak, and for some that alone would be a reason to prefer Lemieux

 

[daver]

All that being said, it's remarkable that 118 games (11.4% of his current career total) potentially cost him four Art Ross trophies (enough to tie him with Howe and Lemieux).

You can argue that he needed less than that for 3 Rosses.

In 2011, he plays 25 - 30 more games and wins the Ross.

In 2013, he plays 5 more games and wins the Ross

In 2015, he plays 5 more games and wins the Ross.

 

[Rengorlex]

As you and I both mention, McDavid is seemingly mid-peak, and assuming he plays more games at his peak than Crosby, the % over the other Top Ten over a five year will likely go up.

It's an interesting comparison because McDavid and Crosby have been so incredibly similar in their offensive dominance year to year. Both hit their next level in year 6, and Crosby was on that level years 6-8.

Although Crosby doesn't get credit for what he didn't do, McDavid, after extremely closely mirroring Crosby's career arc for the first 5 years, peaking in a similar fashion at a similar time certainly makes it subjectively more convincing that Crosby did in fact hit a different, top 5 all time level at that point too.

 

[jigglysquishy]

You can argue that he needed less than that for 3 Rosses.

In 2011, he plays 25 - 30 more games and wins the Ross.

In 2013, he plays 5 more games and wins the Ross

In 2015, he plays 5 more games and wins the Ross.

Based purely on his PPG, it would come to:

65 games played in 2010-11 (additional 24 games)
39 games played in 2012-13 (additional 3 games)
81 games played in 2014-15 (additional 4 games)

If his PPG was consistent, it works out to only 31 games played to win three additional Art Ross trophies.