Where does Ovie now rank all time?

[billcook]

on avg

2007/08-2009/10

233 games played
60 goals 56 assists


2005/06-2010/11

475 games played
52 goals 54 assists


2005/06-2017/18

1003 games played
50 goals 42 assists

 

[Sentinel]

Crosby has played about 85% of his regular season games and about 94% of his playoff games. Where are you coming up with him missing 1/3 of his games in his prime?

Between 2007-08 and 2012-13 seasons, Crosby played 310 RS + 77 PO games. Pittsburgh Penguins played 458 RS + 85 PO games. 387/543 = 71%

 

[daver]

Not really. All I'm trying to say is that despite all his injuries - Crosby is pacing towards having decent overall career longevity. His early age start helps.

So I don't think lack of longevity will be a weakness in his resume

It seems ridiculous to value missed games (or devalue played games) as anything other than a lost opportunity for a player to put up full seasons. And Crosby is 60th in regular season games played since 2005/06 (likely much higher when playoffs and international hockey are included) so this narrative of lacking career longevity should be somewhat pushed back to the footnote area.

The 2013 season, one which Midnight Judges quotes often, should be held as a standard for the value placed on point totals and consideration for missed games.

Both OV and Crosby had the same amount of points. OV played a 1/4 more of the season and had more than twice as many goals. OV edged out Crosby for Hart (by less than 2% of the vote) and Crosby won the Lindsay. There is a very minor bias for either goals scored or playing more games by the Hart voters while the players seem to acknowledge Crosby's similar offensive contribution while playing only 3/4s of the season. There is no indication that Crosby was penalized for not playing the whole season. The same can be said about OV in 09/10.

It is a pretty unique scenario with OV and Crosby given they started at the same time as this allows their career point totals to be compared straight up. OV has played an unusually high % of his games while Crosby has missed a somewhat significant amount of his games which has lead to their almost identical career point totals despite the significant gap in career PPGs. You cannot deny that in terms of point production, OV has brought as much value as Crosby has; you can also not deny that Crosby has clearly been the better player on a per game basis over the course of his career.

As the consistent ranking of Orr and Mario, and to a lesser extent, Forsberg and Lindros, attest to, consideration for a player's talent level and abilities is included. What one actually accomplished with one's talent should always be front and centre in player evaluation but talent level should hold considerable secondary value.

 

[daver]

Between 2007-08 and 2012-13 seasons, Crosby played 310 RS + 77 PO games. Pittsburgh Penguins played 458 RS + 85 PO games. 387/543 = 71%

Is Prime defined as "the years sandwiched between winning the Art Ross"?

 

[Sentinel]

Is Prime defined as "the years sandwiched between winning the Art Ross"?

I didn't say "his entire prime." I said "in his prime." Unless you consider 08-13 NOT his prime, you are just being a pest.

At any rate, I clearly stated that number of games missed is a small dent in Crosby's legacy. I already rank him in the Top 10 of all time. I get it: you won't stop until the board unanimously puts him in the Top 4, but that's never gonna happen. So whatever.

Even your fanboyism must have its limits. Does it?

 

[daver]

I didn't say "his entire prime." I said "in his prime." Unless you consider 08-13 NOT his prime, you are just being a pest.

At any rate, I clearly stated that number of games missed is a small dent in Crosby's legacy. I already rank him in the Top 10 of all time. I get it: you won't stop until the board unanimously puts him in the Top 4, but that's never gonna happen. So whatever.

Even your fanboyism must have its limits. Does it?

Don't be too upset that you got called out for making an irrelevant point with cherrypicked seasons. It's adorable that you are trying making this out to be about semantics with a sidehelping of the always telling fanboyism comment.

His career game % speaks for itself.

 

[Sentinel]

Don't be too upset that you got called out for making an irrelevant point with cherrypicked seasons. It's adorable that you are trying making this out to be about semantics with a sidehelping of the always telling fanboyism comment.

His career game % speaks for itself.

If that's what you find adorable, you must have a pretty sad life. I (and several others) made this point, the point is correct, and the only reason you "call me out" (incorrectly) is because it's your beloved Crosby.

 

[daver]

If that's what you find adorable, you must have a pretty sad life. I (and several others) made this point, the point is correct, and the only reason you "call me out" (incorrectly) is because it's your beloved Crosby.

What point? You said he missed a 1/3 of his games in his prime. Sounds pretty damning until you realize that you limiting his prime to whatever # of seasons makes it sound the worse.

And why are missed games such a negative? Crosby is already punished, for lack of better term, with a resume that is not reflective of his per game dominance over the league. OV vs. Crosby would be a non-starter if Crosby wins even one more Art Ross.

If missed games is so important, I don't see where his Art Ross win in 13/14 is mentioned as being the best one in the past 25 years based on the % gap over 2nd place.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Missing games is not a benefit to the team.

 

[daver]

Missing games is not a benefit to the team.

Who is arguing this? The issue is some are trying to qualify Crosby's career point totals as being valuable than OV's since he only played in 85% of his regular season games.

I have never seen this argument to devalue the career's of Orr, Mario, Forsberg or Lindros. They all get full credit for what they accomplished.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Who is arguing this? The issue is some are trying to qualify Crosby's career point totals as being valuable than OV's since he only played in 85% of his regular season games.

I have never seen this argument to devalue the career's of Orr, Mario, Forsberg or Lindros. They all get full credit for what they accomplished.

Perhaps full credit for what they under accomplished would be a better description.

In all instances where injuries impacted a players career from Charlie Conacher on up to date greats who saw injuries impact their career are held back in All Time ratings by default. There is always the "if injury free" associated with their career that brings them down to mortal levels.

Best example being Orr, 8 Norris Trophies in 9 full seasons. An attainable total for some.

 

[daver]

Perhaps full credit for what they under accomplished would be a better description.

In all instances where injuries impacted a players career from Charlie Conacher on up to date greats who saw injuries impact their career are held back in All Time ratings by default. There is always the "if injury free" associated with their career that brings them down to mortal levels.

Best example being Orr, 8 Norris Trophies in 9 full seasons. An attainable total for some.

Again, what posters are making this argument,at least in the last few pages? Noone

What a posters are saying is that his injuries devalues what he actually produced when he was not injured.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It seems ridiculous to value missed games (or devalue played games) as anything other than a lost opportunity for a player to put up full seasons. And Crosby is 60th in regular season games played since 2005/06 (likely much higher when playoffs and international hockey are included) so this narrative of lacking career longevity should be somewhat pushed back to the footnote area.

The 2013 season, one which Midnight Judges quotes often, should be held as a standard for the value placed on point totals and consideration for missed games.

Both OV and Crosby had the same amount of points. OV played a 1/4 more of the season and had more than twice as many goals. OV edged out Crosby for Hart (by less than 2% of the vote) and Crosby won the Lindsay. There is a very minor bias for either goals scored or playing more games by the Hart voters while the players seem to acknowledge Crosby's similar offensive contribution while playing only 3/4s of the season. There is no indication that Crosby was penalized for not playing the whole season. The same can be said about OV in 09/10.

It is a pretty unique scenario with OV and Crosby given they started at the same time as this allows their career point totals to be compared straight up. OV has played an unusually high % of his games while Crosby has missed a somewhat significant amount of his games which has lead to their almost identical career point totals despite the significant gap in career PPGs. You cannot deny that in terms of point production, OV has brought as much value as Crosby has; you can also not deny that Crosby has clearly been the better player on a per game basis over the course of his career.

As the consistent ranking of Orr and Mario, and to a lesser extent, Forsberg and Lindros, attest to, consideration for a player's talent level and abilities is included. What one actually accomplished with one's talent should always be front and centre in player evaluation but talent level should hold considerable secondary value.

You are. Full seasons include having to,play all opponents in a defined proportion, battle thru slumps and opposition adjustments, statistically known as regression to the norm.

Partial seasons are just that - partial, not to be pro-rated or juggled in anyway.They never represent full seasons.

 

[daver]

You are. Full seasons include having to,play all opponents in a defined proportion, battle thru slumps and opposition adjustments, statistically known as regression to the norm.

Partial seasons are just that - partial, not to be pro-rated or juggled in anyway.They never represent full seasons.

Crosby's missed full seasons are represented in the fact he does not have more career points and high end full seasons than OV despite a much higher PPG. I don't see anything in my bolded statement that is making an argument that his partial seasons are as valuable as a full season.

If you completely remove the # of games played by both players, their RS resumes are very close in terms of point production, high end seasons and Hart/Lindsay consideration. Adding the # of games played to their respective resumes should not be a benefit for OV. If anything, it is clear that per game production is considered in some respect by everyone including you with Orr.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Crosby's missed full seasons are represented in the fact he does not have more career points and high end full seasons than OV despite a much higher PPG. I don't see anything in my bolded statement that is making an argument that his partial seasons are as valuable as a full season.

If you completely remove the # of games played by both players, their RS resumes are very close in terms of point production, high end seasons and Hart/Lindsay consideration. Adding the # of games played to their respective resumes should not be a benefit for OV. If anything, it is clear that per game production is considered in some respect by everyone including you with Orr.

Referring to RS games.

2010-11 when Crosby played only 41 games, he placed 20th in Hart and 5th in AST voting. 1967-68 when Orr played 46 games he won the Norris, was 4th in Hart voting ans a 1 st AST member.

Bobby Orr Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Fail to see how this translates into per game production.

Sidney Crosby Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[daver]

Referring to RS games.

2010-11 when Crosby played only 41 games, he placed 20th in Hart and 5th in AST voting. 1967-68 when Orr played 46 games he won the Norris, was 4th in Hart voting ans a 1 st AST member.

Bobby Orr Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Fail to see how this translates into per game production.

Sidney Crosby Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Per game production is a real stat, not one that needs translating. What you showed are clear examples, along with Crosby in 2013, that voters disregard the number of games played, and arguably place value on per game production.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Per game production is a real stat, not one that needs translating. What you showed are clear examples, along with Crosby in 2013, that voters disregard the number of games played, and arguably place value on per game production.

No per game production is not a real stat. Crosby's career is described as ranking at 1.29 RS PPG. How does anyone score 0.29 of a point in a game? Not possible. So it is a part of a simple ranking mechanism not a real stat like a goal, an assist or a point. Unlike a goal,assist or a point with a constant value of 1, PPG is whimsical since the ranking can be juggled by look at ATOI or shifts or zone starts.

Orr winning the Norris while playing 46 games is an opinion by voters that each other defencemen contributed less defensively while playing more games. Similarly for Orr's 1st AST nomination.

 

[daver]

No per game production is not a real stat. Crosby's career is described as ranking at 1.29 RS PPG. How does anyone score 0.29 of a point in a game? Not possible. So it is a part of a simple ranking mechanism not a real stat like a goal, an assist or a point. Unlike a goal,assist or a point with a constant value of 1, PPG is whimsical since the ranking can be juggled by look at ATOI or shifts or zone starts.

Orr winning the Norris while playing 46 games is an opinion by voters that each other defencemen contributed less defensively while playing more games. Similarly for Orr's 1st AST nomination.

It is based on real stats, points divided by games. How much weight you want to attribute to that in ranking players is your choice.

But this has nothing to do with devaluing Crosby's career point totals based on the amount of games he played. I.e. saying that his 1000 points are less valuable than OV's 1000 points because he missed more games than OV.

Do you or do you not agree with this sentiment?

 

[YippieKaey]

Playoffs is his 2nd weakness. I never felt Ovechkin was a "bad" playoff performer - but if you're in the top 20 players all time you're being compared to guys like Richard, Roy, Gretzky to name a few. Ovechkin was miles behind them before this season. I think this smythe helped him a lot. It at least makes his overall playoff resume not stand out as the weakest out of the top 20 players all time - but it's still very close to the bottom. Who in the top 20 all time players don't have a better playoff resume than Ovi? There may be 1 or 2 but can't think of any off hand

[/QUOTE]

Better ppg in playoffs than Richard, Yzerman and Jagr for starters. 16th all-time in goals per game in playoffs. Pretty damn great playoff performer.

NHL Playoffs All-Time Goals per Game Leaders

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fewer SCs. Given Ovi's prolonged and unparalled celebration after his first SC it seems like he realizes that one SC is worth more than all his other awards and honours combined.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It is based on real stats, points divided by games. How much weight you want to attribute to that in ranking players is your choice.

But this has nothing to do with devaluing Crosby's career point totals based on the amount of games he played. I.e. saying that his 1000 points are less valuable than OV's 1000 points because he missed more games than OV.

Do you or do you not agree with this sentiment?

Value is a function of how the points contribute to winning and team success.

 

[bobholly39]

Better ppg in playoffs than Richard, Yzerman and Jagr for starters. 16th all-time in goals per game in playoffs. Pretty damn great playoff performer.

NHL Playoffs All-Time Goals per Game Leaders[/QUOTE]


Maurice Richard is generally seen as a top 3-5 playoff performer of all-time. Ovechkin may be ahead of him for certain stats - but as a playoff performer Ovechkin is certainly behind Richard, and it's not close.

Yzerman. Great player, but not a top 20 player of all time. My point was that if you compare Ovechkin to anyone else in the top 20 players of all time, his playoff resume is a weakness because everyone else is pretty much ahead of him.

Jagr is the only one, as I said in later posts. And then again - Jagr does have over 200 playoff points, one of 5 players in history to do so. So him vs Ovechkin for playoffs can very easily lean towards Jagr.

Ovechkin isn't a bad playoff performer. But compared to the typical players you see ranked top 20 of all time, his playoff resume is a weakness.

 

[YippieKaey]

Maurice Richard is generally seen as a top 3-5 playoff performer of all-time. Ovechkin may be ahead of him for certain stats - but as a playoff performer Ovechkin is certainly behind Richard, and it's not close.

Yzerman. Great player, but not a top 20 player of all time. My point was that if you compare Ovechkin to anyone else in the top 20 players of all time, his playoff resume is a weakness because everyone else is pretty much ahead of him.

Jagr is the only one, as I said in later posts. And then again - Jagr does have over 200 playoff points, one of 5 players in history to do so. So him vs Ovechkin for playoffs can very easily lean towards Jagr.

Ovechkin isn't a bad playoff performer. But compared to the typical players you see ranked top 20 of all time, his playoff resume is a weakness.

Well. Jagr played his playoff prime in a higher scoring era, with Lemieux, Francis, Stevens and yet is nowhere near OVI in terms of goals scored whicj is the most important stat for winning. Add physicality to the mix. Richard i never saw and i for sure think Stevie is top 10

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well. Jagr played his playoff prime in a higher scoring era, with Lemieux, Francis, Stevens and yet is nowhere near OVI in terms of goals scored whicj is the most important stat for winning. Add physicality to the mix. Richard i never saw and i for sure think Stevie is top 10

Highly doubtful given the growing demand for playmaking centers and transition defencemen. Teams lacking one, especially both such quality skaters are condemned to lottery pick status.

 

[Sentinel]

Who is arguing this? The issue is some are trying to qualify Crosby's career point totals as being valuable than OV's since he only played in 85% of his regular season games.

I have never seen this argument to devalue the career's of Orr, Mario, Forsberg or Lindros. They all get full credit for what they accomplished.

You seriously have never seen the "lost time" argument brought up against Forsberg and Lindros?