Which of the following scenarios would be best for Crosby’s career in 2024-25?

[crowfish]

My pick is option 4, where he scores 216 points in the regular season and 50 points in the playoffs while sweeping the Hart, Ross, Lindsey, Rocket, Smythe and Lord Stanley. Then, in an unprecedented move, the league decides only to engrave Sidney Crosbys name onto the Cup because the season was so dominant.

 

[WalterLundy]

The thing is, you have no reason to believe McDavid would put up 130+ in 2014-2017 either in a much more tight checking environment. You seem to be ignoring that while scoring goes up, it favours the top players much more than the depth players and you are not able to exactly quantify the effect.

I’ll try to explain it to you differently. With your adjustment, Crosby’s 2014 season gets adjusted to 116 points, based on 2019 scoring. That is a 11,5% upgrade.

I’ll do the same exercice with the players I mentioned in my previous post with the % upgrade they benefited by playing in a much more wide open scoring environment, in 2019, compared to their production in 2017, which was the last season of the DPE 2.0.

MacKinnon
2019: 99 in 82 (1,21)
2017: 53 in 82 (0,65)

86% upgrade

Kucherov
2019: 128 in 82 (1,56)
2017: 85 in 74 (1,15)

36% upgrade

Draisaitl
2019: 105 in 82 (1,28)
2017: 77 in 82 (0,94)

36% upgrade

Marner
2019: 94 in 82 (1,15)
2017: 61 in 77 (0,79)

46% upgrade

Pastrnak
2019: 81 in 66 (1,23)
2017: 70 in 75 (0,93)

32% upgrade

Panarin
2019: 87 in 79 (1,10)
2017: 74 in 82 (0,90)

22% upgrade

Tkachuk
2019: 77 in 80 (0,96)
2017: 48 in 76 (0,63)

52% upgrade

Matthews
2019: 73 in 68 (1,07)
2017: 69 in 82 (0,84)

27% upgrade

Aho
2019: 83 in 82 (1,01)
2017: 49 in 82 (0,60)

69% upgrade

Gaudreau
2019: 99 in 82 (1,21)
2017: 61 in 72 (0,85)

42% upgrade

Stamkos (Injured in 2017)
2019: 98 in 82 (1,20)
2016: 64 in 77 (0,83)

45% upgrade

Huberdeau (Injured in 2017)
2019: 92 in 82 (1,12)
2016: 59 in 76 (0,78)

44% upgrade

Barkov
2019: 96 in 82 (1,17)
2017: 52 in 61 (0,85)

38% upgrade

Kane
2019: 110 in 81 (1,36)
2017: 89 in 82 (1,09)

25% upgrade

Ovechkin
2019: 89 in 81 (1,10)
2017: 69 in 82 (0,84)

31% upgrade

McDavid
2019: 116 in 78 (1,49)
2017: 100 in 82 (1,22)

22% upgrade

So, I just gave you a 15-16 sample size of some of the best players of the 2020s to show you how much their production befitted of the difference in scoring environment vs how much your adjustments actually give credit to the top players (only a +11% adjusted production for Crosby in 2014, +12% for Kane in 2016, 12% for Malkin in 2012 and 9% for Ovechkin in 2008).

No player benefited of less than a 20% upgrade in production. If you only look at the absolute top players in the game, you see that all of them benefitted of at least a 30% upgrade in production (Kucherov/Draisaitl/MacKinnon). McDavid only had a 22% upgrade, which can be explained by him having a really good 2017 season, compared to his peers.

In conclusion, that evidence clearly showed that top players benefited much more from the higher scoring environment than your adjusted method takes into account. It’s very likely that Crosby, Kane, Ovechkin and Malkin would have benefited from AT THE VERY LEAST a 20% upgrade in production if they were at the top of their game, in 2019, and likely more.

I get what you are saying and I understood it prior but there are still major flaws with that though. Maybe any attempt at an adjustment is futile but I’ll show you what I mean here. If you look at 2nd through 10th place in points per game, average that out and prorate it to 82 games you’ll get an idea of what the league’s elite were putting up on average. By removing number 1 per year you also do your best to prevent skewing.

In 1988-89 the average 2-10 guy was pacing for 134 points in 82 games. In 2011-2012 the average 2-10 guy was pacing for 87 points in 82 games. By this method a peak Mario Lemieux (his best version easily in my opinion and I was there) would put up 129 points in 2012 for 1.7 ppg and a 139/82 game pace. He’s more than 20 points better than 2012 Malkin I’m sorry and I love Geno. In 2001 the average 2-10 guy was pacing for 103 in 82 games. That makes 35 year old Lemieux a 1.5 ppg guy in 2012. He was slightly outscored by Jagr from his return onward in 2001 but that really isn’t the issue here. By this method we are looking at peak Mario only being 13% better than his age 35 self. That just doesn’t make sense. None of it does and there are way too many things to consider. Definitely way too much to accept that the peak seasons of the DPE 2.0 transform into 135-150 point seasons at minimum. I think GPG adjustment is flawed too but perhaps closer than this kind.

I’m not going to try to convince you that adjusting by league goals per game in any fashion is perfect. While I do appreciate a different perspective on this I also don’t believe this is the way either. Not even close. I think any adjustment method will never be good enough to take seriously. Over the course of this exchange you have provided thorough information and analysis so I do appreciate that.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

The problem with quite a few of your highlighted players is that you seem to be ignoring age and the bump that usually naturally occurs after a few seasons in the league.

Kucherov went from 66 in 77 in 2015-2016 to 85 in 74 in 2016-2017. The scoring environments were similar and he was still only 23.

Matthews was a 19 year old rookie.

McDavid was a 20 year old sophomore.

MacKinnon was 21 and had a weird career development curve. He also had 10 points more as an 18 year old rookie in the same scoring environment.

You’re ignoring that Draisaitl scored at a slightly lower rate in 2017-2018 than he did in 2016-2017, even though scoring took its first noticeable step forward. Either way, he was still only 23 entering the 2018-2019 season.

I highlighted who I consider the top 5 forwards right now. I like your work and there’s a kernel of truth in there somewhere (indeed, scoring is up, and Crosby, Ovechkin, and Stamkos are great examples to build a point around), but too much of your argument revolves around comparing the production of mostly 19-21 year olds and their production a few years later, which is usually a dramatic jump in any era.

Another thing to consider is that outliers exist in many of the great’s careers. Sakic achieved pretty much the same production at age 31 in a lower scoring environment similar to DPE 2.0 as he did in a scoring environment similar to today’s which resembles the 1995-1996 season, when he was 26. It’s not exactly crazy that Kane at age 30 puts up 110 in 82 in 2018-2019 when he did 106 in 82 in 2015-2016 at 27.

Yes, which is why I went with the very conservative projection of a 20% upgrade.

I’ve showed multiple players at different ages to show exactly that. No matter the age, really, there was a big bump in production.

Also, McDavid was better in the 2017 RS than he was in the 2019 RS, just like Crosby was better in 2007 RS, than he was in 2009 RS.

Here is all the players I’ve mentioned in my previous post along with their age in 2019.

McDavid (21-22)
Matthews (21)
Kucherov (25)
Draisaitl (23)
MacKinnon (23)
Panarin (27)
Tkachuk (21-22)
Huberdeau (25)
Pastrnak (22)
Aho (21)
Stamkos (28)
Ovechkin (32)
Marner (21)
Kane (30)
Barkov (23)
Gaudreau (25)

Some of the increase in production is certainly due to the natural player evolution, but when that increase affects (drastically) players going from age 21 to age 32, there’s definitely another variable in place.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I get what you are saying and I understood it prior but there are still major flaws with that though. Maybe any attempt at an adjustment is futile but I’ll show you what I mean here. If you look at 2nd through 10th place in points per game, average that out and prorate it to 82 games you’ll get an idea of what the league’s elite were putting up on average. By removing number 1 per year you also do your best to prevent skewing.

In 1988-89 the average 2-10 guy was pacing for 134 points in 82 games. In 2011-2012 the average 2-10 guy was pacing for 87 points in 82 games. By this method a peak Mario Lemieux (his best version easily in my opinion and I was there) would put up 129 points in 2012 for 1.7 ppg and a 139/82 game pace. He’s more than 20 points better than 2012 Malkin I’m sorry and I love Geno. In 2001 the average 2-10 guy was pacing for 103 in 82 games. That makes 35 year old Lemieux a 1.5 ppg guy in 2012. He was slightly outscored by Jagr from his return onward in 2001 but that really isn’t the issue here. By this method we are looking at peak Mario only being 13% better than his age 35 self. That just doesn’t make sense. None of it does and there are way too many things to consider. Definitely way too much to accept that the peak seasons of the DPE 2.0 transform into 135-150 point seasons at minimum. I think GPG adjustment is flawed too but perhaps closer than this kind.

I’m not going to try to convince you that adjusting by league goals per game in any fashion is perfect. While I do appreciate a different perspective on this I also don’t believe this is the way either. Not even close. I think any adjustment method will never be good enough to take seriously. Over the course of this exchange you have provided thorough information and analysis so I do appreciate that.

Which is why I don’t use adjusted stats, ever. They’re flawed. The best and frankly, only way to look at it, is by comparing the dominance vs their peers. Especially in that case, where McDavid’s competition is really similar to what Crosby had to deal with during his prime. Even if you disagree with that, the majority agrees, as proven by the recent poll I’ve made about it. Ultimately, we might simply have to agree to disagree with each other, as I’ve shown plenty of evidence to support my claim.

 

[Video Nasty]

Yes, which is why I went with the very conservative projection of a 20% upgrade.

I’ve showed multiple players at different ages to show exactly that. No matter the age, really, there was a big bump in production.

Also, McDavid was better in the 2017 RS than he was in the 2019 RS, just like Crosby was better in 2007 RS, than he was in 2009 RS.

Here is all the players I’ve mentioned in my previous post along with their age in 2019.

McDavid (21-22)
Matthews (21)
Kucherov (25)
Draisaitl (23)
MacKinnon (23)
Panarin (27)
Tkachuk (21-22)
Huberdeau (25)
Pastrnak (22)
Aho (21)
Stamkos (28)
Ovechkin (32)
Marner (21)
Kane (30)
Barkov (23)
Gaudreau (25)

Some of the increase in production is certainly due to the natural player evolution, but when that increase affects (drastically) players going from age 21 to age 32, there’s definitely another variable in place.

Both our points can be true. It still doesn’t mean Crosby would drop 140-150 today.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Both our points can be true. It still doesn’t mean Crosby would drop 140-150 today.

I never said he would, and it is virtually impossible to determine whether or not he'd be able to do it. It's why the dominance vs peers metric is the most reasonable method to compare players in different scoring environments. We will see whether or not Kucherov and MacKinnon can sustain the torrid production (along with McDavid) they have shown in 2023-2024 or if their production gets back to where it was in the prior years.

 

[Video Nasty]

I never said he would, and it is virtually impossible to determine whether or not he'd be able to do it. It's why the dominance vs peers metric is the most reasonable way to compare players in different scoring environments. We will see whether or not Kucherov and MacKinnon can sustain the torrid production (along with McDavid) they have shown in 2023-2024 or if their production gets back to where it was in the prior years.

I guess I just don’t understand the overall point. McDavid has the edge in your dominance versus peers metric. He also won the awards and has better scoring finishes within their respective scoring environments, both raw and PPG based. In 9 seasons, he’s matched or exceeded the amount of times among the top 3 in PPG that Crosby achieved through 12 seasons (his time as a relevant factor of scoring races).

When will it be enough exactly? When he has 6-8 Art Rosses, has been top 2 in PPG for 11 years in a row, and top 3 all 12 seasons of his career? Or will it forever be claimed that their reign of dominance is close?

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I guess I just don’t understand the overall point. McDavid has the edge in your dominance versus peers metric. He also won the awards and has better scoring finishes within their respective scoring environments, both raw and PPG based. In 9 seasons, he’s matched or exceeded the amount of times among the top 3 in PPG that Crosby achieved through 12 seasons (his time as a relevant factor of scoring races).

When will it be enough exactly? When he has 6-8 Art Rosses, has been top 2 in PPG for 11 years in a row, and top 3 all 12 seasons of his career? Or will it forever be claimed that their reign of dominance is close?

Yes, the point seemingly went over your head, as this has not been what we’ve been discussing in this particular thread.

I’ve shown plenty of times that when you compare the dominance vs their peers in their first 9 seasons, it’s extremely close. You can give the edge to McDavid if you want, as his sample size of games played is bigger and he’s been less unlucky with injuries at bad times, even though it’s not relevant to this discussion.

The point that was initially made was that Crosby’s raw totals were disappointing compared to McDavid’s raw totals and that he’s “only had over 110 points once”. I’ve explained why, several times. One other poster tried to use the adjusted stats method by HockeyReference, to try to compare both players, which was proven to be very flawed.

Ultimately, the dominance they’ve showed vs their peers in their first 9 seasons is really similar. I can give the edge to McDavid for the bigger sample sizes. It’s up to McDavid to really create a good enough separation by continuing to dominate, as Crosby fell off a little bit after 2014.

 

[TheGuiminator]

Both our points can be true. It still doesn’t mean Crosby would drop 140-150 today.

Aside from a minority, it’s common knowledge that Crosby isn’t as good offensively as McDavid and wouldn’t put up his numbers even at his peak.

What I and most people advocate for is that both players are in the same tier, even though Crosby’s accolades don’t measure up against McDavid’s, because of bad timing and injuries. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Crosby would’ve walked out with the Hart and Art Ross trophies in 2011 and 2013. He had already won these awards at age 19 and after his peak at 26, so it isn’t a stretch to believe he would’ve won them at 23 when he was at the height of his natural progression. Granted, I don’t think he would’ve hit the projected 132 points, but I think anything between 115 and 122 points would’ve been a safe bet for a finished product version of Crosby.

As for 2013, I think it’s even more of a slam dunk win. One has to be insane to think he wouldn’t have won the Hart and Ross trophies, considering how far ahead he was comparing to the rest of the pack

It’s reasonable to say Crosby would’ve had at least two more Hart and Art Ross trophies and I think we have enough evidence to give him a pass for these two specific seasons.

 

[voyageur]

Is a trade to Colorado an option? Because that might get him 100 points and a playoff appearance.

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.