As of 2021 - is Crosby vs Ovechkin's all-time ranking finalized, or can one still surpass the other?

[daver]

It's been discussed in one of these threads how the Penguins have somehow done better without Crosby in the lineup over his career. That's based on a simplistic win% calculation, but also over a pretty sizeable sample. On the other hand, r-on/r-off show Crosby's impact on differential is almost always hugely positive.

Just so we're all clear, the r-off numbers include all goals the team scored and allowed without Crosby, correct? Not just the ones when he was in the lineup and on the bench.

If so, it's interesting how the team's win% makes it look like they're often better without him, but once you include thousands more goals that happened with him on the bench, a clearer picture emerges.

That stat can almost be completely dismissed save for one season - 2019/20. Firstly, it includes the 06/07 season when the Pens were one of the worst teams in the league. That needs to be removed then we can look at some key seasons.

In 06/07, the Pens take one of the the largest point/% jumps in NHL history from one season to the next. There is no debate that Crosby was the key player in that jump as he outscored Malkin by 41% and he did not have any other significant offensive support besides Gonchar on the PP.

In 07/08, before Crosby's injury, the Pens were at .611 point %, Crosby was at a 1.40 PPG, Malkin was at 1.16. Crosby was out from Jan. 18 to Mar. 2 the Pens were at a 5.91 point %, Malkin was at a 1.63 PPG. You can clearly point to Malkin going off as the reason the Pens were able to not lose ground in Crosby's absence.

In 2010/11, before Crosby's injury, the Pens were at a .671 point % and a plus 38 in goals, Crosby was the runaway MVP at that point and was clear of Letang and Malkin by 30 and 32 points. After Jan. 5th, the Pens were at a .622 point % and a minus 6 in goals. Malkin only played 7 games during this stretch but he was clearly not having an elite season as he was at a 0.86 PPG when he was done for the year. The Pens lose in the 1st Round of the playoffs.

In 2011/12, the Pens were at a .625 point % before Crosby's return on Nov. 21. Malkin missed 7 of 20 games in that stretch too. Crosby came back for 8 games and the Pens were at a .688%. He missed the next 40 games and the Pens were at a .663 point % with Malkin being at a 1.50 PPG and Neal at 1.00. Crosby returns for the last 15 games and the Pens are at a .675 point %.

In 2012/13, the Pens were at a .771 point % before Crosby's injury on Mar. 30. Crosby was again the runaway MVP and was outscoring Malkin by 36 points. After his injury, the Pens were at a .692 %.

Comment: So after four seasons of significant partial play by Crosby, three seasons see a significant drop in the Pens point % while one season is a wash as Malkin played at his peak level.

From 2013/14 to 2018/19, Crosby plays full seasons and the Pens point % over that time is .632. Their point % from 07/08 was 0.642 (and higher when Crosby played). This means the Pens, as a team, were not as good during this time period so this would also affect the career winning % stat. i.e. the Pens winning % would have been below 0.632 if Crosby had missed the same 32% of their games from 13/14 to 18/19 as he did from 07/08 to 12/13. It is worth noting that Crosby contributed 25% more offense than Malkin during the 13/14 to 18/19 stretch.

In 2019/20, Crosby plays 17 games at a 1.00 PPG and the Pens are at a .618 point %, he misses the next 28 games and the Pens are at a .714 point % as the line of Malkin (1.46 PPG), Rust (1.24 PPG) and Guentzel (1.32) goes on a tear. Crosby comes back on Jan. 14 and the Pens are at a .521 %. Malkin is at a 1.30 PPG, Crosby is a 1.25 PPG, Rust is at a 0.75 PPG and Guentzel is out with injury.

In 2020/21, Crosby plays a full season getting significant Hart and Lindsay recognition and the Pens point % is .688.

Comment: So we have one significant sample of 28 games where the Pens played better with Crosby out of the lineup.

 

[bobbyking]

once ovi beats Gretzky we will have a new answer

 

[Gurglesons]

Yes, that's correct. The R-OFF numbers include Pittsburgh's results when Crosby was injured and/or sitting on the bench.

The statement that "Pittsburgh won more in the games Crosby missed" is literally true, but also misleading. From 2007 to 2019, Pittsburgh had a much better record when Crosby was playing. The comparison is misleading because it includes the 2006 season (when the Penguins were a terrible team, just like they were before the lockout, and Crosby played 81 games). A simplistic calculation is essentially giving Crosby (and his 81 games) fault for the 2006 season. This doesn't make sense because the Penguins were much better when Crosby was on the ice. This team was an outlier compared to every subsequent team, and 81 games of a team with a 35.8% win percentage drags down the career average for Crosby.

The other season skewing the results is 2020. And make no mistake - the Penguins were better when Crosby was out of the lineup. They went 56.1% with Crosby (41 games) and 71.4% (28 games) without him. I don't know what happened that year - maybe a Penguins fan can explain? I don't want to dismiss the season entirely, but it should be noted that this is what - the 15th best season of Crosby's career? Maybe the Pens really did play better hockey without their captain in 2020. But it's just one season, and it's widely acknowledged as one of his worst seasons. We shouldn't ignore it, but we shouldn't give it undue weight either.

(EDIT - Crosby missed at least 7 games in seven seasons. In six of those seasons, the Penguins were better when he played, ranging from just barely to significantly. The sole exception was 2020, when the Penguins were way better in the games he missed).

Roster in general was injured throughout 2020. We had lost Guentzel and Murray had flatlined once Sid came back.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's a thought experiment comparing two players:

• Player A is best described as a goal-scoring winger (who's had a long, relatively healthy career). Player B is best described as a playmaking centre (who missed a fair bit of time due to injuries).
• When comparing the players head to head, there's no doubt that Player A had the best peak season between them. When comparing their three best consecutive seasons, Player A is far ahead (due to having a very pronounced peak, and also due to Player B's injuries).
• Player A has one of the very best peak goal-scoring seasons in NHL history (after any type of reasonable adjustment for era). Player A is a much better goal-scorer than Player B. Any comparison involving goals (Richard trophies, top ten finishes, career totals, PP goals, GWG's, shots on goal, etc) leaves Player B far behind.
• Player A is one of the few post-WWII HOF-level forwards who recorded significantly more goals than assists.
• Player A was indifferent defensively for much of his career; Player B improved his team's goal differential at even-strength to a much greater extent.
• Player A received virtually no Selke votes during his career. Player B never won, but had four years in the top ten.
• Player B had one season where he was, without the slightest doubt, the best player in the NHL. It looked like he was going to run away with the Art Ross and Hart trophies. But he missed a significant amount of time.
• Scoring titles? Player B has one additional Art Ross relative to Player A. Despite Player B missing so much time to injuries, he has more years as a top three, five and ten scorer.
• Due to Player A being healthier, if you go down as far as top 20 scoring finishes, he pulls ahead of Player B.
• If points per game is your thing - Player B led the league in PPG twice more than Player A did. Player B has more years in the top five than Player A has in the top ten. Player B was pretty much always very high on the PPG list (just that he missed games, ranging from a few to a significant amount, in many of those seasons).
  
• Player A has one additional Lindsay trophy relative to Player B. They have the same number of Hart trophies.
• Player A is one of a small number of players to have been a Hart finalist three years in a row with at least one win. This has only been accomplished by 10 forwards (plus Orr and Hasek) dating back to WWII.
  
• Player B was in the conversation for "best player in the league" much longer than Player A. But, because of missing so much time when he was at his best, as discussed above, Player A actually had the better peak (in terms of what was actually demonstrated on the ice).
• Player B is widely considered one of the best playoff performers of his era. He scored significantly more per game than Player A in the postseason. In addition, he has one additional playoff scoring title relative to Player A.
• Player A was a very good playoff performer at his peak, even though his team didn't go very far. After his peak, he became significantly less productive. But he eventually redeemed his playoff reputation by playing well on a Stanley Cup winning team.
• Player B has led the Stanley Cup finals in scoring once; Player A never did that. Player B was able to lead the playoffs in scoring in a losing cause.
• Some have criticized Player B because it's not clear that he was even the best forward on his team during his career. Twice when his team won the Stanley Cup, he wasn't their leading scorer.

I'm not describing Ovechkin and Crosby - but these are two actual players. Any guesses as to who I'm comparing?

(To be clear, I'm not saying that Ovechkin is exactly equal to Player A and Crosby is exactly equal to Player B. For one thing, they're both clearly better than the players being described here. Also, the gap in reputation or ranking is much smaller between Ovechkin and Crosby than the two players discussed above. But I'm posting this because it's interesting to show that it's easy to make a high-level case that covers their resumes relatively well).

 

[wetcoast]

Here's a thought experiment comparing two players:

• Player A is best described as a goal-scoring winger (who's had a long, relatively healthy career). Player B is best described as a playmaking centre (who missed a fair bit of time due to injuries).
• When comparing the players head to head, there's no doubt that Player A had the best peak season between them. When comparing their three best consecutive seasons, Player A is far ahead (due to having a very pronounced peak, and also due to Player B's injuries).
• Player A has one of the very best peak goal-scoring seasons in NHL history (after any type of reasonable adjustment for era). Player A is a much better goal-scorer than Player B. Any comparison involving goals (Richard trophies, top ten finishes, career totals, PP goals, GWG's, shots on goal, etc) leaves Player B far behind.
• Player A is one of the few post-WWII HOF-level forwards who recorded significantly more goals than assists.
• Player A was indifferent defensively for much of his career; Player B improved his team's goal differential at even-strength to a much greater extent.
• Player A received virtually no Selke votes during his career. Player B never won, but had four years in the top ten.
• Player B had one season where he was, without the slightest doubt, the best player in the NHL. It looked like he was going to run away with the Art Ross and Hart trophies. But he missed a significant amount of time.
• Scoring titles? Player B has one additional Art Ross relative to Player A. Despite Player B missing so much time to injuries, he has more years as a top three, five and ten scorer.
• Due to Player A being healthier, if you go down as far as top 20 scoring finishes, he pulls ahead of Player B.
• Player A has one additional Lindsay trophy relative to Player B. They have the same number of Hart trophies.
• Player B was in the conversation for "best player in the league" much longer than Player A. But, because of missing so much time when he was at his best, as discussed above, Player A actually had the better peak (in terms of what was actually demonstrated on the ice).
• Player B is widely considered one of the best playoff performers of his era. He scored significantly more per game than Player A in the postseason. In addition, he has one additional playoff scoring title relative to Player A.
• Player A was a very good playoff performer at his peak, even though his team didn't go very far. After his peak, he became significantly less productive. But he eventually redeemed his playoff reputation by playing well on a Stanley Cup winning team.
• Player B has led the Stanley Cup finals in scoring once; Player A never did that. Player B was able to lead the playoffs in scoring in a losing cause.
• Some have criticized Player B because it's not clear that he was even the best forward on his team during his career. Twice when his team won the Stanley Cup, he wasn't their leading scorer.

I'm not describing Ovechkin and Crosby - but these are two actual players. Any guesses as to who I'm comparing?

(To be clear, I'm not saying that Ovechkin is exactly equal to Player A and Crosby is exactly equal to Player B. For one thing, they're both clearly better than the players being described here. Also, the gap in reputation or ranking is much smaller between Ovechkin and Crosby than the two players discussed above. But I'm posting this because it's interesting to show that it's easy to make a high-level case that covers their resumes relatively well).

Player B is Forsberg still working on player A though Maybe it's Brett Hull haven't crosschecked everything yet.

 

[wetcoast]

Player B is Forsberg still working on player A though Maybe it's Brett Hull haven't crosschecked everything yet.

On second thought player A was Jagr.

Actually I'm sticking with Hull for now.

 

[daver]

Here's a thought experiment comparing two players:

• Player A is best described as a goal-scoring winger (who's had a long, relatively healthy career). Player B is best described as a playmaking centre (who missed a fair bit of time due to injuries).
• When comparing the players head to head, there's no doubt that Player A had the best peak season between them. When comparing their three best consecutive seasons, Player A is far ahead (due to having a very pronounced peak, and also due to Player B's injuries).
• Player A has one of the very best peak goal-scoring seasons in NHL history (after any type of reasonable adjustment for era). Player A is a much better goal-scorer than Player B. Any comparison involving goals (Richard trophies, top ten finishes, career totals, PP goals, GWG's, shots on goal, etc) leaves Player B far behind.
• Player A is one of the few post-WWII HOF-level forwards who recorded significantly more goals than assists.
• Player A was indifferent defensively for much of his career; Player B improved his team's goal differential at even-strength to a much greater extent.
• Player A received virtually no Selke votes during his career. Player B never won, but had four years in the top ten.
• Player B had one season where he was, without the slightest doubt, the best player in the NHL. It looked like he was going to run away with the Art Ross and Hart trophies. But he missed a significant amount of time.
• Scoring titles? Player B has one additional Art Ross relative to Player A. Despite Player B missing so much time to injuries, he has more years as a top three, five and ten scorer.
• Due to Player A being healthier, if you go down as far as top 20 scoring finishes, he pulls ahead of Player B.
• If points per game is your thing - Player B led the league in PPG twice more than Player A did. Player B has more years in the top five than Player A has in the top ten. Player B was pretty much always very high on the PPG list (just that he missed games, ranging from a few to a significant amount, in many of those seasons).
  
• Player A has one additional Lindsay trophy relative to Player B. They have the same number of Hart trophies.
• Player A is one of a small number of players to have been a Hart finalist three years in a row with at least one win. This has only been accomplished by 10 forwards (plus Orr and Hasek) dating back to WWII.
  
• Player B was in the conversation for "best player in the league" much longer than Player A. But, because of missing so much time when he was at his best, as discussed above, Player A actually had the better peak (in terms of what was actually demonstrated on the ice).
• Player B is widely considered one of the best playoff performers of his era. He scored significantly more per game than Player A in the postseason. In addition, he has one additional playoff scoring title relative to Player A.
• Player A was a very good playoff performer at his peak, even though his team didn't go very far. After his peak, he became significantly less productive. But he eventually redeemed his playoff reputation by playing well on a Stanley Cup winning team.
• Player B has led the Stanley Cup finals in scoring once; Player A never did that. Player B was able to lead the playoffs in scoring in a losing cause.
• Some have criticized Player B because it's not clear that he was even the best forward on his team during his career. Twice when his team won the Stanley Cup, he wasn't their leading scorer.

I'm not describing Ovechkin and Crosby - but these are two actual players. Any guesses as to who I'm comparing?

(To be clear, I'm not saying that Ovechkin is exactly equal to Player A and Crosby is exactly equal to Player B. For one thing, they're both clearly better than the players being described here. Also, the gap in reputation or ranking is much smaller between Ovechkin and Crosby than the two players discussed above. But I'm posting this because it's interesting to show that it's easy to make a high-level case that covers their resumes relatively well).

This has a Front Page Challenge feel to it.

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not going to check anything but I'll be shocked if it isn't Hull and Forsberg. The only thing that seems strange to me is that the Crosby analogue apparently led the finals in scoring once, which I wouldn't think that Forsberg ever did despite leading the 2002 playoffs in scoring.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

I'm not going to check anything but I'll be shocked if it isn't Hull and Forsberg. The only thing that seems strange to me is that the Crosby analogue apparently led the finals in scoring once, which I wouldn't think that Forsberg ever did despite leading the 2002 playoffs in scoring.

Forsberg led in scoring (using goals as the tie-breaker) in 1995-96 with 3 goals and 2 assists. Sakic had 1 goal and 4 assists.

But yeah, it's pretty clear that the analogues are Hull (player A) and Forsberg (player B).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Forsberg led in scoring (using goals as the tie-breaker) in 1995-96 with 3 goals and 2 assists. Sakic had 1 goal and 4 assists.

But yeah, it's pretty clear that the analogues are Hull (player A) and Forsberg (player B).

I was hoping this would be a bit more deceptive, but yes - Player A is Hull and Player B is Forsberg.

For bonus points - there's exactly one statement in my list which is accurate for Hull and Forsberg (and is factually incorrect for Ovechkin and Crosby). Any guesses as to which?

 

[JackSlater]

I was hoping this would be a bit more deceptive, but yes - Player A is Hull and Player B is Forsberg.

For bonus points - there's exactly one statement in my list which is accurate for Hull and Forsberg (and is factually incorrect for Ovechkin and Crosby). Any guesses as to which?

I'd think it's the Lindsay and Hart counts.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

I was hoping this would be a bit more deceptive, but yes - Player A is Hull and Player B is Forsberg.

For bonus points - there's exactly one statement in my list which is accurate for Hull and Forsberg (and is factually incorrect for Ovechkin and Crosby). Any guesses as to which?

It's the following statement, I believe.

• Player A has one additional Lindsay trophy relative to Player B. They have the same number of Hart trophies.

It's reversed for Ovechkin and Crosby: Ovechkin has the additional Hart, but they both have the same number of Lindsay wins.

EDIT: Argh, I was beaten to the punch by JackSlater.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'd think it's the Lindsay and Hart counts.

You got it:

• Player A has one additional Lindsay trophy relative to Player B. They have the same number of Hart trophies.

That accurately describes Hull and Forsberg (the statements would be flipped for Ovechkin and Crosby).

EDIT - I don't know if I should be disturbed, or feeling a sense of solidarity, that other people find stuff like this interesting.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm not going to re-post all the graphs (unless requested), but the results from 2022 are pretty much in line with what we've seen over the past decade.

In 2022, Pittsburgh's five-on-five goal differential was about 50% better when Crosby was on the ice. That's an enormous impact (and is only slightly less than in 2014, when he won the Hart and Art Ross). Washington's five-on-five goal differential was about 12% better when Ovechkin was on the ice, which is similar to (and actually a bit better than) what he's done over the past seven or eight years.

2014 (ie after Crosby's three injury-plagued years) to 2022 is a span of nine seasons. Crosby has had a better five-on-five goal differential than Ovechkin in seven of those years. And the Capitals (without Ovechkin) have had a better five-on-five goal differential than the Penguins (without Crosby) in seven of those years. So Crosby has generally had a better on-ice goal differential, playing on weaker teams.

During those nine years (doing a simple average - not weighted for games played), Crosby has improved his team's five-on-five goal differential around 31% when he's on the ice. Ovechkin's team has had exactly the same goal differential regardless of whether he's on the ice or not.

(As I've mentioned, this excludes powerplay scoring. Normally this helps Ovechkin but, from 2014 to 2022, Crosby has actually outscored him on the man advantage, though the difference is small enough that it should be considered irrelevant. Crosby also got a bit more ice time on the penalty kill, but not enough that it should be considered meaningful).

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Crosby is a better player overall. However, I had to give my vote to Ovechkin because of his fantastique goal scoring ability.

Ovechkin is arguably the best of all time at scoring goals.

Crosby can't be considered the best of all time at any component of the game

 

[Big Phil]

The question is, would the Pens be a better team with Ovechkin on their roster? No. Would the Caps be better with Crosby and what he brings? Yes. So considering their careers already favour Crosby, and the fact he is a more valuable asset in 2022, I would say this comparison is probably wrapped up unless Ovechkin breaks the goal scoring record and everyone just sort of loses their minds and glosses over some of his faults historically.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Never say never, but....

It's highly unlikely Ovechkin could do anything to rank him over Crosby at this point

 

[alko]

Is there any way to see game-by-game stats of both players in one screen?

 

[The Panther]

I feel like this comparison is a bit like a thread I once had on Forsberg vs. Sakic. The general consensus (with plenty of dissenters, of course) was that the two players were very close and there was no great distance between them, but also that Forsberg was perhaps more dominant on a per-game basis, whereas Sakic had the overall more full and remarkable career with more accomplishments and hardware.

If you're not following, for me it's a bit like Forsberg = Crosby and Ovechkin = Sakic. Crosby at his best (and there was a lot of it, despite injuries) was, I think, better than Ovechkin ever was, with the possible exception of that period around 2007-2009 when young Ovi peaked.

However, Ovechkin was far sturdier, played more games, scored way more goals, won countless Richard trophies, and really fulfilled all his potential.


The all-time goals record... (sigh). It's obviously great for Ovechkin---and the NHL---if he can do it, but I'm afraid of the massive historical revisionism that will occur if he does. Suddenly, we'll have endless threads anointing him the 5th-greatest player of all time, and tens of thousands of non-hockey fans in the USA will know his name despite never having heard of Howe or Orr. It'll go way overboard because a major individual scoring record hasn't occurred in so long and because "most goals ever" is a nice, pat, simple stat that NHL-fans can understand.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

It's still crosby. Plus his position makes this easy as well. 84 points in 69 games with a strong 2 way game while being strong in the dot. Throw in leadership etc....

 

[daver]

Seems strange that a player who has the most Top 3 Art Ross/Hart nominations in NHL history outside of the Big 4 and two Conn Smythes, to say nothing of elite international and leadership resumes, is being critiqued for a lack of on-ice accomplishments.

Also seems strange that Rocket wins are touted as better than superior Art/Hart finishes considering the current "Best Player" has none.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm not going to re-post all the graphs (unless requested), but the results from 2022 are pretty much in line with what we've seen over the past decade.

In 2022, Pittsburgh's five-on-five goal differential was about 50% better when Crosby was on the ice. That's an enormous impact (and is only slightly less than in 2014, when he won the Hart and Art Ross). Washington's five-on-five goal differential was about 12% better when Ovechkin was on the ice, which is similar to (and actually a bit better than) what he's done over the past seven or eight years.

2014 (ie after Crosby's three injury-plagued years) to 2022 is a span of nine seasons. Crosby has had a better five-on-five goal differential than Ovechkin in seven of those years. And the Capitals (without Ovechkin) have had a better five-on-five goal differential than the Penguins (without Crosby) in seven of those years. So Crosby has generally had a better on-ice goal differential, playing on weaker teams.

During those nine years (doing a simple average - not weighted for games played), Crosby has improved his team's five-on-five goal differential around 31% when he's on the ice. Ovechkin's team has had exactly the same goal differential regardless of whether he's on the ice or not.

(As I've mentioned, this excludes powerplay scoring. Normally this helps Ovechkin but, from 2014 to 2022, Crosby has actually outscored him on the man advantage, though the difference is small enough that it should be considered irrelevant. Crosby also got a bit more ice time on the penalty kill, but not enough that it should be considered meaningful).

By these same metrics you also concluded that Ovechkin was far superior in 2016 than he was in 2009 - which is frankly batshit crazy.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The question is, would the Pens be a better team with Ovechkin on their roster?

The answer is yes. The Pens likely win the cup in 2008 with Ovechkin instead of Crosby. The Pens with Ovechkin probably get past the Canadiens in 2010 as well, and then who knows.

For regular season, both players have similar points but Ovechkin has 50% more goals. It's simply a far superior contribution.

I just don't know what the basis is for a player who contributed far less to make the team better.

 

[Harry Waters]

The question is, would the Pens be a better team with Ovechkin on their roster? No. Would the Caps be better with Crosby and what he brings? Yes. So considering their careers already favour Crosby, and the fact he is a more valuable asset in 2022, I would say this comparison is probably wrapped up unless OV breaks the goal scoring record and everyone just sort of loses their minds and glosses over some of his faults historically.

I have them fairly equal and don't think that will change. I even might have Crosby slightly ahead, but they are really close. But I honestly think asking if the Penguins were a better team with OV isn't that black and white like you make it out to be. It is a perfectly valid argument that over their careers OV could have been more valuable to the Pens due to durability alone especially keeping in mind that both of their top players have been injured a lot. I think a lot of that is circumstantial.

If you are only talking about Crosby being more valuable now, I agree now (as in May 2022) but wouldn't have agreed the first half of the season. Without OV the Caps would likely miss the playoffs, they were playing half an AHL squad and he was keeping them in there. The second best Caps goalscorer has not even half as many goals as OV, he is very valuable and I wouldn't be so sure that Crosby helps the Caps more this season alone. Tom Wilson is their second best goalscorer, along with Kuznetsov. Somebody has to score in order to win.

 

[The Macho King]

Anything is possible? If Ovi kept up his October/November tear and ended up top 3 in scoring and landed a Hart, that would be a legit peak season to add to his resume. As it ended up, it was just another very good year. But they're at the stage in their careers where being "very good" just doesn't move the needle.

IDK - Ovi goes 20+15 and wins a Conn Smythe? Sure that would move the needle for me. But I doubt that happens.