Crosby is now Top 5.....(MOD EDIT: career value affected by injury)

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Indeed, playing the "what if" game exclusively for Crosby improves his comparisons to other players. Who'd have thunk it?



How many votes did Sid get this year?

Oh yeah. None.

Crosby was the better player lol.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

No, I definitely haven't.

You just invented bs to excuse your own admitted bs. You didn't even move the goal posts BTW, you merely created a double standard wherein you would remove Crosby's worst team season but not do the same for Ovie.

It's interesting, cause if I thought someone else was full of it, I'd go out of my way to NOT be like them, as opposed to whatever it is you think you are doing here.

I didn’t remove any season from Ovie because him being a net positive influence on his team’s success was besides my point (and should go without saying). I don’t care about propping up any of them over the other, those are yours and daver’s crosses to bear, but if someone seriously tries to imply that Crosby’s presence in the Pens lineup has had a negative influence on team performance throughout his career, it’s beyond flimsy an argument if simply removing the 18 y/o rookie’s outlier season on one of the worst teams in the league completely shifts the outcome. I could repeat the exercise of the poster I quoted and remove Ovie’s worst team season probably with good arguments as to why if it was of any interest to me, but it’s not, and that either has been anything other than net positives for their teams I find absurd.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Sid was lucky to have Malkin on his team, this brought him 3 cups, several awards, +20% points.
Ovechkin's bad luck is much bigger. Minus about 100 goals (almost all-time goalscoring record); minus 2 Art Rosses and 1 Hart.

PIT P% without Sid = .634; with Sid = .618
WSH P% without Ovi = .532; with Ovi = .618

A top 5 player all-time cannot be a player which makes his team worse.

The stat suggesting that the Penguins do worse with Crosby in the line-up is literally true, but absolutely misleading.

It's solely a result of the 2005-06 season. (The Penguins had a 35.4% win percentage, and Crosby played in 81 games, so this metric blames Crosby for being drafted on a team that was dead last in the NHL the previous season). The Penguins have had a 63.7% win percentage over the next 16 years (with a low of 59.8%), so it's obvious why this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Remove 2005-06 and the Penguins (predictably) do better when Crosby's playing.

What's more instructive is to look at it on a season-by-season basis. In seven seasons, Crosby missed at least seven games. Pittsburgh had a higher win percentage in six of those seven years. Three of those years, Pittsburgh was vastly superior with Crosby (2013, 2017 and 2022, where the team's win percentage was >10% better when he played). Three of those years, Pittsburgh was a bit better with Crosby (2008, 2011 and 2012, where the team's win percentage was better, but by less than 10%). Then there was one year (2020) when Pittsburgh did better - much better, for the record - with Crosby out. Yes, these are small sample sizes, but they're generally showing the same thing.

Then, of course, there's all the data showing that the Penguins are much better at outscoring their opponents when Crosby is on the ice, at even strength - link.

I understand why people push the "Pittsburgh does better without Crosby" narrative. But it doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.

(EDIT - this isn't some special case involving Crosby. You see this with other HOF players. Steve Yzerman is a good example. During his first seven seasons, the "Dead Things" were the 5th worst team in the NHL. But he only missed 46 games. When he started missing time more regularly, Detroit had one of the best teams in the NHL. Therefore a simplistic comparison would also show that Yzerman's team did better when he was out of the lineup. But that's only because his career average win percentage is dragged down by some truly awful teams near the start of his career, and his teams happened to be much stronger during the years where he was injured.

Denis Potvin is another good example. The Islanders had a much better record when he was out of the lineup. Similar reason - he started his career on an expansion team, and was healthy then. Most of the games he missed were when the Islanders were much stronger. On paper the Islanders look better without Potvin, but it's a result of him being healthier when the Islanders were a bad team, and dealing with injuries when the Islanders were stronger).

 

[Michael Farkas]

You mean to say that the best player on the planet for over a decade did NOT hurt his team...? Hmph, tough to figure...but, hey, you're one of our best math guys, so...

 

[hamzarocks]

Mcdavid > Crosby (when his done his career)

Crosby > OV

OV > Malkin

Malkin > Kane

Bedard is the one who could challenge Mcdavid

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think the answer to this question could be Crosby, if the question is defined in a very specific/favourable way.

Suppose Crosby played 55 more games (5.0% of his career total) - 36 games in 2011, 12 games in 2013, and 7 games in 2015. It's very likely that he wins three more Art Ross trophies. You'd have to think he'd also get the Hart in 2011 and 2013 (maybe not in 2015 due to voter fatigue and what would likely be a narrow margin of victory). He already won the Lindsay in 2013, but he almost certainly would have won it in 2011. So, that's six major trophies, based on only 5.0% of his games.

I can't think of any other player who would gain so much hardware for such a small percentage of their games. (Lemieux, Orr, Neely, Bure - they come close, but I can't "find" six trophies for any of them, with 5% more games played). But I think this is a flawed argument for three reasons:

First, it's based on looking at trophy counts only, without considering any context. Yes, Crosby's legacy would be stronger with the Hart and Art Ross in 2013. But the gap between that outcome, and what actually happened (Hart runner-up, 3rd in scoring, Pearson trophy), isn't huge. And even half-seasons (like Crosby's 2011 campaign) clearly have some value for a player's legacy (see Lemieux's 2001, Neely's 1994, Forsberg's 2004, etc). I know some people push the narrative that trophies are binary (you either win it or you don't), but I think that's a shallow way of thinking.

Second, I'm skeptical about changing some parts of Crosby's career, and assuming that everything else stays the same. A huge part of his legacy is winning back-to-back Conn Smythes, ranking 5th all-time in playoff scoring (behind only four members of the Oilers dynasty), being leading scorer and MVP at the 2016 World Cup of Hockey, and having four top-four Hart finishes from 2016 onwards. Maybe if Crosby had already won, say, five Art Ross trophies and four Hart trophies by age 27, he wouldn't have pushed himself so hard in the playoffs, or at the WC tournament, or in some of his later seasons. And it's not obvious to me that Crosby, with 5 Art Ross trophies and 4 Hart trophies, but without all those other accomplishments I just mentioned, is necessarily a better player all-time. (The counter-argument is Crosby is driven, and seems to live and breathe hockey, so maybe he would have pushed himself that hard anyway. But it's tough to say).

Third, the consensus on HOH seems to be that Crosby is already somewhere in the range of 5th to 10th place all-time. If Crosby didn't miss any time in those years (and we assume nothing else changes afterwards), he might have become the consensus #5 player of all-time. But is there really a big gap between having him ranked, say, 7th or 8th on average, and being ranked 5th? Give Pierre Turgeon an extra 5% (65 games) - 30 games in 2000, 20 games in 1998, 10 games in 1994, and 5 games whenever - and he'd suddenly have an Art Ross trophy (2000), probably at least a Hart finalist for that year, four top-five scoring finishes, and he'd be over 1,400 points. So he might only gain one trophy (versus six for Crosby), but I'd argue that those extra games would make Turgeon jump 50-100 spots on most people's rankings (and almost certainly get him into the Hall of Fame). So, defined narrowly, Crosby's trophy case is hurt the most, but other players (like Turgeon) would jump the ranks to a much larger extent.

 

[bobholly39]

How does Carey Price factor here? Obviously his time missed was never going to be as good as Orr or Lemieux nor even Crosby, but if we're going by the "worst timing ever for an injury/most impactful to one's career", Carey Price probably is a worthy candidate, as he got hit 3x right in the middle of his peak (and a peak that was arguably best in league, and not necessarily just amongst goalies).

2014 Playoffs. He's the Olympic Games goalie mvp - back to back shutouts in semi final and gold medal game. Better than Hasek in 98? Not in the sense that Hasek faced tougher competition - but can argue Price was more perfect with those 2 shutouts - so no, maybe not better than Hasek in 98, but still in the rarified air of best goalie performances ever in an international tournament.

So he comes back to the NHL after the Olympics...goes 8-3 to finish the season, 932 sv%, clearly his play is carrying over...then helps Habs sweep Tampa in round 1, despite underdogs...posts a 936 sv% to help Habs come back from behind 2-3 to beat Boston in 7 games (Boston are cup finalists/president champs)....and is taken out by Kris Kreider in round 3 to injury.

Would the Habs have beaten Rangers without Price's injury? You can never say for sure, but certainly quite possible.
Would the Habs have stood a chance against LA in the finals? LA looked great that year - but the last time LA/Habs met in finals with hockey world favoring LA, it didn't work out so good...so you never know.

So - who knows what happens with no injury, but clearly a potential cup final and smythe nod and cup is possible. Horrible timing for Price injury.

2016 Season. Ok so Carey Price comes back from playoff injury and wins Hart/Vezina/Lindsay in 2014-2015 season....one of the great seasons ever by a goalie.

Going into the 2015-2016 season, Price is on fire again...starts the season 10-2, Habs in first place overall, posting a 934 sv%, even better than previous year...obviously this is only 12 games in, but very good argument to be made that Price seemed favorite to repeat his Hart/Lindsay/Vezina nod a second year in a row...and 2 months into the season he gets injured, and misses whole year.

Would Price have held up pace and gotten the Vezina? Does he somehow surpass Patrick Kane's fantastic season and also win the Hart/Lindsay? Impossible to say of course - but 2 months into the season he was probably the #1 favorite for the repeat....back to back Harts is Hasek territory. Once again worst possible timing ever for Price injury.

2021 Playoffs. This one is a bit more tricky...but Price had one of the best cup final runs for a goalie in a losing cause of all-time (one of). Then - injury, and Habs go from cup finalists, to last place.

This one is a bit more tricky because even if Price hadn't been injured - maybe it's a bit unclear what he could have done on the Habs last year with the horrible roster/coaching. But still - getting injured yet again when he's arguably at the very top of his game - just absolutely horrible timing.

That's 3 instances in his career where Carey Price can be argued to be among the very best in the game - and possibly, the #1 very best - and gets injured right in the middle of that peak.

Who else had such a high peak and yet got injured 3x right in the middle of it? Crosby for sure, Lemieux too - but I think Carey Price is probably a worthy mention in this thread.

 

[bobholly39]

I think the answer to this question could be Crosby, if the question is defined in a very specific/favourable way.

Suppose Crosby played 55 more games (5.0% of his career total) - 36 games in 2011, 12 games in 2013, and 7 games in 2015. It's very likely that he wins three more Art Ross trophies. You'd have to think he'd also get the Hart in 2011 and 2013 (maybe not in 2015 due to voter fatigue and what would likely be a narrow margin of victory). He already won the Lindsay in 2013, but he almost certainly would have won it in 2011. So, that's six major trophies, based on only 5.0% of his games.

I can't think of any other player who would gain so much hardware for such a small percentage of their games. (Lemieux, Orr, Neely, Bure - they come close, but I can't "find" six trophies for any of them, with 5% more games played). But I think this is a flawed argument for three reasons:

First, it's based on looking at trophy counts only, without considering any context. Yes, Crosby's legacy would be stronger with the Hart and Art Ross in 2013. But the gap between that outcome, and what actually happened (Hart runner-up, 3rd in scoring, Pearson trophy), isn't huge. And even half-seasons (like Crosby's 2011 campaign) clearly have some value for a player's legacy (see Lemieux's 2001, Neely's 1994, Forsberg's 2004, etc). I know some people push the narrative that trophies are binary (you either win it or you don't), but I think that's a shallow way of thinking.

Second, I'm skeptical about changing some parts of Crosby's career, and assuming that everything else stays the same. A huge part of his legacy is winning back-to-back Conn Smythes, ranking 5th all-time in playoff scoring (behind only four members of the Oilers dynasty), being leading scorer and MVP at the 2016 World Cup of Hockey, and having four top-four Hart finishes from 2016 onwards. Maybe if Crosby had already won, say, five Art Ross trophies and four Hart trophies by age 27, he wouldn't have pushed himself so hard in the playoffs, or at the WC tournament, or in some of his later seasons. And it's not obvious to me that Crosby, with 5 Art Ross trophies and 4 Hart trophies, but without all those other accomplishments I just mentioned, is necessarily a better player all-time. (The counter-argument is Crosby is driven, and seems to live and breathe hockey, so maybe he would have pushed himself that hard anyway. But it's tough to say).

Third, the consensus on HOH seems to be that Crosby is already somewhere in the range of 5th to 10th place all-time. If Crosby didn't miss any time in those years (and we assume nothing else changes afterwards), he might have become the consensus #5 player of all-time. But is there really a big gap between having him ranked, say, 7th or 8th on average, and being ranked 5th? Give Pierre Turgeon an extra 5% (65 games) - 30 games in 2000, 20 games in 1998, 10 games in 1994, and 5 games whenever - and he'd suddenly have an Art Ross trophy (2000), probably at least a Hart finalist for that year, four top-five scoring finishes, and he'd be over 1,400 points. So he might only gain one trophy (versus six for Crosby), but I'd argue that those extra games would make Turgeon jump 50-100 spots on most people's rankings (and almost certainly get him into the Hall of Fame). So, defined narrowly, Crosby's trophy case is hurt the most, but other players (like Turgeon) would jump the ranks to a much larger extent.

5% of career games for 6 major trophies....challenge accepted.

Lemieux played 915 career games. 44 games is therefore 4.8% of his career.

1. Give him one more game in the 1989 season, to reach 200 points. This gets him the hart + Pearson (should have won anyways), since people like milestones.

Since some will disagree that 200 points alone changes voting - let's actually add 4 more games total, for 80 games. That way he can reach both 90 goals and 200 points....that should be enough for both trophies for sure.

2. 1991-1992. Give him 16 more games, going from 64 games to 80 games - and instead of just winning the Ross, he also wins the Hart + Pearson. That would be 164 points to Messier's 107 points, can't imagine he wouldn't sweep.

3. 1993. Give him 7 more games and he'll score 8 more goals to win the Rocket with 77+ goals.

4. 1989-1990...give him 21 more games, and he scores 167 points...enough to win the Ross/Hart/Pearson.

So with 48 more games, that gives Lemieux an additional;

3x hart
3x pearson
1x rocket
1x ross

Now I realize this is technically 48 games and not 44...but you can easily shave off 1 extra game for each season above, and he still wins all the trophies I listed.

 

[crobro]

Rick Martin
Tim Kerr
Ian Turnbull
Mickey Redmond
Craig Simpson
Bob Dailey

These are all players who’s alll were done yo soon due to injuries

 

[wetcoast]

Eh, I'd probably rank Crosby 6th all time, after Ovechkin.

The ranking depends on where you put goalies in the mix - which is even more subjective and difficult than comparing players across eras and positions. The ranking also depends on how much value is placed on peak vs longevity - which are two distinct, contradictory, and valid ways of looking at things.

Crosby is an all-time great. It cannot be denied. His total career value is quite high, and as with Ovechkin, it continues to improve even with these late career seasons. Some people disregard these mid 30s seasons as not particularly impactful. I simply don't agree. Ovie was a top 10 player in 2022, at age 36. At age 34 in 2022, Crosby was arguably in the top 30. They were both significant contributors to their teams. It would be illogical for that to not count for something. Ovechkin would have been the best player on most teams, Crosby a top 2 player on most teams. It's a big contribution.

With Ovie being 20th all time in points and 3rd all time in goals, despite playing in a low scoring era, it's hard to deny the all time status. He's 9th in adjusted points, 2nd in adjusted goals.

Same goes for Sid, who is 22nd and 39th respectively. He's 11th in adjusted points, 26th in adjusted goals.

They are simply both generational players living up to or exceeding any reasonable hype, and will rightfully take their places among the all-time greats.

Really in 2022 you have the 16th in scoring as top 10 and Crosby who was 24th in only 69 games and brought a 200 foot game is top 30....arguably?

 

[wetcoast]

What happens to the p% if you remove Crosby’s rookie season on a piss poor .354 team?

Let's not have facts get in the way of a faulty conclusion and narrative eh.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

5% of career games for 6 major trophies....challenge accepted.

Lemieux played 915 career games. 44 games is therefore 4.8% of his career.

1. Give him one more game in the 1989 season, to reach 200 points. This gets him the hart + Pearson (should have won anyways), since people like milestones.

Since some will disagree that 200 points alone changes voting - let's actually add 4 more games total, for 80 games. That way he can reach both 90 goals and 200 points....that should be enough for both trophies for sure.

2. 1991-1992. Give him 16 more games, going from 64 games to 80 games - and instead of just winning the Ross, he also wins the Hart + Pearson. That would be 164 points to Messier's 107 points, can't imagine he wouldn't sweep.

3. 1993. Give him 7 more games and he'll score 8 more goals to win the Rocket with 77+ goals.

4. 1989-1990...give him 21 more games, and he scores 167 points...enough to win the Ross/Hart/Pearson.

So with 48 more games, that gives Lemieux an additional;

3x hart
3x pearson
1x rocket
1x ross

Now I realize this is technically 48 games and not 44...but you can easily shave off 1 extra game for each season above, and he still wins all the trophies I listed.

I assumed that nothing was going to change in 1989 with Lemieux playing four more games (since he already ran away with the scoring title). But maybe you're right and the voters would have been swayed by him crossing the (arbitrary but impressive) 200 points mark.

I forgot about the Richard trophy for 1993, that's a good catch (though I've argued elsewhere that I consider it a secondary trophy).

 

[bobholly39]

I assumed that nothing was going to change in 1989 with Lemieux playing four more games (since he already ran away with the scoring title). But maybe you're right and the voters would have been swayed by him crossing the (arbitrary but impressive) 200 points mark.

I forgot about the Richard trophy for 1993, that's a good catch (though I've argued elsewhere that I consider it a secondary trophy).

Lemieux was so much better than other players in his prime and has so many half seasons, that there's probably a few different ways to reach 6 extra major trophies with 44 games or less.

With 4 more games in 1989 there's a chance Lemieux could top both 92 goals and 215 points (I know he was pacing slightly behind both, but add in a 6 or 7 point game in there - or 2 of them - and he's there, so very plausible). You're right that it's a bit difficult to speculate what it would take for him to get the Hart in 1989 since he definitely should have won it anyways - I still say that with 4 more games he wins it - but for the sake of this response let's ignore 1989 altogether. Instead:

Give him 23 more games in 2001. He would now surpass Joe Sakic for points, in ~15 less games, after a 3 year comeback, at age 35, nearing 120 points (still #2 to Jagr for Ross though)....to me that's definitely enough to surpass Sakic for 1 Hart + 1 Pearson.

Give him 8 games in 1992. Let's assume pace stays the same, he now has 147 points to Messier's 107. To me, that's enough to sweep the Hart and Pearson away from Messier, with that big of a gap.

Give him the remaining 13 games in 1990. Let's assume pace stays the same, he now has 150 points in 72 games, and it should be enough to win the Hart + Pearson above Messier, and the Ross above Gretzky. The Hart and Pearson here are maybe a bit more tricky (since in reality, Messier beat Gretzky in 1990 despite Gretzky's 142 points) - but I think optics help Lemieux here. Gretzky got a hart he maybe didn't deserve in 1989 and so voters were harsher in 1990 - in this situation, Lemieux still gets screwed in 1989 so maybe voters are kinder in 1990.

So in the end - that's 44 more games played, and ignoring 1989 altogether, landing him 7 more major trophies (and I agree with you that I don't consider Richard trophy to be a major trophy on the level of the others).

Also - if the stipulation changes from "playing 5% more games" to "playing 5% more games while healthy" - this helps Lemieux even more. Because in both 1990 and 1992 he wasn't close to 100% when he did play, so give him those extra few games at full healthy and his pace actually goes up. With Crosby - I don't think this was ever true, when he did play in his peak he was always at or near 100%, so that's another differentiator.

Finally - we can probably come up with a scenario where you give Lemieux 50 more games (rounds off to 5% more career games), including both 1989 and 1993, and have him end up with 10 more trophies instead or just 6.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Really in 2022 you have the 16th in scoring as top 10 and Crosby who was 24th in only 69 games and brought a 200 foot game is top 30....arguably?

Yes. Because Crosby's defense is mostly a myth that the Canadian media created right when he was no longer a contender for Art Ross trophies anymore. This "200 foot game" talk is pure gibberish. Crosby's on-ice goals against per 60 over the course of his career is quite similar to Ovechkin's and miles apart from the players who actually deserve the defensive credit you give to Sid.

Also, Ovechkin was 4th in goals. Crosby was 40th. Conflating assists with goals is nonsense because goals are much harder to come by.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes. Because Crosby's defense is mostly a myth that the Canadian media created right when he was no longer a contender for Art Ross trophies anymore. This "200 foot game" talk is pure gibberish. Crosby's on-ice goals against per 60 over the course of his career is quite similar to Ovechkin's and miles apart from the players who actually deserve the defensive credit you give to Sid.

Also, Ovechkin was 4th in goals. Crosby was 40th. Conflating assists with goals is nonsense because goals are much harder to come by.

The goals argument yet again?

Here are their lines from last year

Ovi 77-50-40-90

CF% was 50.9% despite having 75% offensive zone starts


Crosby 69-31-53-84

CF% was 54.4 with 62.7% offensive zone starts

So in a nutshell in 8 more games Ovechkin had 6 more points while being sheltered BFD.

Also in the playoffs it was Crosby doing more than Ovi last year once again.

I mean he doubled Ovi in playoff goals right?

 

[Voight]

How does Carey Price factor here? Obviously his time missed was never going to be as good as Orr or Lemieux nor even Crosby, but if we're going by the "worst timing ever for an injury/most impactful to one's career", Carey Price probably is a worthy candidate, as he got hit 3x right in the middle of his peak (and a peak that was arguably best in league, and not necessarily just amongst goalies).

2014 Playoffs. He's the Olympic Games goalie mvp - back to back shutouts in semi final and gold medal game. Better than Hasek in 98? Not in the sense that Hasek faced tougher competition - but can argue Price was more perfect with those 2 shutouts - so no, maybe not better than Hasek in 98, but still in the rarified air of best goalie performances ever in an international tournament.

So he comes back to the NHL after the Olympics...goes 8-3 to finish the season, 932 sv%, clearly his play is carrying over...then helps Habs sweep Tampa in round 1, despite underdogs...posts a 936 sv% to help Habs come back from behind 2-3 to beat Boston in 7 games (Boston are cup finalists/president champs)....and is taken out by Kris Kreider in round 3 to injury.

Would the Habs have beaten Rangers without Price's injury? You can never say for sure, but certainly quite possible.
Would the Habs have stood a chance against LA in the finals? LA looked great that year - but the last time LA/Habs met in finals with hockey world favoring LA, it didn't work out so good...so you never know.

So - who knows what happens with no injury, but clearly a potential cup final and smythe nod and cup is possible. Horrible timing for Price injury.

2016 Season. Ok so Carey Price comes back from playoff injury and wins Hart/Vezina/Lindsay in 2014-2015 season....one of the great seasons ever by a goalie.

Going into the 2015-2016 season, Price is on fire again...starts the season 10-2, Habs in first place overall, posting a 934 sv%, even better than previous year...obviously this is only 12 games in, but very good argument to be made that Price seemed favorite to repeat his Hart/Lindsay/Vezina nod a second year in a row...and 2 months into the season he gets injured, and misses whole year.

Would Price have held up pace and gotten the Vezina? Does he somehow surpass Patrick Kane's fantastic season and also win the Hart/Lindsay? Impossible to say of course - but 2 months into the season he was probably the #1 favorite for the repeat....back to back Harts is Hasek territory. Once again worst possible timing ever for Price injury.

2021 Playoffs. This one is a bit more tricky...but Price had one of the best cup final runs for a goalie in a losing cause of all-time (one of). Then - injury, and Habs go from cup finalists, to last place.

This one is a bit more tricky because even if Price hadn't been injured - maybe it's a bit unclear what he could have done on the Habs last year with the horrible roster/coaching. But still - getting injured yet again when he's arguably at the very top of his game - just absolutely horrible timing.

That's 3 instances in his career where Carey Price can be argued to be among the very best in the game - and possibly, the #1 very best - and gets injured right in the middle of that peak.

Who else had such a high peak and yet got injured 3x right in the middle of it? Crosby for sure, Lemieux too - but I think Carey Price is probably a worthy mention in this thread.

I don't think hes really in this discussion.

He has 8 seasons of 50+ GP, with only two Vezina nominations. We saw what we saw from him; its not like he had won 4 Vezinas in a row and then got hurt (in a Orr type of way) & we are left wondering how many he could have won. 2015 was of course a really good year (tho IMO he does not win the Hart/Pearson if he has the same season the year before or after) and quite the peak but that was a one off. A great goalie at his peak but not someone whos career is really left the speculation because of injuries.

 

[Dingo]

Yes. Because Crosby's defense is mostly a myth that the Canadian media created right when he was no longer a contender for Art Ross trophies anymore. This "200 foot game" talk is pure gibberish. Crosby's on-ice goals against per 60 over the course of his career is quite similar to Ovechkin's and miles apart from the players who actually deserve the defensive credit you give to Sid.

Also, Ovechkin was 4th in goals. Crosby was 40th. Conflating assists with goals is nonsense because goals are much harder to come by.

i dont always agree with you, but yes, Crosby does defensively what is expected of a good center, and not more.
Ovechkin also does what is expected of a scoring winger on the backcheck, which isnt much, but actually forechecks at a very high, and very physical level.

Ovechkin’s position and role is to hit and score, Crosby’s is to play a complete game and orchestrate.

They both have done their jobs at a high level for coming on Two decades. Ovechkin was better last year. Not by a ton. They have jostled over the years and all I can say against Ovechin is that his low years were too many and much lower than Crosby, who truly hasnt had a bad year when playing.

People, esp you and Daver, need to put this to bed and sit back and marvel that two hype jobs came into the league at the same time and are to this very day blowing the hype away. The last time has got to be Dionne and Lafleur and i am convinced these recent two are solidly better.