Generational Talents

[Hockey Outsider]

Literally anyone with half a braincell can tell you why Crosby is better than Bossy.

Career points: 1603 points in 1282 games for Crosby, 1126 points in 752 games for Bossy

Major awards: Crosby has 2 Harts, 2 Rosses, 2 Richards, 3 Pearsons, 2 Conn Smythes and 3 cups. Bossy has 1 Calder, 2 Richards (equivalent since the award didn't exist yet), 1 Smythe and 4 cups.

What argument do you even have for Bossy over Crosby? Crosby has longetivity on him. Crosby has individual awards on him. Crosby has production on him (no, playing in the 1980s doesn't by default make someone better than someone who played in the 2000s). Literally all Bossy has on Crosby is PPG (because he played in the 1980s) and cups (because he was on a better team).

And even if you want to look at their stats up to age 30 (pretending Crosby just retired at that point), Crosby's numbers are still better when you take into account leaguewide scoring:

Crosby: 864 games, 411 goals and 1116 points in a league that averaged 5.28 goals/game (1.29 points/game)
Bossy: 752 games, 573 goals and 1126 points in a league that averaged 7.35 goals/game (1.50 points/game)

Bossy produced like 15% more than Crosby despite scoring being 40% higher. And now add on that Bossy didn't play after 30, didn't win as many awards and didn't produce nearly as many total points, and you'd have to be Mike Bossy's family member to argue them over Crosby.

I feel like I'm losing brain cells even entertaining this argument.



Maybe this would hold more weight if Gretzky wasn't beating Bossy by literally 50+ points a season for scoring titles. Saying Bossy was the "second best player after Greztky" is baseless, it's not even clear that he was better than guys like Stastny, Trotier, Dionne or Lafleur. Hell, Lafleur seems pretty clearly better to me.

I can say with confidence that the overwhelming majority of regulars on the History forum would rank Crosby above Bossy. It's not a close comparison. I'm not even sure that we could find one person who would dissent. The earlier comparison between Crosby and Francis is simply laughable.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I can say with confidence that the overwhelming majority of regulars on the History forum would rank Crosby above Bossy. It's not a close comparison. I'm not even sure that we could find one person who would dissent. The earlier comparison between Crosby and Francis is simply laughable.

It’s because it is a laughable comparison.

I think Lafleur vs Crosby and Mikita vs Crosby are both legitimate discussions. But this idea that Bossy is better than Crosby because “he has more 50 goal seasons” and “no one cares about individual trophies, all that matters is cups” is just the delusion of one fan.

I’d be willing to bet so much money that the guy making this Bossy>Crosby argument was vocal about Toews>Crosby when that debate was manufactured.

 

[dortt]

Yes. But that's basically how the term generational came along. It was observable before he even played a game in the NHL.

And the same observations were made with Crosby , McDavid and Bedard.

Nobody knew who Kucherov was before he entered the league. He was drafted 58th over all. I remember when he went on his first heater , ppl still didn't expect him to be what he is. No matter what he does , he's not considered generational be because he never had that Lindros effect

where a player is drafted does not matter

the greatest athlete of all time was pick 199

it only shows scouts are beyond clueless

 

[Bombshell11]

I read the last page or two of the, Is Makar a generational talent and thought, what is a generational talent?

The only generational talents were Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. Anyone can argue for anyone else but this is the bar. These three were head and shoulders above their peers and especially in Orr's case, he altered the way defensemen played the game. Is there anyone else who is this caliber of player? Maybe one or two and I'm not even sure who they might be. Everyone else after these guys were elite players but not generational.

The term generational is thrown around way too much and looking at the term, you'd think each generation that comes through the league will have one or two of these players. I don't think this was the intent of the term. I think the intent was, who were the players that changed the game and/or were head and shoulders above everyone they played against. Orr fits the bill on both accounts and Gretzky and Lemieux were on a completely different level offensively from anyone before, during or after their tenures.

Who else compares to these three?

Maurice Richard transcends everyone

 

[Randyne]

Literally all Bossy has on Crosby is PPG (because he played in the 1980s) and cups (because he was on a better team).

No. Sid is on a better team. Bossy made his team better.

NYI P% with Bossy =.633
NYI P% w/o Bossy =.542

PIT P% with Sid =.606
PIT P% w/o Sid =.634

Hockey is a team sport, those who make their team worse are basically worthless. But they can be overhyped.

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

I can say with confidence that the overwhelming majority of regulars on the History forum would rank Crosby above Bossy. It's not a close comparison. I'm not even sure that we could find one person who would dissent. The earlier comparison between Crosby and Francis is simply laughable.

And I would tell you the members on the history forum wernt around when Bossy was playing.

I remember vividly on sportsvision in Chicago debates if Bossy was on the same level as Gretzky since...you know....we didn't get blackhawks home games but got Oilers and Islanders games.

There has never been a time where Crosby was debated considered equal to Gretzky. None.

I get it, alot of the posters here wernt around for prime Gretzky and Bossy and look up to Crosby, that's all you know but hockey reference can only tell you so much.

Name one time Crosby was as statistically dominate as Bossy? So much so he was compared to Gretzky?

It's ok, I'll wait.

As for Francis, look at the stats and tell me there isn't similarities....

Or is this another "because I say so" moment on account of media brainwashing when again, on ice production says something completely different.

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

No. Sid is on a better team. Bossy made his team better.

NYI P% with Bossy =.633
NYI P% w/o Bossy =.542

PIT P% with Sid =.606
PIT P% w/o Sid =.634

Hockey is a team sport, those who make their team worse are basically worthless. But they can be overhyped.

Ouch

Another day. Another victory for the OGs taking on the sweats....

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

Maurice Richard transcends everyone

Yes he most certainly does.

But he didn't play in the post lock out era and doesn't have a bunch of individual awards, just cups but those suddenly don't matter....

where a player is drafted does not matter

the greatest athlete of all time was pick 199

it only shows scouts are beyond clueless

Nah he was picked third behind Sam Bowie....

 

[wintersej]

Your missing the point.

Awards are voted on by the media. Many of whom never played and have home town bias.

Rod friggin Langway recived a first place vote two years in a row during Gretzkys cosplaying Darth Vader on the NHL.

Micheal Jordan was not only on Gretzkys level during his prime, he was losing MVP awards to players nowhere deserving of it.

Mcdavid won the Smythe on a losing team last year because the voters probably thought to themselves "well there's no way he's winning a Cup with that goaltending and Nurse on the blue line" so they threw him a bone.

Individual awards voted on by media will always be flawed next to on ice production.

.....unless you played in the 80s, of course....

I’m not missing your point, it’s just not a compelling one. Yes sometimes the narrative leads to a questionable choice in a single year. If that was the cause of you never winning a Hart, you ain’t it. If it makes you feel better, you can say Lindsay instead. It doesn’t change anything unless you are a Jose Theodore stan.

 

[Hollowmoon]

Gretzky
Mario
Orr
.
.
.
Sid
McJesus