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]

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

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

You argument seems to be:

a) Bossy was considered by some to be on par with Gretzky
b) Crosby was never consider on par with Gretzky
c) therefore Bossy was better than Crosby

This is a faulty argument because the first premise is wrong. Outside of maybe Gretzky's rookie season, there was never a point where Bossy was considered on par with Gretzky. Strictly as a goal scorer, sure, but as a hockey player overall? Nonsense. That's obvious three different ways - from watching them play, from looking at the stats, and from looking at how they were regarded by their peers. Please give us evidence for your claim that Bossy was considered on par with Gretzky.

The comments about Francis show that you're being inconsistent in the arguments you're using. You mentioned that Francis was top ten all-time in scoring, and that makes him on the "same level" as Crosby. (You mentioned Francis winning two Cups as an argument in his favour, even though Crosby won three, plus two Conn Smythes, and was leading scorer and MVP at a major international tournament). Let's ignore that Francis played in a higher-scoring era than Crosby, and let's also ignore that it took him an extra 448 games to get there. You're suggesting that Francis being top ten in scoring as a reason why he's comparable to Crosby. Yet you're silent on the fact that Bossy is only 63rd all-time in scoring. If it's important than Francis ranks 5 spots ahead of Crosby (in terms of most points scored), surely it's important that Crosby ranks 53 spots ahead of Bossy?

 

[MuckOG]

This 100%

If you were around in the 80s, this was actually debated.

This is why you can easily tell on this forum who was around in the 80s and who wasn't. Who is getting their info off youtube and hockey reference and who actually saw Bossy, Lafleur, and Lindros and put them all as borderline generational talents.

It's the Jordan/LeBron effect. If you only watched LeBron chances are high you are going to say he's the goat, but if you actually saw Jordan your going to say "LeBrons great, but he ain't Jordan".

Sidney Crosby is not a generational talent. He's a great player, but nobody can even come close to convince anybody statistically how he's better then Mike Bossy. If your defense is individual awards, and the other defense is 5 60 goal seasons out of ten, you lost the argument.

Victory Lap- unlocked

This is where it gets tough looking at stats from other eras. Bossy was an elite goal scorer, no question. Probably equivalent to Ovechkin in terms of skill. I wouldn't have him above Crosby, though. Crosby brought a lot more to the game than goal scoring like Bossy. Plus Bossy never won an Art Ross, Hart, Lindsay or Rocket award.

 

[LuckyDay]

So individual awards> on ice production?

Micheal Jordan lost MVPs to players who were not on his level. Barkley won the MVP in 92 when Jordan averaged over 30 a game that year, was a unanimous all defensive team, had an ungodly 17 win share next to Barkleys 14, and spanked Charles in every stat except rebounds and FG%.

Who would you rather have that year? The MVP?

Or Jordan?

Lemieux's first MVP was controversial as clearly Gretzky was still the better player (this is reminiscent of Venus against Serena tanking in their first Grand Slam championship match - no one could consider that Serena would ever eclipse her sister). The league made the argument to press that Mario "was the player most valuable to his team" which is considered in violation of the spirit of the rule today.

Remember Wilt Chamberlain was not happy with the attention Jordan was getting - I think he argued with his own numbers vs his. Julius Erving could be legitimately argued for too but he played his years in the ABA which, IIRC, did not have the 3 point shot. On the Gordie Howe Biography episode it was mentioned that one shouldn't have to watch their records being broken while they're still alive in reference to Wayne. It was clearly a quote from Gordie off the record but they narrated it anyway.

This is not so different from Howe, Gretzky, and Hull and the snub they got from their seasons in the WHA. Numbers that are still not counted towards their career records. Where one could argue that it was an inferior league, the "80's style run and gun offense" was invented in the WHA.

 

[Kegs]

It means they played at a high level for more than one generation. Like if your kids were impressed by the same player you were impressed by. Basically be elite for 20 years. That’s what I think it means. But maybe it just means a player who is on top of his generation?

 

[LuckyDay]

...
This is a faulty argument because the first premise is wrong. Outside of maybe Gretzky's rookie season, there was never a point where Bossy was considered on par with Gretzky. Strictly as a goal scorer, sure, but as a hockey player overall? Nonsense. That's obvious three different ways - from watching them play, from looking at the stats, and from looking at how they were regarded by their peers. Please give us evidence for your claim that Bossy was considered on par with Gretzky.
...

• Most consecutive 50+ goal seasons: 9
• Most 50+ goal seasons (not necessarily consecutive): 9 (tied with Wayne Gretzky and Alexander Ovechkin)
• Most 60+ goal seasons (not necessarily consecutive): 5 (tied with Wayne Gretzky)
• Highest goals-per-game average, career (minimum 200 total goals): .762 goals per game
• Most power-play goals, one playoff season: 9 (tied with Cam Neely)
• Most consecutive hat tricks: 3 (tied with Joe Malone, who accomplished this twice)

I'll lend you my time machine. This was argued all the time.
Trottier was lauded, Dionne was ignored, Kent Nilson was a footnote but people were comparing Gretzky and Bossy years before the argument Gretzky and Lemieux.
It's not so different than the fans who argued Kirk vs Christopher Pike before Kirk vs Picard.
the arguments
a) Goals, as you say
b) Championships, until the Oilers won their first - Islanders kept winning them
c) Islanders were a better team, especially defensively
d) Oilers were a glorified WHA expansion team that didn't play serious hockey, so opposing fans said
e) Better character. Bossy was considered a gentlemen where Gretzky complained all the time (on the ice, later lauded for this Howe like competitiveness) and loved the spotlight off the ice.

Above all, the jealousy of fans.

Unfortunately, things that Bossy had going against him included his outspoken stance against fighting (you can watch his reaction at the of the '82 series against the Canucks where Billy Smith high sticks Stan Smyl in the dying minutes so in revenge Tiger Williams cross checks Bossy in the boards. I had to think that Mike had conflicts with his own team especially with Smith considered a goon).

And the fact that he played for the Islanders and not the Rangers. Joe Piscopo parodied this on his SNL newsbit, "Could the Islanders 'Drive for Five'? Yes? No? Who cares!" Rangers had decades of tradition where the Islanders were an expansion team and rivals to their "real" team like the Giants, Dodgers, and Mets had/have in baseball.
As a gentleman he didn't have the charisma that Wayne had either.
He had to retire relatively early too where Wayne kept on playing for much longer than most.
As the Islanders dynasty made way for the Oilers dynasty the talk largely disappeared, especially as the big Gretzky, Lemieux appeared, making Bossy a kind of John the Baptist type making the way for the two of them.

 

[57special]

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.

Well, I was around, and well before Bossy, too. No one ever thought that Bossy rivaled Gretzky. First off, they had very different games. If you were going to compare a NYI'er to anyone, it would've been Trottier, who played the same position as Gretzky. Back in the day, Trottier was considered the best player on NYI because of his ability to play physically and defensively as well as being a terrific offensive player. To me, it's a coin flip between Trottier and Bossy- they were joined at the hip as players, and were critical to each others success. it makes more sense to compare Bossy to Brett Hull, or the Rocket, Ovi, or Kurri, though Kurri was a different type player.

Francis was a relative nobody, compared to Crosby. He played in obscurity for much of his career, and when he did win Cups, he wasn't the best player on his team, or even the 2nd best, while Crosby was clearly the best on the Pens, nvm his international accomplishments.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Lemieux's first MVP was controversial as clearly Gretzky was still the better player (this is reminiscent of Venus against Serena tanking in their first Grand Slam championship match - no one could consider that Serena would ever eclipse her sister). The league made the argument to press that Mario "was the player most valuable to his team" which is considered in violation of the spirit of the rule today.

Huh?

Lemieux had 30 more goals and 18 more points than 99 that year, who missed a large portion of the season. Lemieux led the league in goal scoring by 14 goals.

Lemieux also had 30 more goals than the next highest Penguin, and a whopping 89 more points.

Gretzky only outscored the next highest Oiler by 38 points and was 3rd on the team in goals

Look at the differences in supporting cast lol. There is no argument for Gretzky over Lemieux in 87-88. That should not even be remotely controversial.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

For me it's a matter of dominance.

Between 1981 and 2001 (21 seasons) we had only three Art Ross winners.
Gretzky - 10
Lemieux - 6
Jagr - 5


Between 2002 and 2024 (22 seasons, lost 2005 to lockout) we've had 14 different Art Ross winners.
Only McDavid with 5 Art Ross wins (so far) can be considered in their tier.