True or false: Crosbys peak is closer to McDavid only using “adjusted” stats and pace….
Sure its peak McDavid just like Ovi has the better pure peak but that's not what this thread is about.
but the difference isn't as big as you think it is because Crosby was downright dominant in 10-11 before his injury just like in 12-13 and there just aren't any good reasons to think that his peak would have been that much less than McDavid's had he not been injured.
We saw what we saw and know what we know it's not like if not for the injuries that Crosby wouldn't reasonably have 2 more art Ross trophies and 2 more Harts right?
The 11-12 season I'll set aside but does anyone really think that Crosby wouldn't have had a great season without injury?
Anyway the argument for Crosby is 19 straight years of elite play and that's at least on the same tier as 9 from McDavid.
Then why are you against counting stats and trophies? I’m almost positive you have openly said you don’t agree with that.
Well it wouldn't be the first time that you were wrong about what I said and I have been clear, I value the whole picture to strictly trophy count or SC count is just plain lazy.
Case in point is Justin Williams winning the Conn Smythe weh n Doughty and Kopitar were almost certainly more important to that Kings SC win that year.
You are missing all the posts that like to portray Crosby as the “hero” in his first finals, and that his stats don’t properly tell how important his impact was in that series. And yes, they exist.
Literally, many are doing this
get a clue.
Do you see me agreeing with the SC only counters...nope.
Winning does matter, more to others than to me and I have been very clear that I expect McDavid to pass Crosby even without a SC win.
He just needs more than 9 seasons to Crosby's 19.
Why would I argue that point?
Well now we have some progress at least and a threshold has been reached...for now.