Your logic is that playing the games is the SAME as pacing, and that Crosby should get credit for the games he DIDNT play and the points he DIDNT put up because of his “pace.”
I always love it when people try to portray something I didn't say like they are inside my head or something.
Pace is what it is and it's not like Crosby has some small sample size here right?
What that metric showed is that McDavid and Crosby weren't all that far apart in the long time frame mentioned. Going off memory it was an 8 or 9 year smaller adjusted for the season and yes pace
Nowhere have I argued that Crosby would have scored the exact points that pace would indicate over a full 82 games
That we will never know.
But what pace says is per game impact, something several people here just can't seem to understand which is strange because it's not a hard concept right?
You literally have little to no argument to stand on. You are obsessed with pace and fake numbers because it tells you what you desperately need it to.
Actually it to the contrary you and several others seem to hate pace and then try to impose some strawman argument about it that is self imposed.
Simply adding up stats and not accounting for differences in seasons and injuries districts any players actual per game impact.
Literally dozens of players had more points over that 3 year cycle were Crosby had some unfortunate injuries yet some would have us believe that simply counting raw stats would be better than looking at another metric also and it seems to be a bias to only discredit a single player for whatever reasons a small minority, like yourself, has here.
I won't pretend to think or know what goes on their minds
McDavid played the games, dominated, scored the points, won the awards….your logic?…
-higher scoring environment
-better linemates
-no defensive game
I actually haven't voiced a detailed argument in this thread but those are things we should look at one would think right?
Or do you want to give me 100 American dollars for the 100 yen I have in my pocket here?
So basically, Crosby gets the benefit of the doubt for what he DIDNT achieve all while your pick apart and dissect what McDavud accomplished and write it off as not as impressive….all based on what Crosby WOULD HAVE done…
Luke I have said in the past no one knows for sure how many points Crosby would have needed up in each season but reasonable people can project a rough estimate.for example in 12-13 he almost certainly would have scored 5 or more points in 12 games and win the Art Ross and Hart trophies.
To argue otherwise just wouldn't be a very strong argument right?
How does your head no hurt with all the BS you attempt to pass off as “facts?”
I'll just assume that you are talking to a mirror there as the question you are presenting has no relevance in my posting this thread.