Is Connor Mcdavid a "tier above" Sidney Crosby as a player?

[Idiot Stick]

Certainly. McDavid has taken advantage of the situation he's been handed. I would have loved it if things had been as easy for Crosby as they are for McDavid.

Good for McDavid for taking advantage of the fact that goalie equipment is smaller.

Good for McDavid for taking advantage of the fact that players can't slash the hands or crosscheck people nearly as much.

Good for McDavid for taking advantage of the fact that so few players are capable of challenging him for scoring titles. I would have loved if the only players Crosby had to worry about were Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos, and Kane.

Good for McDavid for taking advantage of the fact that goalies are trained differently nowadays, which leads to more goalies with higher floors but fewer goalies with higher ceilings. I would have loved it if Crosby got to face goalies who are pretty much all worse than prime Henrik Lundqvist.

Good for McDavid for taking advantage of the fact that one single goalie from his Division and three goalies from his conference have won a Vezina during his entire playing career. I would have loved it if Crosby could have gotten to play so many games against goalies who've never won the Vezina.

Good for McDavid for getting to make so many deep playoff runs without ever facing a Selke winner, a Norris winner, or a Vezina winner in his prime (Prime being defined as being capable of winning the award once again that season). There are only two postseasons where Crosby played at least two series where that didn't happen, and one of those was 2009, where it did eventually happen in the Stanley Cup Final.

Between the 2013 Eastern Conference Final and the Second Round in 2016, the Penguins played six consecutive playoff series against Vezina-winning goalies in their prime. The Eastern Conference Final was also played against an eventual Vezina-winner, though Vasilevskiy wasn't in his prime yet. Then the Penguins played three series against Vezina winners the next season. Good for McDavid for never having to worry about playing ten playoff series against Vezina-winning goalies in a stretch of 12 playoff series. Good for McDavid for lighting up the goalies he does face. (Well, most of the time. He's only played one playoff series against a Vezina winner in his prime, and the Oilers got swept then.)

By all means, McDavid has made the most of the advantages he's been given. Not all players would be able to. And I admit, I am envious of Oilers fans, because McDavid has had so many opportunities that Crosby did not.


We turn up our noses at it because not only do people like you refuse to acknowledge that McDavid has had it easier by multiple orders of magnitude, but then we have to deal with absolute nonsense like the premise of this thread.

McDavid just faced a two time vezina winning goalie who was also nominated for one this year, and the current selke winner Barkov
While no Norris winner, Forsling is an elite defender (who lacks the scoring to ever be a norris winner)

 

[OtherThingsILike]

You have a, frankly, bizarre view of what tough competition is. More competition != tougher competition.

More people capable of winning the competition = tougher competition.

If I go to a cooking competition and all contestants are on my level of cooking, there will be more competition.

And therefore, tougher competition.

If a single person in there is an actual chef, the competition is tougher.

If only a single person in there is an actual chef, the competition is nonexistent. Nonexistent competition is the weakest of all.

 

[PainForShane]

They did. Key word: they.

Winning the Cup is a team effort. If that is the only argument for Crosby over McDavid than its a sign that there isn't really any good argument to be made that Crosby was better.

It's not the only argument, but as a relatively neutral person it's one of the major ones (being more clutch is my other one).

But to me the point is that a big reason for Pittsburgh's eliteness was that Crosby did an exceptional job of taking completely unknown teammates and help make them into good players. I'm specifically talking about Kunitz, Dupuis, Sheary who were all undrafted and on multiple cup winning teams. Guentzel also, he was a 3rd rounder who's career has ended up well above his draft position.

Compare that to McD, who's played with Pulju (4th overall pick ahead of guys like M. Tkatchuk, Keller, McAvoy) is basically out of the league, Yamo's a late first rounder who hasn't done much etc. The only teammate McD arguably helped develop is Hyman, but I'd argue Hyman was already an established player before he came in and I'd argue it's more a style of play fit, but you can make the argument about McD has helped Hyman.

Either way, McD was anywhere near as good as Crosby at helping develop his teammates / linemates into better players, Edm would have way more depth imo Edmonton would've won at least one cup by now.

So for now, Crosby gets my vote. Partly because he's shown much more in helping his team get better.

 

[Romang67]

More people capable of winning the competition = tougher competition.

And therefore, tougher competition.

If only a single person in there is an actual chef, the competition is nonexistent. Nonexistent competition is the weakest of all.

No, more competition doesn't equal tougher competition. Why would that be the case? That's just some bizarre nonsense you've set your mind to. A weaker field doesn't mean competition is tougher.

If you drop a prime Lemieux to play in the 2010-2015 era, every single player in the NHL suddenly have stronger competition for the scoring title. And yet, only Lemieux will win it. How are you not getting that?

You're essentially (read: actually) suggesting that a way to make the NHL have stronger competition is to remove its best players. Which is, obviously, nonsense.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

No, more competition doesn't equal tougher competition. Why would that be the case?

Because that's how the difficulty of competition is defined.

That's just some bizarre nonsense you've set your mind to. A weaker field doesn't mean competition is tougher.

A larger field means the competition is tougher.

If you drop a prime Lemieux to play in the 2010-2015 era, every single player in the NHL suddenly have stronger competition for the scoring title. And yet, only Lemieux will win it. How are you not getting that?

Because those statements are contradictory. If only Lemieux can win it, there's no competition.



Romang67 says "What a fiercely competitive game this basketball game is going to be."

 

[Romang67]

Because that's how the difficulty of competition is defined.

A larger field means the competition is tougher.

Because those statements are contradictory. If only Lemieux can win it, there's no competition.



Romang67: What a fiercely competitive this basketball game is going to be.

For the 10th best player in the league, will competition be tougher if you add a better player to the league? Or an equally good player?

Are you actually not getting this?

Do you actually think the competition for the Art Ross for all NHL players will be tougher if you remove the best 5 players from the equation?

If you add 1000 NHL players who all are capable of scoring 40 points, you haven't made the competition tougher, despite making the field larger, so that is obviously nonsense as well.

You seem to measure competition for the entire field based on how difficult it is for the best player to win, instead of how difficult it is for literally every other player. Which means that you're arbitrarily stating that it's a negative for McDavid that he's winning scoring competitions, while it was a positive for Crosby that he lost an Art Ross to Benn.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's not the only argument, but as a relatively neutral person it's one of the major ones (being more clutch is my other one).

But to me the point is that a big reason for Pittsburgh's eliteness was that Crosby did an exceptional job of taking completely unknown teammates and help make them into good players. I'm specifically talking about Kunitz, Dupuis, Sheary who were all undrafted and on multiple cup winning teams.

Apparently Pens fans told that lie so many times that it actually took hold.

Here in real life, Dupuis was a 48 point / 20 goal scorer before ever putting on a Pens jersey - and he never topped that playing with Crosby. In fact his best season as a Penguin was the season where Crosby barely played.

Kunitz was also a 25 goal / 60 point player before going to Pittsburgh. That would be like Capitals fans claiming TJ Oshie was a product of Alex Ovechkin.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

For the 10th best player in the league, will competition be tougher if you add a better player to the league? Or an equally good player?

That depends. Is the 10-best player good enough to win a scoring title? What are they competing for?

Do you actually think the competition for the Art Ross for all NHL players will be tougher if you remove the best 5 players from the equation?

Yes, absolutely.

If you add 1000 NHL players who all are capable of scoring 40 points, you haven't made the competition tougher, despite making the field larger, so that is obviously nonsense as well.

The field of NHL players who can win a scoring title isn't larger by adding players who are only capable of scoring 40 points. Therefore, the competition of NHL players who can win a scoring title is unchanged.

Which competition is tougher?

A game where one team wins 40-0

or

A game where there are lots of lead changes and one team finally wins in Triple Overtime?

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

No, more competition doesn't equal tougher competition. Why would that be the case? That's just some bizarre nonsense you've set your mind to. A weaker field doesn't mean competition is tougher.

If you drop a prime Lemieux to play in the 2010-2015 era, every single player in the NHL suddenly have stronger competition for the scoring title. And yet, only Lemieux will win it. How are you not getting that?

You're essentially (read: actually) suggesting that a way to make the NHL have stronger competition is to remove its best players. Which is, obviously, nonsense.

Pearson winner Jagr went from
1.50 PPG 2005-06
1.17 PPG 2006-07
.87 PPG 2007-08
then left for Europe

Thornton went from
1.54 PPG 2005-06
1.39 PPG 2006-07
1.17 PPG 2007-08
1.05 PPG 2008-09

Now did competition get tougher because Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin came into the league? And then as they got better every year, Jagr and Thornton just declined at that same pace.

 

[Romang67]

That depends. Is the 10-best player good enough to win a scoring title? What are they competing for?

Yes, absolutely.

The field of NHL players who can win a scoring title isn't larger by adding players who are only capable of scoring 40 points. Therefore, the competition of NHL players who can win a scoring title is unchanged.

Which competition is tougher?

A game where one team wins 40-0

or

A game where there are lots of lead changes and one team finally wins in Triple Overtime?

Let me just make this crystal clear:

You think it will be tougher for every NHL player to compete for a scoring title if you remove the best players from the game?

Like, you actually, legitimately believe that?

 

[OtherThingsILike]

Let me just make this crystal clear:

You think it will be tougher for every NHL player to compete for a scoring title if you remove the best players from the game?

Like, you actually, legitimately believe that?

Yes, the competition for the scoring title will be tougher if you remove the best players from the game, provided that this ends up resulting in more players being able to win the scoring title.

Let me just make this crystal clear:

You think a 40-0 blowout is more competitive than a game where there are lots of lead changes and one team eventually wins in Triple Overtime?

Like, you actually, legitimately believe that?

 

[Dog]

McDavid did things that Crosby could never do that is get over 150 points on a season. The one thing that can not be determined yet is if McDavid ever wins a cup. McDavid might get closer in career to Gretzky records but if he does not win at least one cup Crosby has the edge. It's just a matter of the game of if he can actually win or not. It's not solely on him because their has been incredible hockey players who never won a cup. McDavid still has probably 10 more years max to try to win a cup. Came very close this season but if he manages to get a cup from now till he retires he will be ahead of Crosby in my opinion.

 

[Romang67]

Yes, the competition for the scoring title will be tougher if you remove the best players from the game.

Let me just make this crystal clear:

You think a 40-0 blowout is more competitive than a game where there are lots of lead changes and one team eventually wins in Triple Overtime?

Like, you actually, legitimately believe that?

Right, I can see why you would consider it a positive for Crosby to lose a scoring title that Benn won with 87 points then.

I do think the competition for the team that lost 40-0 was tougher in that game than in the triple OT game, yes.

Don't you?

Why are you only measuring toughness of competition from the player who won the competition? Why are you ignoring the relative toughness of competition for literally everyone else?

By missing out on scoring races entirely, by your definition of competitiveness, Crosby made the competition tougher. That is, obviously, nonsense.

 

[PainForShane]

Apparently Pens fans told that lie so many times that it actually took hold.

Here in real life, Dupuis was a 48 point / 20 goal scorer before ever putting on a Pens jersey - and he never topped that playing with Crosby. In fact his best season as a Penguin was the season where Crosby barely played.

Kunitz was also a 25 goal / 60 point player before going to Pittsburgh. That would be like Capitals fans claiming TJ Oshie was a product of Alex Ovechkin.

Kunitz was good in Anaheim, but he clearly wasn't Canadian Olympic level when he was over there. Dupuis had had a single 20-goal season 5 years prior and was on his 4th NHL team when he came over, literally no one would've reasonable expected him to have another 400+ NHL games in him with at least 4 seasons of those being at a decently high level. I also noticed you didn't bring up Sheary or Guentzel. Once or twice maybe you get lucky but Crosby has a strong history of this with multiple players. Again, I'm relatively neutral here.

I get that you're a Caps fan so most likely are obliged to not like Crosby but to not give him credit for player development seems borderline delusional to me. Same level as that other guy ripping on Ovi for not having high points per game and 'doing nothing' from ages 25-30 (even though Ovi won multiple Rockets during that time).

 

[Machinehead]

I don't think there is a tier above Crosby.

You could count the players considerably better on one hand with fingers to spare.

2-3 guys doesn't constitute a tier.

 

[Romang67]

I similarly believe that competition became tougher for the scoring race for the entire NHL the moment Gretzky entered the NHL. I didn't think it was possible to think this controversial.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Kunitz was good in Anaheim, but he clearly wasn't Canadian Olympic level when he was over there. Dupuis had had a single 20-goal season 5 years prior and was on his 4th NHL team when he came over, literally no one would've reasonable expected him to have another 400+ NHL games in him with at least 4 seasons of those being at a decently high level. Again, I'm a neutral.

Not only that, but Kunitz played on a line with prime Perry-Getzlaf. I know this thread thinks stars from that era are overrated bums but its hard to be put on another line that gives you more opportunities to rack up easy points.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

Right, I can see why you would consider it a positive for Crosby to lose a scoring title that Benn won with 87 points then.

I didn't say it was a positive, but when there is as much competition as there was then, it's to be expected that Crosby wouldn't win every Art Ross there is.

I do think the competition for the team that lost 40-0 was tougher in that game than in the triple OT game, yes.

Don't you?

No, not even a little bit. A close game is by far more competitive than a blowout.
You might be the only person who believes otherwise.

Why are you only measuring toughness of competition from the player who won the competition? Why are you ignoring the relative toughness of competition for literally everyone else?

Because when answering the question 'How difficult was it to win this competition?', only the toughness of the competition for the player who won is relevant.

By missing out on scoring races entirely, by your definition of competitiveness, Crosby made the competition tougher. That is, obviously, nonsense.

Not at all. When Crosby was injured and missed games and had no shot of winning the scoring race, he didn't make the competition tougher.

 

[Romang67]

I didn't say it was a positive, but when there is as much competition as there was then, it's to be expected that Crosby wouldn't win every Art Ross there is.

No, not even a little bit. A close game is by far more competitive than a blowout.
You might be the only person who believes otherwise.

Because when answering the question 'How difficult was it to win this competition', only the toughness of the competition for the player who won is relevant.

Not at all. When Crosby was injured and missed games and had no shot of winning the scoring race, he didn't make the competition tougher.

Notice how you're changing the word usage?

More != tougher.

I'm not saying a race is more competitive when you have the best in the world participating. I am saying it's much tougher for everyone else. That's why I'm saying that the competition is tougher for the losing team in the 40-0 blowout than in the 3OT game. Because the word used is tougher.

When Crosby was injured and missed games, one of the best players in the league was taken out. Here, let me quote you:

Yes, the competition for the scoring title will be tougher if you remove the best players from the game, provided that this ends up resulting in more players being able to win the scoring title.

So, are you saying that removing Crosby from the competition meant that more people weren't able to win the scoring title, i.e. that Crosby wasn't the heavy favorite? Or are you saying that Crosby wasn't one of the best players in the league.

I do, of course, not agree. I don't think the scoring race became tougher because you removed the heavy favorite from the equation. I think taking that stance is bonkers.

 

[PainForShane]

Not only that, but Kunitz played on a line with prime Perry-Getzlaf. I know this thread thinks stars from that era are overrated bums but its hard to be put on another line that gives you more opportunities to rack up easy points.

Prime Getzlaf was so good, he doesn't get talked about enough.

I think the other poster's point was that Crosby didn't make Chris Kunitz out of absolutely nothing and he's absolutely right about that -- Kunitz was already a solid NHLer in Anaheim. But going from solid NHLer to Canadian Olympian is quite rare (especially as an undrafted player!!), and pretty clearly Crosby had a lot to do with that development. As well as other players like Sheary, Guentzel, Dupuis I'm sure I'm forgetting others as said before I'm not a Pens fan.

Either way to me that's a big part of the reason I have Crosby > McDavid, at least right now. To me Crosby played a large part in making the players on his team better (which gave the Pens more depth / helped them win more Cups), he was also more clutch which is a different argument but still valid. Anyway both are great (as are Ovi and Marty St Louis who were both getting unjustly crapped on earlier in the thread)

 

[OtherThingsILike]

Notice how you're changing the word usage?

More != tougher.

More competition capable of winning = tougher competition

I'm not saying a race is more competitive when you have the best in the world participating.

Then you agree that the competition for the race is weaker.
How competitive a race is is indistinguishable from how tough the competition is.
I'll even highlight the similiarities between these words for you.
Competitive
Competition

I am saying it's much tougher for everyone else. That's why I'm saying that the competition is tougher for the losing team in the 40-0 blowout than in the 3OT game. Because the word used is tougher.

Charles Barkley: I played a basketball game against nine-year-olds. I put no effort into it and never broke a sweat. I won 40-0.
You: Wow, what a tough competition that must have been for you.

When Crosby was injured and missed games, one of the best players in the league was taken out. Here, let me quote you:


So, are you saying that removing Crosby from the competition meant that more people weren't able to win the scoring title, i.e. that Crosby wasn't the heavy favorite? Or are you saying that Crosby wasn't one of the best players in the league.

I do, of course, not agree. I don't think the scoring race became tougher because you removed the heavy favorite from the equation. I think taking that stance is bonkers.

Crosby alone missing the games wouldn't matter, because one of the other elite players would win the scoring race, which is what happened. More people wouldn't be able to win; if anything, fewer people would be able to win.
If you removed all of the elite players, then the scoring race would be more competitive.

 

[GreatGonzo]

It's not the only argument, but as a relatively neutral person it's one of the major ones (being more clutch is my other one).

But to me the point is that a big reason for Pittsburgh's eliteness was that Crosby did an exceptional job of taking completely unknown teammates and help make them into good players. I'm specifically talking about Kunitz, Dupuis, Sheary who were all undrafted and on multiple cup winning teams. Guentzel also, he was a 3rd rounder who's career has ended up well above his draft position.

Compare that to McD, who's played with Pulju (4th overall pick ahead of guys like M. Tkatchuk, Keller, McAvoy) is basically out of the league, Yamo's a late first rounder who hasn't done much etc. The only teammate McD arguably helped develop is Hyman, but I'd argue Hyman was already an established player before he came in and I'd argue it's more a style of play fit, but you can make the argument about McD has helped Hyman.

Either way, McD was anywhere near as good as Crosby at helping develop his teammates / linemates into better players, Edm would have way more depth imo Edmonton would've won at least one cup by now.

So for now, Crosby gets my vote. Partly because he's shown much more in helping his team get better.

So we are going back to the whole false idea that McDavid doesn’t make his teammates better? Or is more of a product of better linemates compared to Crosby?

Lazy and untrue

 

[PainForShane]

So we are going back to the whole false idea that McDavid doesn’t make his teammates better? Or is more of a product of better linemates compared to Crosby?

Lazy and untrue

Compared to Crosby? Yes. Also I fixed your gaslighting.

I'm running out of crayons

 

[Midnight Judges]

Kunitz was good in Anaheim, but he clearly wasn't Canadian Olympic level when he was over there. Dupuis had had a single 20-goal season 5 years prior and was on his 4th NHL team when he came over, literally no one would've reasonable expected him to have another 400+ NHL games in him with at least 4 seasons of those being at a decently high level. I also noticed you didn't bring up Sheary or Guentzel. Once or twice maybe you get lucky but Crosby has a strong history of this with multiple players.

I can see crediting Crosby for a bit of their on-ice production together, but to stretch that all the way into claiming Crosby is responsible for their development is a reach.

Guentzel's PPG has gone up after having left Sidney Crosby and it was high in extended time away from Crosby over the past few seasons. He just got $9M AAV. At some point you just admit he's a legit good player.

Sheary had nice stats in Pittsburgh, but he also had nice stats playing with Ovechkin last season at 5v5 (61% GF and 3.36 G/60) despite playing with the corpse of Backstrom/Kuznetsov.

Line Stats - Natural Stat Trick

Sheary, like 48 point Dupuis, and 60 point Kunitz, and 25 points in 17 games with Carolina Guentzel - are simply decent players.

Perhaps you don't recall Pens fans claiming for years on here that Dupuis and Kunitz were "AHL caliber scrubs." There is a long history to the game being played here. Trashing players for Sid (including Malkin and Fleury) is a well-established pattern.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Compared to Crosby? Yes. Also I fixed your gaslighting.

I'm running out of crayons

Apparently Pens fans told that lie so many times that it actually took hold.

Here in real life, Dupuis was a 48 point / 20 goal scorer before ever putting on a Pens jersey - and he never topped that playing with Crosby. In fact his best season as a Penguin was the season where Crosby barely played.

Kunitz was also a 25 goal / 60 point player before going to Pittsburgh. That would be like Capitals fans claiming TJ Oshie was a product of Alex Ovechkin.

gaslighting?…..are you just one of those people that love throwing that word around because it makes you feel special?