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

[Wry n Ginger]

Internet arguing is the best. Amirite?

It is amazing to read several pages of a couple of doods going back and forth picking apart minutia of each others posts. Love it...this is what the interweb was invented for.

Keep up the good fight fellas!

As far as the question goes... Connor vs Sidney as a "player"?

I think Sidney would have way sicker moves trying to get laid than Connor. Connor is always so awkward. Sidney would have way better lines and initial dialogue. Crosby's pick-up lines easily have the ladies lined up vs McDavid's stammering and stuttering.

Crosby ftw

 

[Overrated]

Not at all. Hockey in the 40s and 50s was still a developing sport, and the NHL and WHA were mostly comprised of players from one low population country. I don't think hockey really matured until the 90s.

If say we get an ice age and hockey becomes a global sport. The players that dominate that league will rightfully be considered better than Gretzky, Lemieux, McDavid, or Crosby. Dominating a global sport is orders of magnitude more difficult. Which is why a guy like Messi is likely the best athlete of all time.

Soccer was also a developing sport. Until Serie A in the 1980s everyone played more or less locally. Hockey if anything became professional before soccer. There were people making money playing hockey 110 years ago.

Also the 60s NHL was clearly superior to the 70s NHL. 18 teams + WHA watered down the league much more than the growth of the sport improved it.

 

[I am not exposed]

McDavid fans be like…..

The irony of this post.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

 

[GreatGonzo]

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?



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



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?

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?


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.

99 games over 3 seasons Isn’t a lot especially when he barely played half a season 2/3 of those times.

You use “adjusted” and “pace” simply because Crosby lacks the raw numbers that McDavid actually accomplished. To say they were “close” is mainly due to Crosbys PPG being flawed because he didn’t play nearly as many games.

Again, a lot of “should have, could have, would have.” I’m reading. Long story short? You can’t give him the awards and points he didn’t achieve no matter the pace.

“I haven’t voiced any detailed argument in this thread.” No you haven’t, I got all that from the countless other threads where you spout off nonsense and look for any and every way to discredit McDavid. Even using PACE to say Crosby was on McDavids level is arguing in bad faith. Because to you, being ON PACE for 132 points in a
-lower scoring era
-having “worst” teammates
-better “defensive” game..
Is better than ACTUALLY scoring 153 points, because…
-higher scoring era
-better linemates
-not a good “all around” game

 

[wetcoast]

Newsflash. Being able to play more games if you provide similar impact when you play makes you a better player.

Ureka you finally understand the graph that I commented on which basically expressed that Crosby and McDavid have a similar offensive impact but then you had to distort it all over again.

We can look at 2 players and watch them and if we determine they are similar does one really become better just by playing in more games?

Maybe that's how some people do it but it seems strange and like I said the overall number of games in the sample I cited was quite large.

As to the next part I disagreed as playing more games is playing more games it doesn't make any player "better".

What it does do is it makes it more likely to be in contention for season awards.

Much moreso if you are also better when you play those games

 

[norrisnick]

Ureka you finally understand the graph that I commented on which basically expressed that Crosby and McDavid have a similar offensive impact but then you had to distort it all over again.

We can look at 2 players and watch them and if we determine they are similar does one really become better just by playing in more games?

Maybe that's how some people do it but it seems strange and like I said the overall number of games in the sample I cited was quite large.

As to the next part I disagreed as playing more games is playing more games it doesn't make any player "better".

What it does do is it makes it more likely to be in contention for season awards.

Yes.

In every facet of life, actually doing something makes you better than a person that might do as well if they got around to doing it.

 

[Zerotonine]

Honestly is not even close , mcdavid is by far the superior player.

But with that being said with both in there primes i think it would still be a coin flip with who you build your team around. Crosbys entanglebles and leadership qualities just might be the difference maker

Coking from a die hard oilers fan......

 

[PainForShane]

Yes.

In every facet of life, actually doing something makes you better than a person that might do as well if they got around to doing it.

You sure?

Let's say we have two restaurants, both with a similar great reviews, 4.8 out of 5 stars on yelp or tripadvisor / google reviews, whatever review scale you use most often.

Restaurant A has ~150 reviews with an average score of 4.8 out of 5.
Restaurant B has ~450 reviews with an average score of 4.8 out of 5.

Is restaurant B a better restaurant? Or does B's higher number of reviews actually indicate something entirely different. It's not intended to be an especially difficult question to answer.

 

[Regal]

Yes.

In every facet of life, actually doing something makes you better than a person that might do as well if they got around to doing it.

They’re both “doing it” in this scenario. One is just doing it more frequently

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

First 9 seasons raw, non-adjusted stats

2005-2014 Crosby
550GP, 769P, 1.40PPG

2015-2024 McDavid
645GP, 982P, 1.52PPG

 

[GreatGonzo]

Ureka you finally understand the graph that I commented on which basically expressed that Crosby and McDavid have a similar offensive impact but then you had to distort it all over again.

We can look at 2 players and watch them and if we determine they are similar does one really become better just by playing in more games?

Maybe that's how some people do it but it seems strange and like I said the overall number of games in the sample I cited was quite large.

As to the next part I disagreed as playing more games is playing more games it doesn't make any player "better".

What it does do is it makes it more likely to be in contention for season awards.

Except you can’t make an impact or make any player around you better if you aren’t playing…so it does in fact make a player “better.”

First 9 seasons raw, non-adjusted stats

2005-2014 Crosby
550GP, 769P, 1.40PPG

2015-2024 McDavid
645GP, 982P, 1.52PG

cant wait for the “context” behind this..

 

[norrisnick]

You sure?

Let's say we have two restaurants, both with a similar great reviews, 4.8 out of 5 stars on yelp or tripadvisor / google reviews, whatever review scale you use most often.

Restaurant A has ~150 reviews with an average score of 4.8 out of 5.
Restaurant B has ~450 reviews with an average score of 4.8 out of 5.

Is restaurant B a better restaurant? Or does B's higher number of reviews actually indicate something entirely different. It's not intended to be an especially difficult question to answer.

That isn't the same scenario.

More like restaurant A has X rating.
Restaurant B has X rating but randomly has 'sorry closed for remodeling' signs up all the time.

 

[Video Nasty]

First 9 seasons raw, non-adjusted stats

2005-2014 Crosby
550GP, 769P, 1.40PPG

2015-2024 McDavid
645GP, 982P, 1.52PG

Don’t forget non-adjusted individual accomplishments:

2005-2014 Crosby:

2x Art Rosses (3 additional top 2-3 finishes), 2x Harts (2x additional finalist nominations), 3x Pearsons/Lindsays, 1x Richard, 4x All-Star (3 First-Team)

2015-2024 McDavid:

5x Art Rosses (3 additional top 2-3 finishes), 3x Harts (3x additional finalist nominations), 4x Lindsays, 1x Richard, 1x Conn Smythe, 7x All-Star (5 First-Team)

McDavid has ripped him apart through 9 seasons and it’s only going to get worse for Crosby.

But sure, they’re so close!

 

[norrisnick]

They’re both “doing it” in this scenario. One is just doing it more frequently

Because the other is incapable of doing it as much.

 

[Midnight Judges]

McDavid has ripped him apart through 9 seasons and it’s only going to get worse for Crosby.

That's far from given. Anything can happen.

Crosby has aged quite nicely - far better than most.

 

[PainForShane]

That isn't the same scenario.

More like restaurant A has X rating.
Restaurant B has X rating but randomly has 'sorry closed for remodeling' signs up all the time.

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but not a single person would knock Chick-Fil-A down an entire tier just because they happen to be closed on Sundays

 

[Video Nasty]

That's far from given. Anything can happen.

Crosby has aged quite nicely - far better than most.

Crosby has been excellent and considering there was so much speculation about how long his career could really be post 2012, he’s over delivered in terms of longevity.

He has been remarkably healthy his entire career post age 25, missing just 61 games total, with nearly half of them (27) coming in one season (2019-2020). He’s played 802 out of his past 863 games (93% of games from 2013-2014 through 2023-2024).

That being said, he has won zero Harts, zero Art Rosses, and zero Lindsays past the age of 26 and hasn’t added a single piece of hardware, individual or team based, past the age of 29. There’s nothing inside his 30s where McDavid will need to play catchup.

McDavid is already ahead at 27, and needs a single team accomplishment to surpass Crosby in most eyes. If he adds any more hardware from here on out, he’s literally in Gretzky, Howe, and Lemieux territory.

What I’m saying is, McDavid won’t need extreme longevity.

Heaven help some of you if he’s still collecting significant hardware inside his 30s.

 

[norrisnick]

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but not a single person would knock Chick-Fil-A down an entire tier just because they happen to be closed on Sundays

Again, that's scheduled closings. Or is it the argument that Crosby chose to not play most of '10-'11 through '12-'13 for religious reasons?

But to your point, I fully knock Chick-fil-A. Not specifically because they are closed Sundays but for everything leading up to that decision (and others).

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

McDavid is already ahead at 27, and needs a single team accomplishment to surpass Crosby in most eyes. If he adds any more hardware from here on out, he’s literally in Gretzky, Howe, and Lemieux territory.

He hasn’t been Lemieux dominant. While he surpassed Crosby in hardware, so have a lot of people. He will need the longevity of the above guys to enter into that territory.

What I’m saying is, McDavid won’t need extreme longevity.

Heaven help some of you if he’s still collecting significant hardware inside his 30s.

If he’s collecting hardware in his 30s, that’s great, but he is already started to get plagued with the occasional nagging injury every year and he’s in his 20s. We will see. He likely will need to compile a bit to enter Gretzky/Howe territory.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

But to your point, I fully knock Chick-fil-A.

Boo this man

 

[Video Nasty]

He hasn’t been Lemieux dominant. While he surpassed Crosby in hardware, so have a lot of people. He will need the longevity of the above guys to enter into that territory.

If he’s collecting hardware in his 30s, that’s great, but he is already started to get plagued with the occasional nagging injury every year and he’s in his 20s. We will see. He likely will need to compile a bit to enter Gretzky/Howe territory.

I’m talking about trophies. If he wins another Hart, Art Ross, and Lindsay, not an unrealistic ask from here on out (much more realistic than the fantasy tales I’ve listened to about Crosby), only Gretzky, Howe, and Lemieux would have comparable cabinet cases.

One more Hart ties him with Shore, trailing just Gretzky and Howe. One more Art Ross and he would be tied with Lemieux and Howe for second most, trailing only Gretzky. One more Lindsay and he would be tied with Gretzky for first.

All the hand waving in the world can’t explain away that kind of dominance and company.

Through 9 seasons, he already has one of the most stacked resumes in league history. It is inevitable.

 

[norrisnick]

Boo this man

I have never spent money at Chick-fil-A as it is against my religious beliefs.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes.

In every facet of life, actually doing something makes you better than a person that might do as well if they got around to doing it.

Oh ya I forget this Crosby fellow never played and all of this is hypothetical right?

Man you are just the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I’m talking about trophies. If he wins another Hart, Art Ross, and Lindsay, not an unrealistic ask from here on out (much more realistic than the fantasy tales I’ve listened to about Crosby), only Gretzky, Howe, and Lemieux would have comparable cabinet cases.

One more Hart ties him with Shore, trailing just Gretzky and Howe. One more Art Ross and he would be tied with Lemieux and Howe for second most, trailing only Gretzky. One more Lindsay and he would be tied with Gretzky for first.

All the hand waving in the world can’t explain away that kind of dominance and company.

Through 9 seasons, he already has one of the most stacked resumes in league history. It is inevitable.

Great, you seem focused on cabinet cases. Like overly so. There is a lot more than that which distinguished the likes of Orr, Howe, Lemieux, and Gretzky. They dominated their peers to a level that McDavid has shown flashes of, but never as consistently. They hold some of the most coveted records in the books. They have iconic moments.

McDavid is on his way, but I’m not sure compiling trophies in his case is the only gap between him and Gretzky. Gretzky didn’t follow a dominant Hart season with a 3rd place finish in his prime.