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

[wetcoast]

Because the other is incapable of doing it as much.

Do you even think before you type this stuff out...i mean seriously.

It's not like Crosby was incapable he was freaking injured.

Maybe your next move is to go to a children's' hospital and chastise them for not stepping up, it's not that they are sick or have cancer but rather they are incapable of doing something a non sick person could do right?


Your takes are just incredibly poorly thought out.

 

[norrisnick]

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.

I'm not the one arguing that 99 games over the course of 3 seasons should carry the full weight of Hart/Ross/Pearson campaigns.

One guy won 3 Harts, 5 Art Rosses. The other wouldn't get to that number even hypothetically, yet here we are.

 

[wetcoast]

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.”

Using this deep logic would make me a better player than a /russian pro when I play and the other guy is sleeping right?

cant wait for the “context” behind this..

We understand that you can't wait, that might be why you insist on knowing what others actually mean when they post and even correct you but you obviously know what they are saying more than the actual posters.

 

[norrisnick]

Do you even think before you type this stuff out...i mean seriously.

It's not like Crosby was incapable he was freaking injured.

Maybe your next move is to go to a children's' hospital and chastise them for not stepping up, it's not that they are sick or have cancer but rather they are incapable of doing something a non cik person could do right?


Your takes are just incredibly poorly thought out.

What can you not do when you are injured? Play. So he was incapable of playing for most of three seasons. I'm not part of the group trying to argue that these three injury ravaged seasons should constitute his peak effectiveness and that should hold the same weight as three seasons from someone that excelled.

This is athletic competition. If you can't compete, you can't compete. It's that simple. Does it make you a lesser person? No. But guess what? It does make you a lesser athlete.

 

[Video Nasty]

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.

Yeah, I should be obsessed with small sample sizes, phantom trophies, and Peter Pan Neverland stories instead.

Who is talking about him supplanting Gretzky? That’s a strawman in this argument, which is about if McDavid is in a tier above Crosby (he is).

If McDavid needs to sweep all the awards for ten years in a row for you to even place him above Crosby, it’s a bad faith argument.

The fact you think you’re dunking on someone who has been top 5 in Hart voting in the modern day for 8 years running, has won 3 Harts, one unanimous and one biased vote shy of a second, been a finalist three other times, one of which was a runner up, is hilarious and shows your standards are ridiculously high for McDavid, while being insanely low for Crosby.

P.S. You’re wrong about Gretzky never finishing third in Hart voting in his prime after a dominant Hart win. Much like McDavid this past season (both age 27 season), injuries led to Gretzky finishing 3rd in Hart voting after winning the Hart, Art Ross, and Pearson the prior season.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Using this deep logic would make me a better player than a /russian pro when I play and the other guy is sleeping right?

We understand that you can't wait, that might be why you insist on knowing what others actually mean when they post and even correct you but you obviously know what they are saying more than the actual posters.

Not playing doesn’t make you better than the player, playing. It’s really simple.

That was joke. I was waiting for a poster to find some sort of “context” that gives Crosby the edge or advantage.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm not the one arguing that 99 games over the course of 3 seasons should carry the full weight of Hart/Ross/Pearson campaigns.

But no one is actually doing that are they?

The larger sample size and adjusted for league dynamics shows that both guys are pretty clsoe offensively.

One guy won 3 Harts, 5 Art Rosses. The other wouldn't get to that number even hypothetically, yet here we are.

Yes he has these trophies but no one is arguing otherwise but maybe you are going to argue that Crosby wouldn't have won the art Ross/Harts in 12/13 had he stayed healthy?

But then again I'm not a strict simple trophy counter Crosby has a 19 year prime where he has scored at a PPG+ pace and that's simply elite even among elite players and the 9 year sample given clearly shows that both guys are pretty close offensively and that McDavid is slightly ahead sure.

 

[norrisnick]

But no one is actually doing that are they?

The larger sample size and adjusted for league dynamics shows that both guys are pretty clsoe offensively.

Yes he has these trophies but no one is arguing otherwise but maybe you are going to argue that Crosby wouldn't have won the art Ross/Harts in 12/13 had he stayed healthy?

But then again I'm not a strict simple trophy counter Crosby has a 19 year prime where he has scored at a PPG+ pace and that's simply elite even among elite players and the 9 year sample given clearly shows that both guys are pretty close offensively and that McDavid is slightly ahead sure.

Yes. Yes, they are. They're all over this thread.

If you don't equate those three partial season with the full weight of Hart/Ross/Pearson campaigns there is simply no comparison.

Trophies are accomplishments for things that happened. I don't care how fast your laps were if you crash and don't finish.

 

[wetcoast]

Not playing doesn’t make you better than the player, playing. It’s really simple.

Not playing because of injury also doesn't make a player worse it just means that they can't play.

At the end of the day you aren't acknowledging that Crosby is only 95 games behind in that 9 year sample, had crosby played those missed games maybe his overall PPP and points adjusted would still be within 5% of McDavid at worst using reasonable anyaslsis but NO games missed is what you want to focus on.

Let's take your reasoning a bit further here then shall we.

Crosby in the playoffs first 9 years has a better line than McDavid he is 1st in points ,5th in goals and 1st in assists.

McDavid is 2nd in playoff points (27 points behind the leader),11th in goals, and 2nd in assists.

Therefore Crosby has been better in the playoffs their first 9 respective years right?

That was joke. I was waiting for a poster to find some sort of “context” that gives Crosby the edge or advantage.

What would it matter to you though as you don't seem to care about context right?

 

[wetcoast]

Yes. Yes, they are. They're all over this thread.

No you just can't admit what pace signifies that's been clear and it's not like we are talking about a 99 game sample to a 650 game sample.

It's a difference of 95 games over 9 years due to injury.

Your restaurant example was blown apart because it makes no sense, if Bolt only ran once and won the 100 meters once and remained the world record holder a gnother guy winning 8 races but was .05 of a second slower than him it wouldn't make the second guy "better".

Both guys are really close offensively in their first 9 years.

If you don't equate those three partial season with the full weight of Hart/Ross/Pearson campaigns there is simply no comparison.

Trophies are trophies so stop equating per game impact with counting trophies they are measuring 2 different things.

Trophies are accomplishments for things that happened. I don't care how fast your laps were if you crash and don't finish.

We aren't talking about practice here and your analogies simply don't make any sense.

Restaurants being closed on sundays, laps?

 

[norrisnick]

No you just can't admit what pace signifies that's been clear and it's not like we are talking about a 99 game sample to a 650 game sample.

It's a difference of 95 games over 9 years due to injury.

Your restaurant example was blown apart because it makes no sense, if Bolt only ran once and won the 100 meters once and remained the world record holder a gnother guy winning 8 races but was .05 of a second slower than him it wouldn't make the second guy "better".

Both guys are really close offensively in their first 9 years.


Trophies are trophies so stop equating per game impact with counting trophies they are measuring 2 different things.

We aren't talking about practice here and your analogies simply don't make any sense.

Restaurants being closed on sundays, laps?

I know what pace signifies. I just don't acknowledge its value in this discussion. For the same reason that the Art Ross isn't awarded to the player with the highest PPG. If you want the trophy. Do it. If the pace is that great, should be easy, right? One guy did it 5 times and the other 2 times, but had a couple good partial seasons. Solid 1st period, but you have to play the whole game...

The restaurant example wasn't mine, so it can be blown apart for all I care. Bolt doesn't get to call himself the winner of a race he didn't run. Gretzky holds records too. He's not the best player in the world, right now. He was when he played, but the trick to that, is that he was playing.

I think a lot of people are operating on very different definitions of "close".

Per game impact measures nothing. Trophies measure accomplishments.

I'm not Allen Iverson.

Laps is pace. Laps make up a race. Having the fastest lap, but not finishing the race, means you lose.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Not playing because of injury also doesn't make a player worse it just means that they can't play.

At the end of the day you aren't acknowledging that Crosby is only 95 games behind in that 9 year sample, had crosby played those missed games maybe his overall PPP and points adjusted would still be within 5% of McDavid at worst using reasonable anyaslsis but NO games missed is what you want to focus on.

Let's take your reasoning a bit further here then shall we.

Crosby in the playoffs first 9 years has a better line than McDavid he is 1st in points ,5th in goals and 1st in assists.

McDavid is 2nd in playoff points (27 points behind the leader),11th in goals, and 2nd in assists.

Therefore Crosby has been better in the playoffs their first 9 respective years right?

What would it matter to you though as you don't seem to care about context right?

The reason has nothing to do with the SIMPLE fact that you can’t impact the game or help your team win if you aren’t playing. I’m not blaming him for not playing. I’m not saying it was HIS choice, but the fact is all we have is what we have and the rest is speculatio.

But he didn’t play those games, so using pace and adjusted to try to fill that void isn’t all that accurate. Way too many variables.

Not necessarily. Kocherov playing on a better team shouldnt be a knock against McDavid. You are also leaving out McDavids 1.58 PPG which is first in that time span by a pretty decent margin. Drai had the closest with 1.46. Crosby was at 1.20 and I believe Malkin was at 1.16. McDavid has also lead the playoffs in scoring twice, has a smythe, broke Gretzkys PO assist record, and now has the most points in a post season not named Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

[pi314]

Yes. Yes, they are. They're all over this thread.

If you don't equate those three partial season with the full weight of Hart/Ross/Pearson campaigns there is simply no comparison.

Trophies are accomplishments for things that happened. I don't care how fast your laps were if you crash and don't finish.

Also true for Stanley Cups.

 

[McPoyle]

Also true for Stanley Cups.

And thats why I think Glenn Anderson is twice the player Crosby is.

 

[wetcoast]

I know what pace signifies.

That's the asburd part of this is that you should know better but.....

I just don't acknowledge its value in this discussion.

Why would one acknowledge one metric and not another one?

That to me is intellectual dishonesty and that's why I stated it and you seem intent on proving my point.

For the same reason that the Art Ross isn't awarded to the player with the highest PPG.

You say that you understand PPG but then make a comment like this.

The Art Ross measures counting stats, the table that set all of this in motion adjusts stats for different seasonal contexts and then gives us a per 82 game rate.

It's literally measuring 2 different things.

If you want the trophy. Do it. If the pace is that great, should be easy, right? One guy did it 5 times and the other 2 times, but had a couple good partial seasons. Solid 1st period, but you have to play the whole game...

The thing is that there is no trophy for the question being asked though right?

the question being asked inherently asks us to make a determination based on all available information and to exclude certain information just isn't defensafable and makes for a weak argument and bring into question if someone excluding information is actually being honest in their appraisal.

The restaurant example wasn't mine, so it can be blown apart for all I care. Bolt doesn't get to call himself the winner of a race he didn't run. Gretzky holds records too. He's not the best player in the world, right now. He was when he played, but the trick to that, is that he was playing.

You seem to not want to answer the question here though as you are the one asserting that doing something more times makes someone better.

I just gave you a very concrete example of why your way of thinking is flawed and then you gave distortion like usual.

I think a lot of people are operating on very different definitions of "close".

That may be so since some people can't even acknowledge that PPG measures one thing and trophies measure another and that both have value.

Per game impact measures nothing.

Now I have no idea if you do understand what it means and your argument is built on such a weak foundation here.

Trophies measure accomplishments.

3 SC's to zero then in your absolutist reductionist thinking here eh?

I'm not making that argument because I think it's a really weak one as context matters but your logic just doesn't hold up.

I'm not Allen Iverson.

That's nice.

Laps is pace. Laps make up a race. Having the fastest lap, but not finishing the race, means you lose.

We are talking about if McDavid is a teir above Crosby not car racing here and I don't see any revleance in your anaogly.

There is no race between Crosby and McDavid they aren't doing laps, there is no checkered flag.....

 

[norrisnick]

That's the asburd part of this is that you should know better but.....

Why would one acknowledge one metric and not another one?

Why not? I find it far more reasonable to disregard partial seasons at whatever pace than trying to equivocate 99 games over 3 seasons as some stretch of dominance on par with a guy that actually completed full seasons and won trophies for them. In fact I would label that attempted equivocation as...

That to me is intellectual dishonesty and that's why I stated it and you seem intent on proving my point.

You say that you understand PPG but then make a comment like this.

The Art Ross measures counting stats, the table that set all of this in motion adjusts stats for different seasonal contexts and then gives us a per 82 game rate.

It's literally measuring 2 different things.

Correct. One thing measures something that did happen and the other pretended to measure something that didn't happen.

The thing is that there is no trophy for the question being asked though right?

the question being asked inherently asks us to make a determination based on all available information and to exclude certain information just isn't defensafable and makes for a weak argument and bring into question if someone excluding information is actually being honest in their appraisal.

You seem to not want to answer the question here though as you are the one asserting that doing something more times makes someone better.

No, I'm answering the question. I'm just not accepting as evidence games/seasons that didn't happen. That's it. I'm taking into account the things that happened on the ice. If someone else wants to compare hypothetical players, that's fine. I'm just completely disinterested in the what-if game.

I just gave you a very concrete example of why your way of thinking is flawed and then you gave distortion like usual.

That may be so since some people can't even acknowledge that PPG measures one thing and trophies measure another and that both have value.

Now I have no idea if you do understand what it means and your argument is built on such a weak foundation here.

Kindly point out one scenario where PPG has value in games that aren't played. I'll wait.

3 SC's to zero then in your absolutist reductionist thinking here eh?

I'm not making that argument because I think it's a really weak one as context matters but your logic just doesn't hold up.

If that's your bag, that's your bag. But remember that Stanley Cups are awarded to teams and not individual players so good luck with that track. And again, much like the restaurants... I didn't bring up Cups.

That's nice.

I mean, I'm sure being Allen Iverson is also nice.

We are talking about if McDavid is a teir above Crosby not car racing here and I don't see any revleance in your anaogly.

There is no race between Crosby and McDavid they aren't doing laps, there is no checkered flag.....

There are lots of things I don't see relevance in with regards to the arguments presented. Mainly in things that didn't happen when comparing two players. I like to focus on the things that did happen.

 

[DitchMarner]

This thread is f***ing legendary. This shit should be archived and stickied permanently.

 

[Frank Drebin]

We can use Crosbys pace to demonstrate that if he would have remained healthy it’s quite possible that he and mcdavid would have very similar individual hardware after their first 9 seasons in the league.

We can also use pace to show that Mario Lemieux was capable, possibly, of beating both gretzkys 92 goals and 215 points in a single season as he scored 69 goals and 91 assists in 60 games back in 92 93

Pro rated over a full 82 games that could have been 94 goals and 219 points.

Had he done that would Gretzky be considered •as• great as he is today? It would have certainly enhanced Mario’s legacy and possibly tarnished waynes

But, that didn’t happen

 

[pi314]

And thats why I think Glenn Anderson is twice the player Crosby is.

I hope McDavid gets his participation ribbon.

Winning is overrated.

Compiling points late in an 8-1 blowout is what it’s all about.

Next year we’ll have a Stanley point trophy and just appoint Kucherov admiral of hockey.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I hope McDavid gets his participation ribbon.

Winning is overrated.

Compiling points late in an 8-1 blowout is what it’s all about.

Next year we’ll have a Stanley point trophy and just appoint Kucherov admiral of hockey.

Keep posting stuff like this.

For posterity sake. I know it will age well.

 

[McPoyle]

I hope McDavid gets his participation ribbon.

Winning is overrated.

Compiling points late in an 8-1 blowout is what it’s all about.

Next year we’ll have a Stanley point trophy and just appoint Kucherov admiral of hockey.

Winning is the only thing to judge players by. Thats why I think players like Anderson and Lowe are twice as good as Crosby.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I still see a lot of members of the a anti-Crosby police are having trouble to swallow the fact that Crosby has been just as dominant as McDavid in the games he was able to play in their first 9 seasons. Let’s breakdown their first 9 regular seasons in bits and pieces to further prove that claim.

Age 18 season

Crosby: 102 pts in 81 GP, 6th in PPG
McDavid: 48 pts in 45 GP, 3rd in PPG

Age 19 season

Crosby: 120 pts in 81 GP (1st), 1st in PPG
McDavid: 100 pts in 82 GP (1st), 1st in PPG

Their first 2 seasons are basically a wash. Maybe a slight edge to Crosby for having slightly better numbers vs his peers in 2007, but nothing more.

Age 20 season

Here are what both of them were doing until game 45 of their 3rd season when Crosby suffered his well-documented ankle sprain:

Crosby: 63 pts in 45 GP - 1st in PPG
McDavid: 50 pts in 45 GP - 13th in PPG

McDavid ended up winning his 2nd Ross by having an impressive 2nd half of the season while Crosby was still trying to get back to 100% from the injury. Here’s how they finished the season:

Crosby: 72 pts in 53 games - 2nd in PPG (behind Ovechkin)
McDavid: 108 pts in 82 games - 1st in PPG

You can argue that their level of play was pretty similar during that season; Crosby having the better first half, while McDavid having the de facto better 2nd half. Kudos to McDavid for finishing the season in strength and grabbing some hardware along the way.

Age 21 season

Crosby: 103 pts in 77 GP (3rd), 3rd in PPG
McDavid: 116 pts in 78 games (2nd), 2nd in PPG

Age 22 season

Crosby: 109 pts in 81 GP (2nd), 3rd in PPG
McDavid: 97 pts in 64 GP (2nd), 2nd in PPG

Not much to say about their age 21 and 22 seasons. You can maybe give the edge to McDavid due to the slightly better finishes, but it can be argued that Crosby had the better top end competition (Ovechkin/Malkin vs Kucherov/Draisaitl)

Now it gets interesting…

Age 23 season

Crosby:
First 41 games; 66 pts in 41 GP (1st), 1st in PPG.

• Led 2nd in points by 10, 5th in points by 16, 10th in points by 22
• Led 2nd in PPG by 0,24 (18%), 5th in PPG by 0,37 (30%) and 10th in PPG by 0,52 (48%).

McDavid:

First 41 games: 69 pts in 41 GP (1st), 1st in PPG

• Led 2nd in points by 8, 5th in points by 21, 10th in points by 25
• Led 2nd in PPG by 0,19 (13%), 5th in PPG by 0,34 (25%), 10th in PPG by 0,50 (42%)

Rest of the season: 36 pts in 15 GP (2,40 PPG)
Totals: 105 pts in 56 GP (1,88 PPG)

Comments

• Both Crosby and McDavid had a pretty similar start to their age 23 season (first 41 games). You could even argue that Crosby had the small edge due to the better production margins between him and the 2nd, 5th and 10th scorer when he got injured.
• Nothing that McDavid had done before his 23 y/o season could make us believe that he was able to put that season together. The most points he had scored in the first 56 games of a season before was 84 in 2019-2020 (a mark that was matched by Kucherov in 2019 and beaten by Draisaitl in 2020).
• After the first 41 GP of the 2020-2021 season, Crosby’s and McDavid’s RS resume were really, really similar. McDavid had won an extra Ross and Lindsey in his age 21 season, while at the same age, Crosby had suffered his high ankle sprain at a point in the season where he was leading the league in PPG by a bigger margin than the one McDavid had on the 2nd place at the end of 2018 - the year he won his 2nd Ross (1,40 - Crosby vs 1,38 - Spezza and 1,32 - McDavid vs 1,31 - MacKinnon).
• Crosby would have needed 39 pts in the remaining 41 games to win the scoring title that year, which is good for 0,95 PPG throughout the half of a season, something Crosby never came close of doing, with his worst half season until that point (excluding his rookie season) being 48 pts in 40 GP, good for 1,20 PPG.

Age 24 season

Crosby: 37 pts in 22 games, 1st in PPG
McDavid: 123 points in 80 games, 1st in PPG

Comments

• That season is really hard to compare between both players because of 2 reasons. 1) Crosby simply didn’t play enough games. 2) The games he played were not consecutive, so it would be unfair to try to compare the 22 games spread throughout the year vs 80 games of dominant hockey, consecutively.
• McDavid won the Ross in a 24 y/o season where he was expected to win, but it wasn’t necessarily done in dominating fashion like his previous one or his next one.
• Although I don’t necessarily think Malkin would have won the Ross if Crosby had played the full season, I think it’s unfair to crown someone who played in 27% of the total available games during a season, even if the likeliness of Crosby winning the scoring title was probably the highest, given his dominance in the previous seasons and in the 2 seasons that followed.

Age 25 season

Crosby:

- Got injured at the start of game 36

After 35 games: 56 pts in 35 GP, 1st in PPG (1,60)

• Led 2nd in points by 12, 5th in points by 15, 10th in points by 21
• Led 2nd in PPG by 0,30 (23%), 5th in PPG by 0,34 (27%), 10th in PPG by 0,54 (51%)
• Led 2nd in points by 12, 5th in points by 15, 10th in points by 21

McDavid

After 35 games: 66 pts in 35 GP, 1st in PPG (1,89)

• Led 2nd in points by 10, 5th in points by 17, 10th in points by 24.
• Led 2nd in PPG by 0,29 (18%), 5th in PPG by 0,41 (30%), 10th in PPG by 0,58 (44%)

Rest of the season: 87 pts in 47 GP, 1st in PPG (1,85)

Totals: 153 pts in 82 GP - 1,87 PPG

Comments

• Once again, McDavid and Crosby are pretty neck and neck in terms of dominance during the first 35 games of their respective season, the main difference is that McDavid actually got to finish the season, which so far has been the best season he’s played in.
• McDavid’s PPG dominance has stayed pretty much the same in the first 35 games (1,89), compared to the 47 last games (1,85). He deserves a lot of credit for that, given it was the first and only time he had shown the world he was able to sustain an extremely high per game productivity for a 82 game season from start to finish, something Crosby couldn’t do, partly due to the freak injuries he suffered.
• Even if Crosby had sustained his pace for the 13 remaining games, chances are that his season would never be seen as being as good as McDavid’s due to it being a lockout shortened season.

Age 26 season

Crosby: 104 pts in 82 games, 1st in PPG
McDavid: 132 points in 76 games, 2nd in PPG

Comments

• This is a really, really important season for Crosby, which proves his dominance from his previous seasons were no flukes. He wins the Ross in a really dominating fashion with one of the most impressive production margins against his peers in a season of the 21st century.
• Still a very strong season from McDavid despite finishing 3rd in scoring.

Final observations

• There’s no real justification to put Crosby ahead of McDavid from an offensive production standpoint after their first 9 seasons. Posters doing so are as biased as the ones who put McDavid closer to Gretzky/Lemieux than to Crosby in terms of per-game dominance.
• Throughout their first 9 seasons, the major difference in production between the 2 players have been the key time missed by Crosby because of injuries, which led to McDavid being able to put up video games numbers during those games. When you compare their seasons head to head with how each one of them performed from age 23-25 in the games Crosby had played, it’s really close.
• McDavid clearly has the better regular season resume up to this point, mostly due to him not having as much bad luck than Sid rather than being more dominant as proven by the analysis of this post.
• Trophy counting is absolutely useless without context when comparing players abilities. Both McDavid and Crosby have the same trophy case if McDavid had played the same % of games as Crosby in their age 23, 24 and 25 season.
• Nothing McDavid achieved before his age 23 season could have prepared us for what he accomplished from 23 to 25, anymore than Crosby. Why could have McDavid been able to sustain his paces for full seasons while Crosby wouldn’t?
• If you hold Crosby’s injuries agaisnt him from 2011 and 2013 due to a “lack of durability”, you need to familiarize yourself more with the body’s anatomy and with the science behind sports injuries.

Here’s a decent article about Crosby’s misdiagnosed neck injury in 2011: Bell: Crosby's injury no simple matter

 

[Letsdothis]

.ä
Age 26 season

Crosby: 104 pts in 82 games, 1st in PPG
McDavid: 132 points in 76 games, 2nd in PPG

Comments

• This is a really, really important season for Crosby, which proves his dominance from his previous seasons were no flukes. He wins the Ross in a really dominating fashion with one of the most impressive production margins against his peers in a season of the 21st century.

13-14 wasn't nearly as dominant as you are portraying it here. Gap over 2nd place in raw points is the only gap over his peers that was particularly notable, and that was due to Malkin/Stamkos missing time rather than Crosby's season being that exceptional. Good year, but arguably not even Crosby's best season which may have been 09-10.

 

[66-30-33]

This thread still going on?

 

[Video Nasty]

Age 26 season

Crosby: 104 pts in 82 games, 1st in PPG
McDavid: 132 points in 76 games, 2nd in PPG

Comments

• This is a really, really important season for Crosby, which proves his dominance from his previous seasons were no flukes. He wins the Ross in a really dominating fashion with one of the most impressive production margins against his peers in a season of the 21st century.
• Still a very strong season from McDavid despite finishing 3rd in scoring.

The question I have is why do we make excuses for Crosby missing significant time, while simultaneously cooing over his 2013-2014 season when 4 of the top 6 players in PPG behind him missed significant time, which is the only reason that the gap in scoring is as large as it was at face value?

Malkin, Tavares, Stamkos, and Zetterberg missed 22, 23, 45, and 37 games respectively. The pace hounds would give them 96, 90, 87, 85 points if they played the 80 games Crosby did.

Coincidentally, the #3 and #7 PPG leaders played less games than Crosby as well, and would inch Getzlaf up to 90 and Hall up to 85 in 80 games.

Were it not for an unusual amount of missed games for each of the players directly behind him in PPG, that 19.5% turns into a still good, but more ordinary 8.3% and 8 point win over his teammate and a 15.6% win over the closest non-teammate, assuming they all played the 80 games Crosby did.

That’s of course ignoring what those injuries did to their overall play.

For instance, Malkin had 41 points in his first 32 games (34 Penguins games). According to the pace merchants, that’s good for 103 points in 80 games. He then missed 9 games. Came back and had 31 points in 28 games. Missed the final 11 games of the season.

The big one is Stamkos, who was coming off a run of 4 consecutive seasons where he was either 1st or 2nd in goals, was top 5 in points all four years, and was runner up in the Art Ross the previous two seasons. He was 1st in goals and points in 2013-2014 before going down with an injury that altered his trajectory forever. Where is the romanticism for him? Where are the projections that he could have rocked Crosby that very season?

If Crosby is given every pass in the world for injuries, pace, missed time, and gets as much credit as he does, the same courtesy should be extended to his peers when he was healthy and they were injured.