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

[BraveCanadian]

Crosby isn't really clutch...his performances in the Stanley Cup Finals are rather poor

"Clutch" is mostly a backwards looking thing. If you win all faults are washed away.

When you do manage to get the reputation as being "clutch" you get more opportunities to show it too - and people always forget the failures but hype the successes.

Like I always say, it is pretty tough to score that last minute goal when you're a 4th liner riding the pine. Opportunity is 90% of it.

 

[PainForShane]

Again with the “cAn yOu rEaD”

How did he underperform where as Crosby didn’t? You have yet to explain yourself for that and keep avoiding it, I can only speculate because you have no argument and instead need to keep dancing around it.

Also “10/11 of his points were in garbage time.” If that’s the case, what were Crosbys 3 points then?…

Crosby's 3 points were points that did not happen in garbage time.

I believe McDavid underperformed this finals because his offense basically dried up in the set of meaningful situations this SCF (1 relevant point in 5 games, you could maybe argue an additional point in gm 3 but I wouldn't take that argument). You've quoted this idea and I've said this idea multiple times as well, I'm not saying anything new nor am I saying anything that would benefit from further explanation (at least not to most people).

Even if you yourself don't agree with this take, I think everyone would agree this is a reasonable take to have -- we're talking about a supremely gifted offensive player who wasn't able to get it done offensively when it mattered most (in this one particular series).

What I said does NOT mean "nothing is ever Crosby's fault" which is a claim you delusionally doubled down on a couple of posts up complete with a popcorn emoji.

***

Yes, this thread has become legendary. Maybe the world is better off for it. And maybe it's not. Either way Gonzo's posts remain to illustrate to the world his ability to understand a basic argument

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Yes...since he plays 100% of the minutes
prior to Game 4, Bobrovsky sported a ridiculous .953% save percentage...that's an all-time heater

Glad I didn't misrepresent your take on Lidstrom vs. Bobrovsky.

Crosby literally faced the same team, the same match ups…the same goalie, the year prior and did pretty well. Why is it suddenly using Lidstrom and company an excuse as to why he couldn’t perform?

Maybe because he had Hossa on his line?

I dunno, seems like an important variable.

 

[PainForShane]

Glad I didn't misrepresent your take on Lidstrom vs. Bobrovsky.


Maybe because he had Hossa on his line?

I dunno, seems like an important variable.

Love your posts.

By the way, given your avatar if you weren't familiar with Marek's youtube series, "Hey Burkie," it's imo one of the funnier / better hockey story series out there. Probably you know already but I recently told a few ppl in the former Zona forums who hadn't heard of it, they appreciated the callout.

I think my favourite one is the Pavel Bure story. 3 mins 46 seconds. Probably you already know about this but wanted to share just in case. The Sedin twins one is really good too (actually they all are).

 

[GreatGonzo]

Shit happens over a small sample size - Foegele had 5 points in 7 games.

I'm providing context for stats. Nobody disputes that Detroit could put out an all-time great shutdown tandem in Zetterberg/Lidstrom that would cause fits for anyone.

Sounds more like excuses as to why Crosby couldn’t perform. Either way, if the rest of the team(especially Malkin) didn’t rally and keep it a competitive series, Crosby wouldn’t have any cup that year.

Glad I didn't misrepresent your take on Lidstrom vs. Bobrovsky.


Maybe because he had Hossa on his line?

I dunno, seems like an important variable.

so Crosby only performs well with an elite winger?…

Crosby's 3 points were points that did not happen in garbage time.

I believe McDavid underperformed this finals because his offense basically dried up in the set of meaningful situations this SCF (1 relevant point in 5 games, you could maybe argue an additional point in gm 3 but I wouldn't take that argument). You've quoted this idea and I've said this idea multiple times as well, I'm not saying anything new nor am I saying anything that would benefit from further explanation (at least not to most people).

Even if you yourself don't agree with this take, I think everyone would agree this is a reasonable take to have -- we're talking about a supremely gifted offensive player who wasn't able to get it done offensively when it mattered most (in this one particular series).

What I said does NOT mean "nothing is ever Crosby's fault" which is a claim you delusionally doubled down on a couple of posts up complete with a popcorn emoji.

***

Yes, this thread has become legendary. Maybe the world is better off for it. And maybe it's not. Either way Gonzo's posts remain to illustrate to the world his ability to understand a basic argument

Now I’ve read it all…

Crosby went scoreless in 5/ 7 games, including games 5-7 (you know, the “meaningful” games) and the first 2. he had 3 points in games 4 and 5 where they outscored Detroit 8-4(totally not garbage time).

You are a walking and talking contradiction.

 

[PainForShane]

Sounds more like excuses as to why Crosby couldn’t perform. Either way, if the rest of the team(especially Malkin) didn’t rally and keep it a competitive series, Crosby wouldn’t have any cup that year.

so Crosby only performs well with an elite winger?…



Now I’ve read it all…

Crosby went scoreless in 5/ 7 games, including games 5-7 (you know, the “meaningful” games) and the first 2. he had 3 points in games 4 and 5 where they outscored Detroit 8-4(totally not garbage time).

You are a walking and talking contradiction.

Yeah... not really. Joke's on you even though you don't seem to understand the humor. I'm good with that.

In games 4 and 5 the series was close. That's what "totally not garbage time" non-sarcastically refers to. You're being sarcastic about it which shows you clearly don't understand the argument you've decided to continue to take part in.

Which is incidentally why I keep telling / asking you to learn how to read. If you don't want to, that's fully your decision.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yeah... not really. Joke's on you even though you don't seem to understand it. I'm good with that.

You want to talk about Jokes?

“Crosbys 3 points did not happen in garbage time.”

“McDavid had ONE meaningful point in 5 games.”

“10/11 of McDavids points were meaningless.”

“3 points in 7 games ISNT underperforming and 11 in 7 is in fact, underperforming.”

Now THOSE are some good jokes. Probably some of the best ones written in this thread. Good for you.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Love your posts.

By the way, given your avatar if you weren't familiar with Marek's youtube series, "Hey Burkie," it's imo one of the funnier / better hockey story series out there. Probably you know already but I recently told a few ppl in the former Zona forums who hadn't heard of it, they appreciated the callout.

I think my favourite one is the Pavel Bure story. 3 mins 46 seconds. Probably you already know about this but wanted to share just in case. The Sedin twins one is really good too (actually they all are).

No I never knew about those, thanks man!

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yeah... not really. Joke's on you even though you don't seem to understand the humor. I'm good with that.

In games 4 and 5 the series was close. That's what "totally not garbage time" non-sarcastically refers to. You're being sarcastic about it which shows you clearly don't understand the argument you've decided to continue to take part in.

Which is incidentally why I keep telling / asking you to learn how to read. If you don't want to, that's fully your decision.

So because Edmonton was more dominant in game 4, that some how makes McDavids points mean less, even though his performance in game 5 basically got his team to game 6…

You do realize Crosby went pointless in games 5-7 right? All meaningful games. Interesting how that’s not being brought up but you are going to talk about how meaningless most of McDavids points are and how he didn’t show up “when it mattered.”

 

[PainForShane]

So because Edmonton was more dominant in game 4, that some how makes McDavids points mean less, even though his performance in game 5 basically got his team to game 6…

You do realize Crosby went pointless in games 5-7 right? All meaningful games. Interesting how that’s not being brought up but you are going to talk about how meaningless most of McDavids points are and how he didn’t show up “when it mattered.”

No, that's not what I said. I said the Pittsburgh series was close meaning in gms 3 and 4 ie the outcome of the series was still in doubt (which the Edm series was not in gms 4 and 5). You bolded this statement, I'm assuming you read the statement you bolded.

I made a basic argument which shouldn't require clarification, yet here we are. Legendary thread indeed

 

[tabness]

I love how you keep avoiding the points where you keep claiming you didn’t say something, only to be confronted with your ridiculous statements….and then you deflect

was this intended for me or someone else lol?

 

[PainForShane]

was this intended for me or someone else lol?

Gonzo's posts are confused. They're so confused I would personally give him a 100% pass if he didn't go out of his way to be so disrespectful / misunderstand basic things.

Which upon further reflection is I guess is what he just did here. Have at him I guess shrug

 

[GreatGonzo]

Gonzo's posts are confused. They're so confused I would personally give him a 100% pass if he didn't go out of his way to be so disrespectful / misunderstand basic things.

Which upon further reflection is I guess is what he just did here. Have at him I guess shrug

The irony..

 

[GreatGonzo]

No, that's not what I said. I said the Pittsburgh series was close meaning in gms 3 and 4 ie the outcome of the series was still in doubt (which the Edm series was not in gms 4 and 5). You bolded this statement, I'm assuming you read the statement you bolded.

I made a basic argument which shouldn't require clarification, yet here we are. Legendary thread indeed

you talk as if games 3-4 for Edmonton weren’t as equallly important…

McDavid had 6 points between games 3-4, Crosby, had 3. McDavid had 2 goals and 2 assists in a 5-3 game 5 win. Crosby had 0 points in game 5 and was a -2. Both didn’t have any points for game 6 and 7.

Your arguments are FAR from “basic”

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

We are still yapping in here?

Obvious to anybody who has eyes.

McDavid clears sid easily already, and he's only 27 , crazy eh? Imagine in 5 years....so many words and write ups are being wasted in here , you hate to see it

 

[Golden_Jet]

I love how you keep avoiding the points where you keep claiming you didn’t say something, only to be confronted with your ridiculous statements….and then you deflect

That’s the whole schtick, and poster wonders why I stopped responding,
It’s never ending, avoid the points, deny, deny, and constant deflection.
Just stop responding then, poster will give up in a couple of days, is what I learned.

 

[Video Nasty]

We are still yapping in here?

Obvious to anybody who has eyes.

McDavid clears sid easily already, and he's only 27 , crazy eh? Imagine in 5 years....so many words and write ups are being wasted in here , you hate to see it

The crazy thing is that there will still be stragglers half a decade from now, trying to convince us that the player with 4+ Harts, 5+ Lindsays, and 7+ Art Rosses, with probably a pair of Cups and maybe even 3 Conn Smythes, 1600 points in barely more than 1000 games, and perhaps even 200 playoff points in like 50-60 fewer games, isn’t the better player.

 

[PainForShane]

you talk as if games 3-4 for Edmonton weren’t as equallly important…

McDavid had 6 points between games 3-4, Crosby, had 3. McDavid had 2 goals and 2 assists in a 5-3 game 5 win. Crosby had 0 points in game 5 and was a -2. Both didn’t have any points for game 6 and 7.

Your arguments are FAR from “basic”

Nah man.

I talk as if games 4 and 5 in the Edm series aren't as important (not games 3 & 4 as you incorrectly summarized). Because Florida was already up 3-0 going into game four so the outcome of the series was already basically decided. When Edm got close in the series (ie 3-2), McD's offense dried up. The argument is a basic argument.

Re: gm 3 (in the Edm series), I don't think scoring two points in the third period (when the team was already down 4-1 going into the third) is all that relevant. This is also a basic argument.

Re: Pittsburgh series in 2009, I absolutely think games 3-4 were important. Because the outcome of the series was in doubt at the time of Crosby's offensive contribution, despite Pittsburgh being down 2-0 in the series. In hindsight, this argument ended up especially valid because Pittsburgh did end up winning the series despite losing the first two games. This too is a basic argument.

So, a few basic arguments here one after another.

***

I think you are one of very few that would describe these arguments are "FAR from basic." Actually this particular argument is very basic, almost embarrassingly so. It should not have to be repeated multiple times over multiple posts but that is what you have asked for.

Imo the fact you've asked for clarification / insisted that this is not a basic argument says more about your ability to understand an argument than anything else. This particular argument truly is basic and not intended to be difficult to follow or understand.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Nah man.

I talk as if games 4 and 5 in the Edm series aren't as important (not games 3 & 4 as you incorrectly summarized). Because Florida was already up 3-0 going into game four so the outcome of the series was already basically decided. When Edm got close in the series (ie 3-2), McD's offense dried up. The argument is a basic argument.

Re: gm 3 (in the Edm series), I don't think scoring two points in the third period (when the team was already down 4-1 going into the third) is all that relevant. This is also a basic argument.

Re: Pittsburgh series in 2009, I absolutely think games 3-4 were important. Because the outcome of the series was in doubt at the time of Crosby's offensive contribution, despite Pittsburgh being down 2-0 in the series. In hindsight, this argument ended up especially valid because Pittsburgh did end up winning the series despite losing the first two games. This too is a basic argument.

So, a few basic arguments here one after another.

***

I think you are one of very few that would describe these arguments are "FAR from basic." Actually this particular argument is very basic, almost embarrassingly so. It should not have to be repeated multiple times over multiple posts but that is what you have asked for.

Imo the fact you've asked for clarification / insisted that this is not a basic argument says more about your ability to understand an argument than anything else. This particular argument truly is basic and not intended to be difficult to follow or understand.

So many words yet nothing really to say…

I stopped reading after you said
“I talk as if games 4 and 5 in the Edm series aren't as important (not games 3 & 4 as you incorrectly summarized). Because Florida was already up 3-0 going into game four so the outcome of the series was already basically decided.”

Mainly due to the ridiculousness of your logic.

Your logic:
3 points in 7 games=meaningful
11 points in 7 games=meaningless

That basically sums up your limited way of thinking.

 

[PainForShane]

Mainly due to the ridiculousness of your logic.

Your logic:
3 points in 7 games=meaningful
11 points in 7 games=meaningless

That basically sums up your limited way of thinking.

No, that's not my logic.

 

[bleedgreen]

I just think about how so many people truly hated Crosby in the first half of his career. They just refused to give him the respect, even after he had started earning it. That’s the only explanation I see for what’s going on here. Ten years from now I doubt this is a conversation, and I really respect Crosby. I’ve been watching since Gretzky days and as good as Crosby has been the only person I’ve ever seen who belongs in the Gretzky/Mario conversation is Mcdavid. He’s the best player I’ve seen since Mario. I don’t particularly like him, but there’s no doubt about it when I watch him play.

 

[GreatGonzo]

No, that's not my logic.

“Put another way, pretending Crosby underperformed is legitimate nonsense, especially when McDavid actually DID underperform in arguably every meaningful game in this year's SCF.”



“Crosbys 3 points between games 3 and 4: meaningful….”
“McDavids points between games 4 and 5
Meaningless…”

 

[PainForShane]

“Put another way, pretending Crosby underperformed is legitimate nonsense, especially when McDavid actually DID underperform in arguably every meaningful game in this year's SCF.”



“Crosbys 3 points between games 3 and 4: meaningful….”
“McDavids points between games 4 and 5
Meaningless…”

Yes. And here you are once again completely missing the point. Once again, learn how to read

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yes. And here you are once again completely missing the point. Once again, learn how to read

“That wasn’t my point!”

*quotes post where you said that exact point*

“LEARN TO READ!!”

sounds like you simply can’t handle the truth.

You had no point, you simply can’t even argue your own goofy points.

 

[PainForShane]

“That wasn’t my point!”

*quotes post where you said that exact point*

“LEARN TO READ!!”

sounds like you simply can’t handle the truth.

You had no point, you simply can’t even argue your own goofy points.

No, that's not the point I made.

Let's try this a different way.

I said "McDavid actually DID underperform in arguably every meaningful game in this year's SCF.” I meant what I said.

What do you think I was referring to when I said, "meaningful game"?

This is not a trick question.