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

[Video Nasty]

But this thread claims crosby is the better player because of more cups, so messier is the best right...

Is prime Crosby better than the LA version of Gretzky who couldn’t win a cup? Either Crosby is better than LA Gretz, or this line of reasoning is faulty.

Nope. Crosby at his best is also a tier below non-Edmonton Gretzky.

 

[dukeofjive]

View attachment 899144


Nope. Crosby at his best is also a tier below non-Edmonton Gretzky.

Im guessing something got lost in translating, cause i have no ideal if you have a point here.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

For me its not a matter of tearing down Crosby at all. He is a generational talent and I have no issue if people think he is at the same level or even better than McDavid at this point. One could easily argue for example that Crosby longevity puts him ahead of McDavid until McDavid shows he can sustain his level of play well into the future. My concern is more with the core argument in favour of Crosby being leadership, his "two-way play", or the fact that Crosby is a "winner".

Crosby IS a “winner”, though.

He’s proved it at every level. He won, won again and sometimes won multiple times.

Every competitive team he’s been on has touched the glory at some point. People need to stop trying to convince themselves that it’s a coincidence, especially after that “winner aura“ has been brought up by multiples teammates/former teammates, executives, medias, etc. You know, those who literally watch him master his craft, day after day.

It’s not a knock on McDavid, he just doesn’t have the same track record as Crosby. It doesn’t mean he’s not as great of a leader or whatever, but he’s won less than Sid at every single level he has played competitively, it’s just a fact.

It is definitely a plus for Crosby, as much as you’d like to argue otherwise.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Crosby IS a “winner”, though.

He’s proved it at every level. He won, won again and sometimes won multiple times.

Every competitive team he’s been on has touched the glory at some point. People need to stop trying to convince themselves that it’s a coincidence, especially after that “winner aura“ has been brought up by multiples teammates/former teammates, executives, medias, etc. You know, those who literally watch him master his craft, day after day.

It’s not a knock on McDavid, he just doesn’t have the same track record as Crosby. It doesn’t mean he’s not as great of a leader or whatever, but he’s won less than Sid at every single level he has played competitively, it’s just a fact.

It is definitely a plus for Crosby, as much as you’d like to argue otherwise.

And there’s that strawman

News flash: when someone argues that someone is better because he’s more of a “winner”, that’s nothing but an aura.

Are you referring to TEAM trophies or individual ones?

 

[DitchMarner]

Sure, Crosby is a winner. A lot of guys are. Yzerman is a winner. Trottier is a winner. Messier is a winner.

I don't see what the point of repeatedly bringing that up in a comparison thread is unless you want to imply the player he's being compared to is a loser. I can see why people would be bothered by that.

 

[Crow]

still love that hockey is the only sport known to mankind that championships are just team awards lmao.

Baseball is very similar. Mike trout hasn’t won shit but is almost unanimously regarded as the best of his generation

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Baseball is very similar. Mike trout hasn’t won shit but is almost unanimously regarded as the best of his generation

I think jeter would still be above him no? I havent followed Baseball in a couple of years but I do remember from a fantasy perspective he hasnt been 1st overall for a number of years now

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Sure, Crosby is a winner. A lot of guys are. Yzerman is a winner. Trottier is a winner. Messier is a winner.

I don't see what the point of repeatedly bringing that up in a comparison thread is unless you want to imply the player he's being compared to is a loser. I can see why people would be bothered by that.

Personally, when I compare the greatness of 2 players, I think about which player would I rather have on my team. That should be viewed as a fair assessment.

When 2 players are as close as McDavid and Crosby, in terms of overall dominance, you can use the “winner card” to propel one over the other. That “winner card” simply has a different value for everybody, hence why the argument.

If I want to win, I’ll pick Crosby, as proven by his track record. It’s really as simple as that. I’ll take my chances with a player (whose caliber is similar to the other) who’s won on EVERY competitive team he’s been on, at least once.

That’s literally the ultimate goal of playing the game.

 

[norrisnick]

I think jeter would still be above him no? I havent followed Baseball in a couple of years but I do remember from a fantasy perspective he hasnt been 1st overall for a number of years now

Jeter's been retired for 10 years...

 

[Golden_Jet]

I think jeter would still be above him no? I havent followed Baseball in a couple of years but I do remember from a fantasy perspective he hasnt been 1st overall for a number of years now

Jeter’s 17 years older, that seems like a different generation.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Personally, when I think about which player is greater, I think about which player would I rather have on my team. That should be viewed as a fair assessment.

When 2 players are as close as McDavid and Crosby, in terms of overall dominance, you can use the “winner card” to propel one over the other. That “winner card” simply has a different value for everybody, hence why the argument.

If I want to win, I’ll pick Crosby, as proven by his track record. It’s really as simple as that. I’ll take my chances with a player (whose caliber is similar to the other) who’s won on EVERY competitive team he’s been on, at least once.

That’s literally the ultimate goal of playing the game.

There is a huge hole in this logic though - at least from where I sit.

By giving the "edge" to Crosby because he has won the cup, and has won at every level, you are implying that he provides or provided something to his team that helps them win over McDavid that can't be quantified. Something intangible.

But you wouldn't say, as an objective hockey person, that Jack Eichel, Brayden Point or Steven Stamkos, Ryan O'Reilly, Nick Backstrom, Jonathan Toews, Anze Kopitar or David Krejci or a young Patrice Bergeron are more effective players when it comes to winning the cup than Connor McDavid would you?

Would you say that Scott Neidermayer was a better overall defenseman than Ray Bourque because Bourque never won as many times or in as many places as Neidermayer? Probably not right?

You would probably say that Neidermayer simply benefitted from being on more championship caliber teams than Bobby Orr did, not that Neidermayer was the superior player to Orr, yes?

So why would you selectively use this logic when it comes to Crosby vs Mcdavid?

 

[DitchMarner]

Personally, when I think about which player is greater, I think about which player would I rather have on my team. That should be viewed as a fair assessment.

When 2 players are as close as McDavid and Crosby, in terms of overall dominance, you can use the “winner card” to propel one over the other. That “winner card” simply has a different value for everybody, hence why the argument.

If I want to win, I’ll pick Crosby, as proven by his track record. It’s really as simple as that. I’ll take my chances with a player (whose caliber is similar to the other) who’s won on EVERY competitive team he’s been on, at least once.

That’s literally the ultimate goal of playing the game.

If that's your criteria, you're entitled to it.

But hockey isn't an individual sport like tennis or golf. Players don't win Championships on their own. There are a lot of variables. Based on my assessment, I think you can definitely win with McDavid as well. If you feel comfortable choosing Crosby based on track record, that's fine. But people have their own reasons for preferring one player to another.

 

[DitchMarner]

There is a huge hole in this logic though - at least from where I sit.

By giving the "edge" to Crosby because he has won the cup, and has won at every level, you are implying that he provides or provided something to his team that helps them win over McDavid that can't be quantified. Something intangible.

But you wouldn't say, as an objective hockey person, that Jack Eichel, Brayden Point or Steven Stamkos, Ryan O'Reilly, Nick Backstrom, Jonathan Toews, Anze Kopitar or David Krejci or a young Patrice Bergeron are more effective players when it comes to winning the cup than Connor McDavid would you?

Would you say that Scott Neidermayer was a better overall defenseman than Ray Bourque because Bourque never won as many times or in as many places as Neidermayer? Probably not right?

You would probably say that Neidermayer simply benefitted from being on more championship caliber teams than Bobby Orr did, not that Neidermayer was the superior player to Orr, yes?

So why would you selectively use this logic when it comes to Crosby vs Mcdavid?

I think his reason is that Crosby is closer to McDavid than guys like Stamkos and Eichel are.

But if McDavid really is at least as good, he should be equally likely to help you win if you're building a team.

From games and data I've seen, I wouldn't be less confident of being able to win with McDavid. But some people really value track records.

 

[Crow]

Jeter wasnt even the best shortstop of his generation let alone baseball player. Arod was miles better.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

View attachment 899144


Nope. Crosby at his best is also a tier below non-Edmonton Gretzky.

Non-Edmonton Gretzky who was a minus at even strength?

 

[LTIR]

Not a tier above but better

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Crosby IS a “winner”, though.

He’s proved it at every level. He won, won again and sometimes won multiple times.

Every competitive team he’s been on has touched the glory at some point. People need to stop trying to convince themselves that it’s a coincidence, especially after that “winner aura“ has been brought up by multiples teammates/former teammates, executives, medias, etc. You know, those who literally watch him master his craft, day after day.

It’s not a knock on McDavid, he just doesn’t have the same track record as Crosby. It doesn’t mean he’s not as great of a leader or whatever, but he’s won less than Sid at every single level he has played competitively, it’s just a fact.

It is definitely a plus for Crosby, as much as you’d like to argue otherwise.

It's true that every different team Crosby has been on since he was 9 has won a championship, but I don't think it's magic or a winning aura. It's due to him having an adaptable game where he's able to buy into whatever system and linemates he's given and succeed and help lift the team vs. having the team adapt to his preferred game.

I think jeter would still be above him no? I havent followed Baseball in a couple of years but I do remember from a fantasy perspective he hasnt been 1st overall for a number of years now

Um no. Jeter is one of the most overrated athletes ever.

There is a huge hole in this logic though - at least from where I sit.

By giving the "edge" to Crosby because he has won the cup, and has won at every level, you are implying that he provides or provided something to his team that helps them win over McDavid that can't be quantified. Something intangible.

But you wouldn't say, as an objective hockey person, that Jack Eichel, Brayden Point or Steven Stamkos, Ryan O'Reilly, Nick Backstrom, Jonathan Toews, Anze Kopitar or David Krejci or a young Patrice Bergeron are more effective players when it comes to winning the cup than Connor McDavid would you?

Would you say that Scott Neidermayer was a better overall defenseman than Ray Bourque because Bourque never won as many times or in as many places as Neidermayer? Probably not right?

You would probably say that Neidermayer simply benefitted from being on more championship caliber teams than Bobby Orr did, not that Neidermayer was the superior player to Orr, yes?

So why would you selectively use this logic when it comes to Crosby vs Mcdavid?

Sure it can be quantified. Crosby has been the better player at even strength over their careers despite having worse linemates and not always playing in his preferred system.

 

[GreatGonzo]

It's true that every different team Crosby has been on since he was 9 has won a championship, but I don't think it's magic or a winning aura. It's due to him having an adaptable game where he's able to buy into whatever system and linemates he's given and succeed and help lift the team vs. having the team adapt to his preferred game.


Um no. Jeter is one of the most overrated athletes ever.


Sure it can be quantified. Crosby has been the better player at even strength over their careers despite having worse linemates and not always playing in his preferred system.

Prove it…

 

[Frank Drebin]

I think his reason is that Crosby is closer to McDavid than guys like Stamkos and Eichel are.

But if McDavid really is at least as good, he should be equally likely to help you win if you're building a team.

From games and data I've seen, I wouldn't be less confident of being able to win with McDavid. But some people really value track records.

So the only scenario in the history of hockey that logic would apply to would be this current one?

I can't really think of another.

 

[Video Nasty]

Non-Edmonton Gretzky who was a minus at even strength?

Yeah.

 

[wetcoast]

There is a huge hole in this logic though - at least from where I sit.

By giving the "edge" to Crosby because he has won the cup, and has won at every level, you are implying that he provides or provided something to his team that helps them win over McDavid that can't be quantified. Something intangible.

But you wouldn't say, as an objective hockey person, that Jack Eichel, Brayden Point or Steven Stamkos, Ryan O'Reilly, Nick Backstrom, Jonathan Toews, Anze Kopitar or David Krejci or a young Patrice Bergeron are more effective players when it comes to winning the cup than Connor McDavid would you?

Would you say that Scott Neidermayer was a better overall defenseman than Ray Bourque because Bourque never won as many times or in as many places as Neidermayer? Probably not right?

You would probably say that Neidermayer simply benefitted from being on more championship caliber teams than Bobby Orr did, not that Neidermayer was the superior player to Orr, yes?

So why would you selectively use this logic when it comes to Crosby vs Mcdavid?

I'm really wondering why people bring up players who of course aren't close when the poster said these exact words...

When 2 players are as close as McDavid and Crosby

I don't like absolute SC counting or absolute awards, I'm a Big picture guy and that's the reason I have Crosby ahead of McDavid for now.

Things like peak, length or prime, quality of play both in the beginning and end of careers, everything matters.

Consistency in excellence is what every professional hockey player strives for and Crosby is among the elite of elite in that category season in season out.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I'm really wondering why people bring up players who of course aren't close when the poster said these exact words...



I don't like absolute SC counting or absolute awards, I'm a Big picture guy and that's the reason I have Crosby ahead of McDavid for now.

Things like peak, length or prime, quality of play both in the beginning and end of careers, everything matters.

Consistency in excellence is what every professional hockey player strives for and Crosby is among the elite of elite in that category season in season out.

Ok so now I have to ask:

What makes McDavid and Crosby close ?

McDavid has a bigger gap in art ross wins to Crosby than Crosby does to Toews.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Ok so now I have to ask:

What makes McDavid and Crosby close ?

McDavid has a bigger gap in art ross wins to Crosby than Crosby does to Toews.

Crosby has led the league in ppg more often than McDavid you know...

McDavid has had more fortunate timing of injuries.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Crosby has led the league in ppg more often than McDavid you know...

McDavid has had more fortunate timing of injuries.

They both have lead the league in PPG 5 times. And yes, let’s hold it against McDavid for being healthy

Do you ever fact check your ridiculous comments? Or do you enjoy being wrong?

 

[wetcoast]

Ok so now I have to ask:

What makes McDavid and Crosby close ?

Their offensive impact in their first 9 years isn't all that different when adjusted for era, the counting stats are different due to crosby's injuries but their offense is pretty close.

crosby has 10 more years than him and an excellent individual regular season and playoff resume, after all I'm an everything type of guy.

McDavid has a bigger gap in art ross wins to Crosby than Crosby does to Toews.

See this is exactly the type of absolutist SC/Trophy counting that distorts things that I was talking about.

I don't play that game when when others counter with the captain of 3 SC teams ect.....then all of a sudden they are the problem.

Some people are just hypocrites in their use of evaluation and metrics.