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

[Golden_Jet]

i’d recheck your numbers. I don’t think Malkin played with Crosby hardly at all 5v5 unless after a power play or in end-of-game situations. Your list also includes defensemen, which while useful information (Letang could drive offense while Nurse is a bit more stay-at-home), doesn’t prove or disprove my point that Crosby hasn’t had great linemates.

Poster posts data
Then you ask how about 5 on 5
Posters does your research
Then better recheck numbers you say

instead of asking everyone to do your work, why don’t you research it and fast check it, if you have an issue.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Poster posts data
Then how about 5 on 5
Posters does your research
Then better recheck numbers

instead of asking everyone to do your work, why don’t you research it.

Sorry, on my phone but I was doing the research while you posted that.

Apologize for the links but I’m not on my computer and I want to give some hits to the website I pulled the information from:


2010-11 season Sidney Crosby Linemates
2009-10 season Sidney Crosby Linemates
2008-09 season Sidney Crosby Linemates

Evgeni Malkin is certainly on the list, but he’s not Crosby’s usual guys.

 

[Xspyrit]

Beliveau and Crosby both were top 3 in PPG 9 times. I'm going to assume that none of the "born winner" crowd have Beliveau ahead of Crosby, correct?

Beliveau >>> Crosby

At least since Beliveau has won 10 Cups., That's what I have learned reading this thread

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Beliveau >>> Crosby

At least since Beliveau has won 10 Cups., That's what I have learned reading this thread

Yeah, but he was just a passenger for six of them.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Sorry, on my phone but I was doing the research while you posted that.

Apologize for the links but I’m not on my computer and I want to give some hits to the website I pulled the information from:


2010-11 season Sidney Crosby Linemates
2009-10 season Sidney Crosby Linemates
2008-09 season Sidney Crosby Linemates

Evgeni Malkin is certainly on the list, but he’s not Crosby’s usual guys.

Not the same comparison
3 separate seasons vs all 3 together
Other poster showed players ranking 1-10,
Your showing lines, not most frequent players by time.

Wait until you get to your computer then, to compare them
As you haven’t disproved what poster showed.

I only use my phone for posting and researching.

 

[Svencouver]

Beliveau and Crosby both were top 3 in PPG 9 times. I'm going to assume that none of the "born winner" crowd have Beliveau ahead of Crosby, correct?

There is certainly an argument for Beliveau over Crosby and that's part of it. They're very close in all time ranking. Still, I think most people making this argument in favor of Crosby would say that the context in which he won those cups is more modern and comparable to McDavid's than it is to the Dynasty Habs. The goal of these discussions should be to take into account the entire context of these players careers and their playing environment. Boiling that all down to any kind of reductive position for the sake of argument ad absurdum just isn't productive

 

[norrisnick]

There is certainly an argument for Beliveau over Crosby and that's part of it. They're very close in all time ranking. Still, I think most people making this argument in favor of Crosby would say that the context in which he won those cups is more modern and comparable to McDavid's than it is to the Dynasty Habs. The goal of these discussions should be to take into account the entire context of these players careers and their playing environment. Boiling that all down to any kind of reductive position for the sake of argument ad absurdum just isn't productive

Right, so "McDavid doesn't have a cup so he shouldn't be ranked with winners" is a bad position to take?

 

[Svencouver]

And if that "whatever we consider responsible" has nothing to do with either player why would that bridge any gap?

Well I'm arguing that Sidney Crosby the player did have something to do with that.

Right, so "McDavid doesn't have a cup so he shouldn't be ranked with winners" is a bad position to take?

That's not an argument I would make. I think McDavid has done more than enough to be ranked close to top 10 all time already with his unfinished career, but when you are comparing players within that top 10 range, championships have to be a distinguishing factor. It's not about being "a winner" in some abstract sense, it's about having done it.

 

[norrisnick]

Well I'm arguing that Sidney Crosby the player did have something to do with that.


That's not an argument I would make. I think McDavid has done more than enough to be ranked close to top 10 all time already with his unfinished career, but when you are comparing players within that top 10 range, championships have to be a distinguishing factor. It's not about being "a winner" in some abstract sense, it's about having done it.

And I'm arguing that Sidney Crosby the player, had no more to do with Talbot scoring two goals in game 7 than McDavid had to do with Draisaitl and co. not showing up at all.

They absolutely do not need to be a distinguishing factor. Too much is at play with everyone else on both teams to hang it all on the shoulders of one guy and then hold it against him for his team not being able to get it done.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Right, so "McDavid doesn't have a cup so he shouldn't be ranked with winners" is a bad position to take?

As the league grows in size it becomes more and more difficult to win a championship; Beliveau had six teams in the league for a majority of his career, McDavid started in a 30 team league that has grown to 32 and may be as high as 36 by the time he retires. It would be foolish to compare players from different eras based upon number of championships.

However, I do think that McDavid doesn’t eclipse Crosby or Ovechkin in the minds of most fans without his name on the Cup.

If we based our asessment on just raw individual talent and the eye test, McDavid outranks everyone, including Gretzky. His stats aren’t as impressive, but consider:

1. Gretzky played with multiple Hall of Fame players.
2. He entered the league during massive expansion, diluting the talent in the league, especially at….
3. Goalie. A Vezina candidate in 1982 magically transformed to 2024 with the same equipment would be pulled by the second period. Training, technique, and equipment is 100x better today than just 40 years ago.

McDavid is faster, stronger, and has a hockey IQ that could rival Gretzky or Lemieux. He just has more defense and goaltending in his way.

However, hockey is a team sport, and if your team doesn’t win, fairly or unfairly your career just doesn’t seem as special.

 

[wetcoast]

Better re-read the chart, McDavid ahead,
Your reading how many months player has played, not how many times lead, oof, and like you said, in half the time for McDavid.

Now what do think of the chart?

okay fair enough now that makes sense, my bad.

 

[wetcoast]

It’s the fact that you love going with faulty stats instead of actual raw totals and achievements. that’s why your little statement was funny.

Stat/trophy counting is not the way to do it…oh, but let’s use stats that don’t exist….

Thank you for making my point about the strawman as the adjusted stats and rate is what I was referring to and the orginal chart gave it a 82 game rate which even if off by 5% is an extremely accurate estimate but absolute counters except for team accomplishments is your MO right?

I could at least respect absolute counting if it were for all trophies like the guy who mentioned Lafelur/Dionne upthread he is consistent in trophy counting.

top 5 finals scorers for the Pens
1. Malkin: 7-2-6-8
2. Talbot: 7-4-2-6
3. Letang: 7-1-3-4
4. Kennedy: 7-2-1-3
5. Staal: 7-2-1-3

Top 5 finals scorers for the Oilers
1. McDavid: 7-3-8-11
2. Foegele: 7-2-3-5
3. Bouchard: 7-0-5-5
4. Hyman: 7-2-2-4
5. Janmark: 7-2-2-4

 

[wetcoast]

No, the chart is telling us what we all should know. McDavid has achieved the same or more than Crosby in less than half a career of data between the two. Should McDavid play his 18-20 seasons, it’s going to get ugly and real fast.

It's a chart that rewards full seasons and basically if any player misses any time they obviously go down on that chart right?

What about the chart showing the same rate over their first 9 seasons?

How about 19 seasons of PPG+, something unrivaled in NHL history?

All of a sudden my guess is that only charts you like are worthy here....right?

That's why using selective metrics and then downplaying ones you don't like is a bad look.

It's better to look at the whole picture in these matters.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Apparently not. Whats so obvious to some in here is completely lost on others lol

It’s not lost

They are just unwilling to admit the truth

They know it’s inevitable

They are just hanging on to the final shred that they can

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Forget the statistics for a second, and just use your eyes and look at each player.

Crosby is probably the best player of all-time at keeping possession of the puck down low, using his body as a shield and incredible leg strength to keep opposing players off-balance. He has insane hand-eye coordination, he makes unexpected beautiful passes on the tape to teammates, and he exemplifies team leadership.

McDavid is fast. He acceleration is best I’ve seen out of any player, he just takes possession of the puck and skates around players as ic they were pylons. He has similar skating skills as Bobbby Orr, seemingly a grown man playing among boys on skates. He has great passes and is unstoppable on the power play.

Two different players with two different yet exciting skill sets. If you value consistency, team success and a sort of low-key domination, you like Crosby. If you value raw speed, raw talent and the excitement of seeing something you likely won’t see for a long time, you like McDavid

Both bring a lot to the table, I see no reason to put them in different tiers unless McDavid goes crazy in the next few years or does something like break Gretzky’s (or Ovechkin’s) goal-scoring mark.

 

[wetcoast]

Of course scoring is higher. That is a provable fact. However, what is also true is that there are big issues with all of the "adjusted for era" models. These are particularly problematic when being applied to outliers like some of the generational players. This is especially true in the playoffs where because of smaller sample sizes individual teams and even individual players can significantly skew year by year comparisons.

For example, here is an example of how one can distort year by year adjustments by looking to simplistically at rates from given years:

One thing that is seldom mentioned in this thread in using the higher scoring rates argument is the significant in reduction of pp opportunities over the last 5 years vs say the first 5 in Crosby's career. In the 9 year period from 2005-2006 through 2013-2014 the Penquins PPOpp/gm ranged from a low of 3.39 to a high of 6.04 with a median of 3.98. In the 9 years McDavid has been an Oiler the Oilers PPOpp/gm has ranged from a low of 2.56 to a high of 3.35 and a median of 2.89. The difference between the medians is 1.09 pp/gm. Over an 82 game period that is 89 pp opportunities per year. When looking at very basic "adjustments" how much noise does this throw into the math?

In the most extreme case take McDavid's 2022-23 year as compared with Pittsburgh in 2005-06. The Oilers had 3.35 PPOpp/game vs the 6.04 PPOpp/gm. If the Oiler had 6.04 pp's per game they would have had 221 more pp's. At a 32.4% success rate that would be another 72 goals. Since McDavid is in on roughly 80% of the Oilers that is roughly 58 more points on top of his 153 he put up. That takes him over the 200 point threshold using this "adjustment". Of course scoring per game was 3% higher in 2022-23 than it was in 2005-06 so maybe we can reduce the McDavid number by about 6 goals taking him back to about 205 points.

Do you have any issues with this argument? While I am sure you do, if not, you should because there are lots of problems making claims like these. In reality it is extremely difficult to actually quantify how differences in something like pp rates might impact a particular individual since there are so many variables at play. But simple models that instead compare total scoring rates alone from year to year, which is pretty much what we are seeing in this thread, may not produce such obvious anomalies, that does not in itself mean that they are more accurate in capturing the impact of era changes. In fact, for a guy like McDavid who is so deadly on the pp, things like rates of pp opportunities may in fact have a very significant individual impact that is almost completely dampened when the simpler adjustment is used. For him more pp's may dwarf the significance of higher overall G/gm numbers. Where as for a guy who never sees pp time, the impact of increase pp opportunities would be potentially negative.

Sure PPO is something to consider but adjusted stats does some adjustment for that already in that scoring rates weren't stupidly higher by the difference in PPO and even without the PPO some of those goals would have been scored 5 0n 5.

Also what about 3 on 3 scoring?

I guess in a nutshell the overall scoring rate differences are probably more important than dissecting this or that rate overall even if they have some impact.

Like has been pointed out in this thread Crosby has had an excellent offensive career and even guys taking him not to be on a lower tier than McDavid will acknowledge this for the most part and have done so.

Getting deeper into the weeds just strays us from the central question the OP made which is

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

I think the answer to that question is clearly no until McDavid does more and creates separation.

 

[wetcoast]

Lets look at Crosby's and McDavid's most common all situation teammates for the periods between the 3rd and 5th years:

Crosby 2007-2008 to 2009-2010

Top 4:

Malkin 1936 minutes (59.11%)
Gonchar 1455 minutes (44.4%)
Letang 1386 minutes (42.3%)
Guerin 1182 minutes. (36.1%)

The next 6 forwards
Dupuis 883 minutes(27.0%)
Kunitz 777 minutes (23.7)
Sykora 612 minutes (18.7%)
Satan 479 minutes (14.6%)
Fedotenko 476 minutes (14.5%)
Malone 431 minutes (13.25)

Out of 3275 minutes in total

McDavid 2017-18 to 20

Top 4:

Draisaitl 2823 minutes (58.2%)
Nurse 2044 minutes (42.1%)
Klefbom 1833 minutes (37.7%)
Larsson 1316 (27.1%)

Next 6 forwards:
Nugent-Hopkins 1274 minutes (26.3%)
Kassian 1190 minutes (24.5%)
Lucic 740 minutes (15.2%)
Chiasson 673 minutes (13.9%)
Maroon 572 minutes (11.8%)
Rattie 450 minutes (9.3%)

Out of 4853 minutes

Perhaps you could do the same for 5 on 5 as well now?

Also why did you just pick years 3-5 here, just seems wierd to mention all of the players when the point you highlighted was about Crosby's wingers?

 

[Video Nasty]

It's a chart that rewards full seasons and basically if any player misses any time they obviously go down on that chart right?

What about the chart showing the same rate over their first 9 seasons?

How about 19 seasons of PPG+, something unrivaled in NHL history?

All of a sudden my guess is that only charts you like are worthy here....right?

That's why using selective metrics and then downplaying ones you don't like is a bad look.

It's better to look at the whole picture in these matters.

The chart I think you’re referring to is bogus. This one is talking about how many times one player did something versus another, and the other is a chart of made up adjusted statistics to try and make these players appear closer than what’s been displayed in reality.

Missing time worked out great for Crosby in your eyes. You can use sample sizes that he never came close to replicating and project out multiple 140+ point seasons to your heart’s content as if he actually did or was ever going to do them.

The whole picture, my friend, is that Crosby is being told to bite the curb right now because McDavid’s foot is about to come down.

 

[wetcoast]

Beliveau >>> Crosby

At least since Beliveau has won 10 Cups., That's what I have learned reading this thread

Well then you must have Jean ahead of Gretzky, Mario ect as well then right or are you still learning?

Yeah, but he was just a passenger for six of them.

Well that's not exactly true although in 58-59 the Habs won the SC with Jean playing in only 3 games.

Everyone can agree that Jean had better linemates and teammates than Crosby and McDavid...well at least reasonable people can do so.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Well that's not exactly true although in 58-59 the Habs won the SC with Jean playing in only 3 games.

Everyone can agree that Jean had better linemates and teammates than Crosby and McDavid...well at least reasonable people can do so.

My post was all sarcasm, just a reflection of a typical HFBoards uninformed cliché, lol. I should know because I’ve posted a ton of them.

 

[wetcoast]

Not the same comparison
3 separate seasons vs all 3 together
Other poster showed players ranking 1-10,
Your showing lines, not most frequent players by time.

Wait until you get to your computer then, to compare them
As you haven’t disproved what poster showed.

I only use my phone for posting and researching.

You should go back and read what the poster originally said though as it was this,

if we compare peak McDavid with peak Crosby, it’s so close. Obviously post-season success favors Crosby, and it’s hard to rack up assist numbers playing with some second-tier wingers for his entire career, so the stats favor McDavid but not as much as the pure numbers would suggest. Injuries also favor McDavid as Crosby has so many “what if” seasons after his first Cup.

The replying poster then went on to mention all players in all situations for a specific 3 year time period.

At least the Rifle was fair comment later in the thread that Crosby had Jake Guentzel
later so it's wasn't an entire career.

It's not a controversial thing to say that crosby has had worse wingers 5 on 5 for his career on average than McDavid is it?

 

[norrisnick]

Well then you must have Jean ahead of Gretzky, Mario ect as well then right or are you still learning?

You are a reasonably smart guy.

Why do you think Believeau's cup count was brought up? If you don't want Jean's Cups smacking Sid upside the face, maybe don't turn every player debate into a Cup counting contest...

And the latter you, isn't a you you, but a you for the entire "But Crosby has cups" crowd. I'm not saying you brought up the Cups initially.

 

[wetcoast]

The chart I think you’re referring to is bogus. This one is talking about how many times one player did something versus another, and the other is a chart of made up adjusted statistics to try and make these players appear closer than what’s been displayed in reality.

So one chart that rewards healthy players who are close in offensive dominance over a very large number of games is gold plated and the other chart that compensates for different scoring eras and injury is bogus?

That's the problem with absolutism here.

Missing time worked out great for Crosby in your eyes. You can use sample sizes that he never came close to replicating and project out multiple 140+ point seasons to your heart’s content as if he actually did or was ever going to do them.

The number 140 doesn't mean anything in and of itself though context is needed.

Aslo BTW McDavid has crossed 140 a single time for those that are so intent on counting.

Or do you really want to go there?

The whole picture, my friend, is that Crosby is being told to bite the curb right now because McDavid’s foot is about to come down.

Sure that will probably happen at some point but given you first 2 paragraphs in this post to predict something that hasn't happened is a tad hypocritical don't you think?

 

[wetcoast]

You are a reasonably smart guy.

Why do you think Believeau's cup count was brought up? If you don't want Jean's Cups smacking Sid upside the face, maybe don't turn every player debate into a Cup counting contest...

And the latter you, isn't a you you, but a you for the entire "But Crosby has cups" crowd. I'm not saying you brought up the Cups initially.

I have repeatedly said that I'm not a SC counter, nor a strict trophy counter and that McDavid could potentially pass crosby all time even without a SC so perhaps your comments are misplaced here.

The reason that a SC for McDavid isn't necessary is because I do this weird thing of putting players in context to their surroundings, eras, team makeup, injuries, peaks, valley ect.

I also apply the same lens as equally as possible to all players not just situational charts that I like and call ones I don't prefer as much bogus or some such BS.

There was also a couple of questions I asked you quite a while ago in this thread that you avoided answering but honestly I don't even want to waste my time brining them up again as your non answer was an answer to anyone paying attention.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

If you don't want Jean's Cups smacking Sid upside the face, maybe don't turn every player debate into a Cup counting.

I think counting Cups is silly considering how much the league has expanded since the days of Beliveau and Richard.

However, I do think that if you want to be considered legendary as opposed to very good you need your name on the Cup.

Marcel Dionne would be listed a LOT higher on these “tiers” lists if he could have won a Cup, I fear McDavid might end up with the same fate.