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

[norrisnick]

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.

I'm pretty sure I answered any questions explicitly directed at me. Page 96, if you want to roll back. Answers are there.

My comments aren't misplaced. Don't be surprised if Beliveau is brought up when one side of a debate loves to dangle cup wins around. You pointing out the absurdity of the logical application thereof kind of nullifies the original claims? That's exactly why Beliveau is mentioned. Because his cups, as well as Sid's cups, don't mean shit when comparing individual players. And if they do? Well, then Beliveau trumps Crosby and no one on that side seems to want to make that claim.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

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.

You are literally ignoring every argument that has been made by myself and Svencouver concerning the winning track record that Crosby has. You make comparisons that make no sense, to the point where it’s hard to take you seriously anymore.

At this point, it’s a “you” problem if you can’t understand the argument or the logic behind it.

It’s easy to see who has played sports on competitive teams and who didn’t, just by arguing with the stats nerds who don’t think intangibles are also an important part of the game.

 

[norrisnick]

You are literally ignoring every argument that has been made by myself and Svencouver concerning the winning track record that Crosby has. You make comparisons that make no sense, to the point where it’s hard to take you seriously anymore.

At this point, it’s a “you” problem if you can’t understand the argument or the logic behind it.

It’s easy to see who has played sports on competitive teams and who didn’t, just by arguing with the stats nerds who don’t think intangibles are also an important part in the game.

You aren't making any arguments. You are simply saying, Crosby has won, therefore he's a winner. It's tautological drivel.

It was addressed half a thread ago when I pointed out that Yzerman was perceived as a lousy leader no team could win with. Then he won and magically became the shining beacon of winning. When nothing about his leadership or approach to what he brought to the locker room, bench, and ice changed. He always busted his ass and did what the coaches asked of him. The team around him got better and presto... he's a great leader.

It's completely meaningless to try and discuss...

It's no different than pointing out that Crosby hasn't won anything since 2017. Is he suddenly not a winner? The response will be, the team/coaching around him isn't good enough. How is that any different than any other player?

 

[Johnny Rifle]

It was addressed half a thread ago when I pointed out that Yzerman was perceived as a lousy leader no team could win with. Then he won and magically became the shining beacon of winning. When nothing about his leadership or approach to what he brought to the locker room, bench, and ice changed. He always busted his ass and did what the coaches asked of him. The team around him got better and presto... he's a great leader.

It's completely meaningless to try and discuss..

The problem with that anecdote is that perception has little to do with reality. A great leader definitely makes a difference when it comes to team success. Sometimes it’s a player, sometimes it’s a coach, but if you believe in a leader enough to want to give more it will lead to team success.

That’s not to say that you don’t need great players, you certainly do. A better example would be the late 80s Chicago Bulls. Phil Jackson made a living bringing together talent and getting them to work towards a championships. Great leadership doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s considerably difficult to be successful without it.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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

Off topic, but I looked into this a few years ago.

My conclusion was, of the ten Stanley Cups that Beliveau won, he was clearly the best player on the Habs twice; he was a major contributor (2nd or 3rd on his team) twice more; he was a solid contributor (4th to 6th) on four of them; and he was injured for two of them.

 

[norrisnick]

The problem with that anecdote is that perception has little to do with reality. A great leader definitely makes a difference when it comes to team success. Sometimes it’s a player, sometimes it’s a coach, but if you believe in a leader enough to want to give more it will lead to team success.

That’s not to say that you don’t need great players, you certainly do. A better example would be the late 80s Chicago Bulls. Phil Jackson made a living bringing together talent and getting them to work towards a championships. Great leadership doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s considerably difficult to be successful without it.

Which brings us full circle to why leadership was inserted into this thread in the first place. You see why it's a specious argument yet?

 

[GreatGonzo]

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.

It’s as simple as you NEED pace and adjusted stats to make an argument….all while claiming that “stat/trophy counting” is meaningless….because that makes a lot of sense. The raw totals don’t help your argument so you go more towards the “predicted” ones. Even thought they are massively flawed.

Yes I posted those numbers to show that when it came to the finals, crosbys “weak teammates” and Malkin had a bigger impact in the finals than Crosby did. Sure, Edmonton may have had “bigger guns” than the ‘09 Pens, but many posters still love to leave out the fact that those same players failed to show up in the finals.

 

[Video Nasty]

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?

The chart shows that McDavid has dominated more in half the time and the number will seemingly only go up. I don’t think I’m holding any of these charts up as gospel. I made a passing comment, but yeah, I prefer the one steeped in reality over the one with staggeringly flawed adjusted stats.

I know what I’m watching when I see McDavid play night and night out. A player who reminds me of Gretzky and Lemieux with his ability to dominate and only comes around every 30-40 years.

If I’m being honest, I’ve been reminded of them more by Malkin in stretches than Crosby ever has.

But sure, hand wave away all of McDavid’s accomplishments because of Crosby’s pace and adjusted stats nonsense.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

You aren't making any arguments. You are simply saying, Crosby has won, therefore he's a winner. It's tautological drivel.

It was addressed half a thread ago when I pointed out that Yzerman was perceived as a lousy leader no team could win with. Then he won and magically became the shining beacon of winning. When nothing about his leadership or approach to what he brought to the locker room, bench, and ice changed. He always busted his ass and did what the coaches asked of him. The team around him got better and presto... he's a great leader.

It's completely meaningless to try and discuss...

It's no different than pointing out that Crosby hasn't won anything since 2017. Is he suddenly not a winner? The response will be, the team/coaching around him isn't good enough. How is that any different than any other player?

No, the correct response is that he aged.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

The chart shows that McDavid has dominated more in half the time and the number will seemingly only go up. I don’t think I’m holding any of these charts up as gospel. I made a passing comment, but yeah, I prefer the one steeped in reality over the one with staggeringly flawed adjusted stats.

I know what I’m watching when I see McDavid play night and night out. A player who reminds me of Gretzky and Lemieux with his ability to dominate and only comes around every 30-40 years.

If I’m being honest, I’ve been reminded of them more by Malkin in stretches than Crosby ever has.

But sure, hand wave away all of McDavid’s accomplishments because of Crosby’s pace and adjusted stats nonsense.

That's fair if Malkin reminds you more of them because he appears more dominant.

But it also outs you as one of apparently many who seem to underappreciate Crosby because what makes him one of the best ever is his processing of the game. And many people can't comprehend his hockey IQ or why he does what he does on the ice so they instinctively dismiss his ability.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Which brings us full circle to why leadership was inserted into this thread in the first place. You see why it's a specious argument yet?

To be fair, unlike records and statistics, we’ll never really know the extent of a player’s leadership because NHL locker rooms are so guarded. We can guess and infer, but the unvarnished truth takes years to partially trickle down through stories from other players and coaches, if we get it at all.

If I’m being honest, I’ve been reminded of them more by Malkin in stretches than Crosby ever has.

But sure, hand wave away all of McDavid’s accomplishments because of Crosby’s pace and adjusted stats nonsense.

Crosby is low-key dominant, he doesn’t have the speed and flash that McDavid has but he can make plays that are just as difficult but not as apparent to the eye. Hockey IQ is an overused term, but Crosby just seems to make the correct play more often than his contemporaneous.

Just watching him keep puck possession even at his advanced age around the circles and down low is remarkable, he scores on ridiculous deflections and angles, and he still has some of the best hands in the game.

Crosby’s game has aged very well, he still does most of what he did in his early 20s. Willl McDavid be able to do the things he does now when he gets to his late thirties? Only time will tell.

 

[Video Nasty]

That's fair if Malkin reminds you more of them because he appears more dominant.

But it also outs you as one of apparently many who seem to underappreciate Crosby because what makes him one of the best ever is his processing of the game. And many people can't comprehend his hockey IQ or why he does what he does on the ice so they instinctively dismiss his ability.

I already got that from the best ever. Crosby looks like a simpleton in comparison to Gretzky.

Crosby is low-key dominant, he doesn’t have the speed and flash that McDavid has but he can make plays that are just as difficult but not as apparent to the eye. Hockey IQ is an overused term, but Crosby just seems to make the correct play more often than his contemporaneous.

Just watching him keep puck possession even at his advanced age around the circles and down low is remarkable, he scores on ridiculous deflections and angles, and he still has some of the best hands in the game.

Crosby’s game has aged very well, he still does most of what he did in his early 20s. Willl McDavid be able to do the things he does now when he gets to his late thirties? Only time will tell.

See above.

 

[Frank Drebin]

“Low key dominant” I’ll add that to the buzzwords that I’ve picked up in this thread

 

[Johnny Rifle]

I already got that from the best ever. Crosby looks like a simpleton in comparison to Gretzky.

I think the simpletons were the players in the early 80s that Gretzky victimized routinely.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I already got that from the best ever. Crosby looks like a simpleton in comparison to Gretzky.



See above.

Gretzky was a smarter player with the puck but you're doing a great job making sure no one takes your opinion seriously

 

[Frank Drebin]

I wonder what changed in Crosbys leadership style since 2017?

Has he tried a different leadership method the past 2 seasons where the pens have not qualified for the playoffs?

 

[Johnny Rifle]

I wonder what changed in Crosbys leadership style since 2017?

Has he tried a different leadership method the past 2 seasons where the pens have not qualified for the playoffs?

He must have used the same leadership methods he learned from Connor McDavid in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons when the Oilers missed the playoffs.

In all seriousness, Crosby can only do so much when the coaching staff puts them in a position to lose.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Gretzky was a smarter player with the puck but you're doing a great job making sure no one takes your opinion seriously

You really want to go back on all the terrible takes and statements you tried to pass off as facts?…

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

“Eichel easily out played McDavid..”

“McDavid wouldn't be on a lot of these lists either if his prime was in the early 2010s...”

“He didn't get completely clamped, he created plenty of chances for his linemates against Detroit. You can watch the games on YouTube.”

“Crosby led the league in ppg in 2010-11. And the next year 11-12.”

“He scored a bunch when it didn't matter, a great example why you need to look deeper than the raw numbers. It's hard to think of less meaningful goals than scoring 4 points when your team is already up multiple goals when you're down 3-0 in the series.”

Just some of your terrible/untrue statements…

 

[Frank Drebin]

He must have used the same leadership methods he learned from Connor McDavid in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons when the Oilers missed the playoffs.

In all seriousness, Crosby can only do so much when the coaching staff puts them in a position to lose.

So those cup wins weren't due to his leadership and intangibles? It takes a team to win? Leadership and intangibles are completely USELESS if you don't have a strong supporting cast?

 

[norrisnick]

No, the correct response is that he aged.

Odd... the 30s is when Yzerman became a winning leader.

Also, hasn't a bulk of this thread been praising Crosby for his nigh unprecedented longevity and ability to remain at an elite level?

 

[GreatGonzo]

Odd... the 30s is when Yzerman became a winning leader.

It’s true, when Yzerman was 36, he lead his team to their 3rd cup in 6 years. He lead the team in points with 23 in 23 games. Now THATS a leader. He put that team on his back and got them to glory….he showed what being a true captain is all about.

What’s Crosbys excuse? Since it isn’t lack of leadership or play….

 

[Gurglesons]

Odd... the 30s is when Yzerman became a winning leader.

Also, hasn't a bulk of this thread been praising Crosby for his nigh unprecedented longevity and ability to remain at an elite level?

It's wild how disengnious your arguments are.

Nuance and perspective are important.

It's funny to see this thread continuing to be complete forced obliviousness and endless straw men arguments for literal days.

The Crosby hate must run deep with you.

Well, not must. The Crosby hate is painfully obvious to anyone who doesn't feel equally as ignorant.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

It’s true, when Yzerman was 36, he lead his team to their 3rd cup in 6 years. He lead the team in points with 23 in 23 games. Now THATS a leader. He put that team on his back and got them to glory….he showed what being a true captain is all about.

What’s Crosbys excuse? Since it isn’t lack of leadership or play….

Crosby won his third cup with the Penguins shortly before his 30th birthday, scoring 27 points in 23 games, while winning the Conn Smythe trophy.

I'm not understanding your point. Crosby did the same thing at an earlier age, arguably with less talented teams than the powerhouse Red Wings of the 90s and early 2000s.

 

[Gurglesons]

Crosby won his third cup with the Penguins shortly before his 30th birthday, scoring 27 points in 23 games, while winning the Conn Smythe trophy.

I'm not understanding your point. Crosby did the same thing at an earlier age, arguably with less talented teams than the powerhouse Red Wings of the 90s and early 2000s.

There is no point. You are arguing with an AI generated anti-Crosby bot who has spent the past 13 years with every single one of his posts being targeting Crosby in Crosby threads.

 

[norrisnick]

It's wild how disengnious your arguments are.

Nuance and perspective are important.

It's funny to see this thread continuing to be complete forced obliviousness and endless straw men arguments for literal days.

The Crosby hate must run deep with you.

Well, not must. The Crosby hate is painfully obvious to anyone who doesn't feel equally as ignorant.

Disingenuous? You don't say...


<------- The Point ---------

Gurglesons