Sidney Crosby can break the record for the most consecutive seasons OVER a PPG (2023 update: 18 consecutive PPG seasons)

[Habsfan18]

He just clinched his 18th consecutive PPG season.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Quite impressive consistency

 

[MadLuke]

It is quite the testament to the length of elite offensive numbers
Would he manage to get/stay in the Top 10 this season:

Points

1.	Gordie Howe*	21
2.	Wayne Gretzky*	16
3.	Jean Beliveau*	12
	Sidney Crosby	12
5.	Maurice Richard*	11
	Alex Delvecchio*	11
	Bobby Hull*	11
	Jaromír Jágr	11

13 time would be only behind Howe-Gretzky, both being a bit ridiculous in that regard.

Considering how dire the injuries started to look around 2013 it is quite the turnaround (both him and Bergeron, ended up much better health wise than one could have thought 10 years ago).

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Quite impressive consistency

Indeed, but is it not better to say unprecedented consistency, in this category?

 

[MadLuke]

Indeed, but is it not better to say unprecedented consistency, in this category?

Considering Gretzky 1.0 ppg season was 1.0 ppg, in between 2 seasons over 100 points in a season artificially short because of a lock-out or that Howe went 20 seasons in a row without being below #6 in ppg during a season or below .94 ppg, would depends how anal we go over random arbitrary numbers.

It is among the highest of all time consistency

During his first 12 seasons Crosby was among the top of the league in ppg, every year.

Gretzky did it for his first 13 seasons, Lemieux would be hard to qualify, 15 first seasons he "played".

Has long as it is stated has a funny trivia and no one that imply in any way that scoring at a 0.97 ppg pace in 1955 show less consistency than going above 1.0 in 2023 when games going 7 to 4 seem common.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Considering Gretzky 1.0 ppg season was 1.0 ppg, in between 2 seasons over 100 points in a season artificially short because of a lock-out or that Howe went 20 seasons in a row without being below #6 in ppg during a season or below .94 ppg, would depends how anal we go over random arbitrary numbers.

It is among the highest of all time consistency

During his first 12 seasons Crosby was among the top of the league in ppg, every year.

Gretzky did it for his first 13 seasons, Lemieux would be hard to qualify, 15 first seasons he "played".

Has long as it is stated has a funny trivia and no one that imply in any way that scoring at a 0.97 ppg pace in 1955 show less consistency than going above 1.0 in 2023 when games going 7 to 4 seem common.

Yeah, honestly to me it feels like another manufactured "record" for the media to slobber over Crosby for. Especially when you dig into the fact that they are giving him credit for multiple seasons significantly shortened by injuries.

Like you said, even the qualifier of "over" PPG instead of at least PPG is specifically designed to shorten Gretzky's total

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ok, take out the two seasons where he didn't play half the games (2 of his 3 highest total ppg seasons)...16, then. Instead of moving up to 2nd, he just stays at 3rd. He's still a juggernaut, no matter how you try to slice and dice it. And that's really the thing...it's not that anyone has to "manufacture" things to make him look great, you have to fall all over yourself to try to knock him down a peg...

 

[decma]

He is on pace for 100 pts. If he gets it, that would be 17 years between his first and last 100 pt season, tying Sakic (1989-90 to 2006-07) for the record.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Ok, take out the two seasons where he didn't play half the games (2 of his 3 highest total ppg seasons)...16, then. Instead of moving up to 2nd, he just stays at 3rd. He's still a juggernaut, no matter how you try to slice and dice it. And that's really the thing...it's not that anyone has to "manufacture" things to make him look great, you have to fall all over yourself to try to knock him down a peg...

MadLuke made a good point about the context, but to me this stat still says a lot about Crosby's exceptionialism. It's based on so many elite elements, and this is a very elite measure no matter where Crosby fits in ppg wise.

So many people on this board are much more well versed in stats than me. But my pov on Crosby soon became how his completeness really can't be captured statistically. He personifies the concept imo.
It will be very interesting to see where he winds up when the Millennials become the Boomers of today. My gut feeling tells me were on a kind of Gretzy arc, where a suprising number of people wanted to bring him down a notch for various reasons. That chatter seemed to really take off around Lindros, if I recall. Gretzky proved bouyant. So will Crosby. I believe that 87 will become seen as Number 5 for reasons of diversity, for being not always the best, but fore being elite in so many categories, including several that can't be crunched numerically.

But then again, this aint the early 1990s.

With so with so many more well-informed people here thinking that a Number 5 is quite out of the question, I would hardly be suprised if the Millenials prove me wrong,

 

[HF007]

All praise the small sample goat

 

[MadLuke]

Especially when you dig into the fact that they are giving him credit for multiple seasons significantly shortened by injuries.

A lot of those were virtually impossible for him not to make it to 83 pts if he plays all the game too.

2019-2020 seem to only possible one to put an asterix where it would have been possible to miss, 22 pts in 28 games for 19-20 Crosby being easily possible, specially if he plays through some injury to make it happen.

The above 1.0 ppg to remove Gretkzy, is trivia inception of adding trivia into a trivia.

 

[Michael Farkas]

All praise the small sample goat

See, like, this is the thing. An obviously, this is a weak attempt at logic. But the prevailing undercurrent feels like a "wellllllll...we don't know what could have happened..." ...yes we do. If he had to quit in 2012, or whatever, then there's a case, right? Then we really don't know how it was gonna go...but he's about to scrape 1400 NHL games (RS+PO). So at this point, the "welllll, we don't know what could have happened..." stops taking things away from Crosby and starts shining the light on - "man, we really could have seen 125, 130, 135, 140 maybe when no one else was even winking at those numbers..."

The minute he got back into action, he won the MVP and led the league in points (he went over 100, no one got to 90). A couple years later he's the best player over the course of two playoffs, winning back to back Cups. What's the debate? He already was punished for this - he didn't get MVPs handed to him in the dark room, they went to nonsense people like Sedin and Perry...and no one bent over backwards to help him either, even in 2013 when he was an entire tier better than the rest of the NHL, but he missed 12 games and they gave the MVP to someone that wasn't even remotely close to the level of play that Crosby was playing at.

So...we know it would have been dynamite because we have all the data around it. It's not like Orr where we have to pretend what he might have done to the early 80's garage league...we know. What purpose is it to double dip on the punishment. It cost him hardware already, we got it...he didn't play, but what do we think was gonna happen...? He was gonna get 15 points in his last 52 games in 2012 or something...? I just don't see the upside of double dipping this chip here...other than to, ya know, have an angle...

 

[Crosby2010]

It is quite the testament to the length of elite offensive numbers
Would he manage to get/stay in the Top 10 this season:

Points

1.	Gordie Howe*	21
2.	Wayne Gretzky*	16
3.	Jean Beliveau*	12
	Sidney Crosby	12
5.	Maurice Richard*	11
	Alex Delvecchio*	11
	Bobby Hull*	11
	Jaromír Jágr	11

13 time would be only behind Howe-Gretzky, both being a bit ridiculous in that regard.

Considering how dire the injuries started to look around 2013 it is quite the turnaround (both him and Bergeron, ended up much better health wise than one could have thought 10 years ago).

Nothing against Delvecchio's fine Hall-worthy career, but I am surprised he had that many top 10 finishes.

Anyway, good for Crosby. As time goes on I wonder if he will have the sort of career that we will appreciate the further away we are from it. Ovechkin too when we talk about consistency and such.

 

[golfortennis1]

Anyway, good for Crosby. As time goes on I wonder if he will have the sort of career that we will appreciate the further away we are from it. Ovechkin too when we talk about consistency and such.

I think it will depend on how much trophy counting plays into it. The only "flaw" in Crosby's resume is the relative lack of trophies for someone with that kind of career.

While we all know that in 2013, he was cruising to a scoring title and likely Hart trophy till Brooks Orpik decided to aim 90* away from the net, at some point people will just look at it as "he missed 25% of the season, and look at his injury record, yada yada yada" because unless you know why he got a freak injury, it was just another stretch of missed time that cost him a scoring title when you're 30 years on.

I hope you're right about appreciation growing. McDavid may or may not surpass him, but Crosby has certainly put together an all-time great career.

 

[JackSlater]

I think it will depend on how much trophy counting plays into it. The only "flaw" in Crosby's resume is the relative lack of trophies for someone with that kind of career.

While we all know that in 2013, he was cruising to a scoring title and likely Hart trophy till Brooks Orpik decided to aim 90* away from the net, at some point people will just look at it as "he missed 25% of the season, and look at his injury record, yada yada yada" because unless you know why he got a freak injury, it was just another stretch of missed time that cost him a scoring title when you're 30 years on.

I hope you're right about appreciation growing. McDavid may or may not surpass him, but Crosby has certainly put together an all-time great career.

I expect that people will look back on Crosby and undervalue him somewhat, and your example of 2013 is a good part of the reason. Some players are better than their trophy cases and some are worse, but the further out a person is the less sure they can generally be and the less likely they are to look into it. When you don't have a functional memory of something bullet points become a lot more significant. McDavid's ascent also comes at Crosby's expense in a way.

 

[hamzarocks]

The 7th greatest player of all time

A true legend for anyone that isnt a rival of the pens

He torched the leafs but still loved watching him

Hope he gets 100 this year

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Really hoping crosby can hit 100 points for the 7th time and finish top 10 in scoring for the 13th time. Then maybe make a splash in the playoffs like last season. 10 points in 6 games

 

[K Fleur]

The small sample size of 18 years.

Lol

 

[HF007]

See, like, this is the thing. An obviously, this is a weak attempt at logic. But the prevailing undercurrent feels like a "wellllllll...we don't know what could have happened..." ...yes we do. If he had to quit in 2012, or whatever, then there's a case, right? Then we really don't know how it was gonna go...but he's about to scrape 1400 NHL games (RS+PO). So at this point, the "welllll, we don't know what could have happened..." stops taking things away from Crosby and starts shining the light on - "man, we really could have seen 125, 130, 135, 140 maybe when no one else was even winking at those numbers..."

The minute he got back into action, he won the MVP and led the league in points (he went over 100, no one got to 90). A couple years later he's the best player over the course of two playoffs, winning back to back Cups. What's the debate? He already was punished for this - he didn't get MVPs handed to him in the dark room, they went to nonsense people like Sedin and Perry...and no one bent over backwards to help him either, even in 2013 when he was an entire tier better than the rest of the NHL, but he missed 12 games and they gave the MVP to someone that wasn't even remotely close to the level of play that Crosby was playing at.

So...we know it would have been dynamite because we have all the data around it. It's not like Orr where we have to pretend what he might have done to the early 80's garage league...we know. What purpose is it to double dip on the punishment. It cost him hardware already, we got it...he didn't play, but what do we think was gonna happen...? He was gonna get 15 points in his last 52 games in 2012 or something...? I just don't see the upside of double dipping this chip here...other than to, ya know, have an angle...

The best ability is availability and consistency, Crosby had to change his style at those “paces” so how effective were they really?

 

[golfortennis1]

The best ability is availability and consistency, Crosby had to change his style at those “paces” so how effective were they really?

I'm not sure I can agree with that. People hold it against Crosby that he has missed so many games. He is nearly 20 points clear of Ovechkin, and Ovechkin has had nearly 200 more games to do it.

If Ovechkin is so good, why are we celebrating the fact he did nothing with those extra 200 games? If availability is so important, and he's on Crosby's level, isn't the logical conclusion that he crapped the bed with those extra games?

 

[golfortennis1]

I expect that people will look back on Crosby and undervalue him somewhat, and your example of 2013 is a good part of the reason. Some players are better than their trophy cases and some are worse, but the further out a person is the less sure they can generally be and the less likely they are to look into it. When you don't have a functional memory of something bullet points become a lot more significant. McDavid's ascent also comes at Crosby's expense in a way.

Does McDavid's ascent really come at Crosby's expense though? You have a guy who is 10 years younger, and it was still a few seasons before McDavid unseated Crosby at the top regardless of what the scoring race said. It would have been nice for Crosby to be relatively unchallenged this late in his career, but is realistic? Gretzky had Lemieux, Orr got hurt, but he challenged Howe when came on the scene...

I suppose in the myopic view we are discussing might come about and hurt Crosby's standing, you may be right. I hope not.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Does McDavid's ascent really come at Crosby's expense though? You have a guy who is 10 years younger, and it was still a few seasons before McDavid unseated Crosby at the top regardless of what the scoring race said. It would have been nice for Crosby to be relatively unchallenged this late in his career, but is realistic? Gretzky had Lemieux, Orr got hurt, but he challenged Howe when came on the scene...

I suppose in the myopic view we are discussing might come about and hurt Crosby's standing, you may be right. I hope not.

Yup. Heading into the 17-18 crosby was still universally regarded as the best player in the world. He was the concensus best from 23-30 years old. McDavid will be overtaken in the years to come likely by the next one Bedard then rinse and repeat

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. People hold it against Crosby that he has missed so many games. He is nearly 20 points clear of Ovechkin, and Ovechkin has had nearly 200 more games to do it.

If Ovechkin is so good, why are we celebrating the fact he did nothing with those extra 200 games? If availability is so important, and he's on Crosby's level, isn't the logical conclusion that he crapped the bed with those extra games?

Your post assumes Crosby's secondary assists are just as valuable as Ovechkin's goals. They aren't.

So what has Ovechkin done with 162 (not 200) more games? Alex Ovechkin has scored a whopping 50% more goals than Sidney Crosby over the course of their NHL careers - which happen to be precisely the same number of seasons.

Crosby's 15 PPG seasons are quite impressive and all-time great. There is no need to fudge records and pretend it's 18.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think it will depend on how much trophy counting plays into it. The only "flaw" in Crosby's resume is the relative lack of trophies for someone with that kind of career.

Crosby is a bit like a (better?) Syl Apps with more longevity in that way. Missing enough games often enough to really hurt the trophy count while also being among the top per game players over a good stretch.

Apps lost time to the war and Crosby has obviously been doing it longer as well.

 

[JackSlater]

Does McDavid's ascent really come at Crosby's expense though? You have a guy who is 10 years younger, and it was still a few seasons before McDavid unseated Crosby at the top regardless of what the scoring race said. It would have been nice for Crosby to be relatively unchallenged this late in his career, but is realistic? Gretzky had Lemieux, Orr got hurt, but he challenged Howe when came on the scene...

I suppose in the myopic view we are discussing might come about and hurt Crosby's standing, you may be right. I hope not.

It does. McDavid is establishing a better peak than Crosby ever showed and in terms of lazy trophy counting he's going to be well ahead. The same for Ovechkin, though since he's more of a specialist he has the novelty of goals at least. He isn't going to drastically tumble down any all time rankings but McDavid looks like a good bet to knock him down a spot at least.