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

[PrimumHockeyist]

I'd say that plenty of people here think that Crosby is fifth, or at least right in the mix for fifth.

That's encouraging, I had been beginning to wonder if I'm missing big here.

I guess my own thoughts are better phrased this way: For those who think of Sid as Number 5, is his resume good enough to mean that the Big 4 should become the Big 5?

All I've been trying to say is, if that's to happen in Crosby's case one has to include non traditional measures. For me, a guy averaging over 1 point a game and playoff entry for like the 13th through 16th or 17th time in a row - when he's 32-25! - as well as being seen as most complete out of 700 by his peers for four straight years over the same advanced age, seems quite fitting for a generational talent.

But does this generational talent belong in the same conversation as Howe, Orr, Gretz and Mario?

Maybe the better approach in my case is to ask if it legitimate to ask this question in Crosby's case, since it is so rarely even plausible. My direct experience really only applies to Orr, Gretz and Mario - not Howe. Given those three guys and everyone else that's been around since, I'd say that the question is warranted in Sid's case.

 

[jigglysquishy]

.

I guess my own thoughts are better phrased this way: For those who think of Sid as Number 5, is his resume good enough to mean that the Big 4 should become the Big 5?

Not even close.

Number 5 is closer to 15 than they are 4.

The gap on peak level play between Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux and Crosby is downright massive. And peak level play between Howe and Crosby is huge too. Then you add Howe's greatest longevity in the sport's history.

When we did our last rankings, Crosby didn't even end up top 10. Even today, most of us don't have him ahead of Beliveau (though they're close).

The only player in the last 25 years who had even entertained turning the Big Four into the Big Five is McDavid.

 

[JackSlater]

That's encouraging, I had been beginning to wonder if I'm missing big here.

I guess my own thoughts are better phrased this way: For those who think of Sid as Number 5, is his resume good enough to mean that the Big 4 should become the Big 5?

All I've been trying to say is, if that's to happen in Crosby's case one has to include non traditional measures. For me, a guy averaging over 1 point a game and playoff entry for like the 13th through 16th or 17th time in a row - when he's 32-25! - as well as being seen as most complete out of 700 by his peers for four straight years over the same advanced age, seems quite fitting for a generational talent.

But does this generational talent belong in the same conversation as Howe, Orr, Gretz and Mario?

Maybe the better approach in my case is to ask if it legitimate to ask this question in Crosby's case, since it is so rarely even plausible. My direct experience really only applies to Orr, Gretz and Mario - not Howe. Given those three guys and everyone else that's been around since, I'd say that the question is warranted in Sid's case.

I don't recall seeing anyone in this section suggest that Crosby has made it a big 5. In fact other than his most ardent supporters I don't think anyone considers it a possibility, but people can contradict me on that if appropriate.

I don't think that you are looking at non-traditional measures. A big part of Howe's case is what you are trying to push for Crosby - most here accept that Howe was a very well-rounded forward (unlike Gretzky and Lemieux) and the same could be said of Beliveau among contenders for the 5 spot. The point per game thing is largely trivia that loses some lustre given the 2012 season in particular and Crosby being voted the most well rounded in the NHLPA polls is not the kind of thing that moves the needle when looking at the absolute greatest players ever. I'd also suggest that these kind of results will matter more to people who never really watched Crosby, while fans today probably already know how well rounded they consider Crosby's game.

Crosby's case is basically just a worse version of Howe's case. I guess you could say the same of Lemieux's case being a worse version of Gretzky's case, but you can at least argue that Lemieux peaked as high as anyone ever has and that matters.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Who the heck would rank Sid Crosby at #5? That strikes me as way too high.

I can't see Crosby being higher than McDavid, Jagr, Hasek. Like, zero chance. So, right there, that pushes him to #8 at the absolute highest.

Then, you've got more comparable players like Hull, Lidstrom, Harvey, Beliveau, Plante, Morenz, Bourque, Potvin to compete with. So, whether Crosby comes out at #8 (best possible scenario) or somewhere around #16 depends on how you'd position those (and other?) guys.

Crosby's greatest attribute, in my view, is his sustained excellence -- his consistency (which feeds into longevity and leadership aspects). He's an eight-time 1st/2nd-team All Star over a thirteen-year period (nine times top-5 in Hart voting). That's extremely impressive at the center position.

But his peak and prime level to me, aren't higher than Hull, Lidstrom, Beliveau, Plante, maybe Potvin.

Four times he's been top-2 in assists. It's really, really good... but his contemporary, Joe Thornton, did that seven times.

Twice he's led the NHL in goals. It's outstanding, but it's obviously small potatoes compared to Ovechkin, whom most of us rank lower than Crosby.

He's never been top-5 in goals and assists in the same season. Draisaitl has done this four times. Jagr a bunch of times.

His playoff results are really good... but not overwhelming, at all. There are some poor showings in his prime years in playoffs (2012, 2014, 2015), and in the Pens' 'comeback' win in 2016, Crosby was arguably outperformed (and was outscored) by... Phil Kessel.


I think some of us take a cautious position on this because no player's actual playing career has been more over-hyped by the Canadian hockey media than Crosby's. But I think there's also a danger of believing hype equals substance sometimes. To be clear, Crosby is one of the greatest players of all time and deserves all his accolades... except when people are naming him the 5th greatest player of all time. He doesn't deserve that.

You compared plante to crosby nothing else to be said

 

[daver]

The gap on peak level play between Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux and Crosby is downright massive. And peak level play between Howe and Crosby is huge too. Then you add Howe's greatest longevity in the sport's history.

Crosby's peak level of offensive play, if measured by PPG dominance with reasonable context for league size, is closer to Howe than it is to Hull and Beliveau during his peak/prime/career. The same can be said for Jagr (at his peak) and McDavid (for his career).

Howe's elite longevity and physicality are what solidifies his spot in the Big 4 as his offensive peak is reasonably argued to be somewhere in between Wayne/Mario level and the best of the rest. While other players (Hull, Mikita, Beliveau) had one season that was on par with Howe's peak, Howe had four of those and one (52/53) that was the clear statistical best of his era.

The avenue to make it a Big 5 was to significantly outvalue Mario's career value; something Crosby lost the chance to do due to injuries. Add three of four more Art Rosses and Harts, and perhaps even more importantly, another Cup or two, and there is a great argument to be made.

The irony for Crosby is that while he should be reasonably solidifying his spot as #5 as his sustained placing among the Top 5 forwards year after year a la Howe, chips away at advantages that Hull and Beliveau have over him, McDavid seems to be pacing for #5.

We will see how things play out for McDavid. IMO, he is an offensive weapon like Mario and Jagr moreso than the quintessential #1C like Crosby and Beliveau and, fair or not, may lack the team success to challenge Mario.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Who the heck would rank Sid Crosby at #5? That strikes me as way too high.

I can't see Crosby being higher than McDavid, Jagr, Hasek. Like, zero chance. So, right there, that pushes him to #8 at the absolute highest.

Then, you've got more comparable players like Hull, Lidstrom, Harvey, Beliveau, Plante, Morenz, Bourque, Potvin to compete with. So, whether Crosby comes out at #8 (best possible scenario) or somewhere around #16 depends on how you'd position those (and other?) guys.

Panther,

I find it very ironic that you would cause me to shift my view on this, but you have with mention of "Nick Norris. " You see, for most of the 1990s and into the early 00ze I was living just down the road from you in Kamakura. As you may have been there to remember, there was no coverage of NHL hockey in Japan during this time, so my view of players was severely limited.

Now that I think about Lindstrom, I realize that I had been overlooking this entire era compared to since - 2002. This doesn't downgrade Crosby in my own mind, but I do realize that my sense of comparison has been confined to the likes of Ove etc going forward with Lidstrom's resume being about as good as Crosby's, owing to that time abroad.

As I had mentioned to Jack Slater in my most recent post yesterday, my main interest in Crosby's career was to see if his play could make the Big 4 a Big 5, which in my mind had something to do with notable separation from all other peers. jigglysquishy just recently followed up on that with a hard 'no' up and I agree with him now too, now that I've been reminded of my gap in thinking. With Lidstrom in there I don't see room for that. I certainly had heard of him but with names like Yzerman, Chelios and Federov on the same list, it's easy for me to see why I might have tended to think Wings more the Lidstrom when this subject came up from afar. When thinking about Lidstrom in other contexts I have often wondered if he's been the best Dman since Orr. As a minimum his talent and overall success compares to Crosby imo. One such player is all that it takes to change my views on this notable Big 4/5' "separation" thing.

This is the second time recently that I've seen how my travelling gap years have affected my view of recent history, as I was gone a fair bit through the mid-70s to 80s. Thankfully I saw a good deal of Gretzky and Lemieux to see the separation. Now that I've been reminded of those 90s guys, I would have to say that McDavid is the only one since Mario that has similar 'Big 4' separation.

Thanks to all for staying with me on this,

 

[Ciao]

PPG every single year of an 18-year career is nothing to sneeze at. I think its pretty remarkable.

It's hard to compare generation to generation, but Crosby's direct comparable is Ovechkin and he never did that.

I can't say who is number five, but I think Crosby belongs somewhere in the top-ten all time. Just where in that group is a matter of opinion.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I don't recall seeing anyone in this section suggest that Crosby has made it a big 5. In fact other than his most ardent supporters I don't think anyone considers it a possibility, but people can contradict me on that if appropriate.

I don't think that you are looking at non-traditional measures. A big part of Howe's case is what you are trying to push for Crosby - most here accept that Howe was a very well-rounded forward (unlike Gretzky and Lemieux) and the same could be said of Beliveau among contenders for the 5 spot. The point per game thing is largely trivia that loses some lustre given the 2012 season in particular and Crosby being voted the most well rounded in the NHLPA polls is not the kind of thing that moves the needle when looking at the absolute greatest players ever. I'd also suggest that these kind of results will matter more to people who never really watched Crosby, while fans today probably already know how well rounded they consider Crosby's game.

Crosby's case is basically just a worse version of Howe's case. I guess you could say the same of Lemieux's case being a worse version of Gretzky's case, but you can at least argue that Lemieux peaked as high as anyone ever has and that matters.

In the relatively brief time I've been here, I've tried to avoid taking any deep dives into the kind of debates we touch on, owing mainly to the other things going on in my life. I get that can come with a cost, namely some self-effacement. But I do enjoy insightful conversation, and because I've seen much of it here I had figured I might be missing something on Crosby, given how in the minority I was. I now see that, but not so much that Crosby can't be the fifth best player - I still think he might be. Rather that he doesn't make the Big 4 the Big 5 - a group that seems to have clear separation from all other players. Panther's mention of Lidstrom and Jagr redirected my thoughts in a way that ruled out me earlier thoughts on Crosby. Their comparability to Crosby rules Crosby out as a Big 4.

As for this board, when I have heard chatter of these 'greatest' ever polls, it has seemed to me that Lemieux's ranking may be being punished for his extensive injuries. Do you feel that is true, or is the observation of a casual observer? If so, what are we talking about when we say the 'greatest'? Any definition that punishes Orr or Lemieux for their injuries would not be in keeping with my own definition.

To me the question that provides a better answer is, If you could choose one player today, knowing nothing about what team they would be on nor how healthy they would be over the entire course of his career, which player would you choose? Each player but would get a fresh start in today's world with all of the benefits of growing up in today's training.

 

[jigglysquishy]

As for this board, when I have heard chatter of these 'greatest' ever polls, it has seemed to me that Lemieux's ranking may be being punished for his extensive injuries. Do you feel that is true, or is the observation of a casual observer? If so, what are we talking about when we say the 'greatest'? Any definition that punishes Orr or Lemieux for their injuries would not be in keeping with my own definition.

This forum deliberately uses the word "top" instead of "best" or "greatest". So the lists end up with a mixture of peak, prime, career depending on personal preference.

For Lemieux being the de facto #4, injuries are the major factor. Only once after age 23 did he play a season without missing significant time. With Orr, he basically played full seasons until he didn't. So there are fewer question marks. The novelty of being the best offensive player and best defensive player concurrently weighs strongly too.

There are other factors, like the strength of even strength scoring, but it's mostly a health thing. He missed about 40% of all games 1989-90 to 1996-1997. Then missed 3 full years. When comparing him to only 3 other players, it's a huge factor.

 

[JackSlater]

In the relatively brief time I've been here, I've tried to avoid taking any deep dives into the kind of debates we touch on, owing mainly to the other things going on in my life. I get that can come with a cost, namely some self-effacement. But I do enjoy insightful conversation, and because I've seen much of it here I had figured I might be missing something on Crosby, given how in the minority I was. I now see that, but not so much that Crosby can't be the fifth best player - I still think he might be. Rather that he doesn't make the Big 4 the Big 5 - a group that seems to have clear separation from all other players. Panther's mention of Lidstrom and Jagr redirected my thoughts in a way that ruled out me earlier thoughts on Crosby. Their comparability to Crosby rules Crosby out as a Big 4.

As for this board, when I have heard chatter of these 'greatest' ever polls, it has seemed to me that Lemieux's ranking may be being punished for his extensive injuries. Do you feel that is true, or is the observation of a casual observer? If so, what are we talking about when we say the 'greatest'? Any definition that punishes Orr or Lemieux for their injuries would not be in keeping with my own definition.

To me the question that provides a better answer is, If you could choose one player today, knowing nothing about what team they would be on nor how healthy they would be over the entire course of his career, which player would you choose? Each player but would get a fresh start in today's world with all of the benefits of growing up in today's training.

Yes it hurts Lemieux and Orr somewhat, but nearly everyone here has them in the top four. For most, I believe, it comes down to thinking that Orr and Lemieux at their bests are too far ahead of anyone else (outside of Gretzky and Howe) that it makes it seem disingenuous to rank another player ahead of them. If someone was looking to rank players purely on career value I think you slide Lemieux and Orr down from the top four.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

This forum deliberately uses the word "top" instead of "best" or "greatest". So the lists end up with a mixture of peak, prime, career depending on personal preference.

Lots of wiggle room. I like that.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Yes it hurts Lemieux and Orr somewhat, but nearly everyone here has them in the top four. For most, I believe, it comes down to thinking that Orr and Lemieux at their bests are too far ahead of anyone else (outside of Gretzky and Howe) that it makes it seem disingenuous to rank another player ahead of them. If someone was looking to rank players purely on career value I think you slide Lemieux and Orr down from the top four.

Yes, my spidey sense tell me that this would be the cruel outcome.

The Pocket Rocket might rank way overly high, depending on how Cups fit in the value equation.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

.

Not even close.

Number 5 is closer to 15 than they are 4.

Now that I've glanced in this direction, I agree that it must be. Crosby's comps to Lidstrom and Jagr infers a lot of others.

At the risk of boring others I think I get why I made this error. After being gone for much of the 90, during which time I did look in from time to time - the Internet took longer to get going in Japan -, nobody came along who did enter the Big Four in my mind. More importantly, most people don't think so either, otherwise I know I would have heard that! So, when I returned to North America around 02 its sort of a fresh slate, as far as Next Ones go, and Crosby becomes the next potential Big Four challenger. My error was to measure him that way only, and as the best in his generation or very arguably so. The answer is way better answered when one looks to Lidstrom and others - the people he has to surpass, as a group, to get Big Four separation.

Live and learn.

One question I have always had about the 90s was how good Brian Leetch really was.

Another one I have now, given what you've written, is if the more serious folks around here see a pretty clear Tier Two that goes from 5 on down to around 15, and not much further before there's another pronounced drop?

 

[BenchBrawl]

The active player I have the most respect for.

His statistics are severely underrating him.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Who the heck would rank Sid Crosby at #5? That strikes me as way too high.

I can't see Crosby being higher than McDavid, Jagr, Hasek. Like, zero chance. So, right there, that pushes him to #8 at the absolute highest.

Then, you've got more comparable players like Hull, Lidstrom, Harvey, Beliveau, Plante, Morenz, Bourque, Potvin to compete with. So, whether Crosby comes out at #8 (best possible scenario) or somewhere around #16 depends on how you'd position those (and other?) guys.

Crosby's greatest attribute, in my view, is his sustained excellence -- his consistency (which feeds into longevity and leadership aspects). He's an eight-time 1st/2nd-team All Star over a thirteen-year period (nine times top-5 in Hart voting). That's extremely impressive at the center position.

But his peak and prime level to me, aren't higher than Hull, Lidstrom, Beliveau, Plante, maybe Potvin.

Four times he's been top-2 in assists. It's really, really good... but his contemporary, Joe Thornton, did that seven times.

Twice he's led the NHL in goals. It's outstanding, but it's obviously small potatoes compared to Ovechkin, whom most of us rank lower than Crosby.

He's never been top-5 in goals and assists in the same season. Draisaitl has done this four times. Jagr a bunch of times.

His playoff results are really good... but not overwhelming, at all. There are some poor showings in his prime years in playoffs (2012, 2014, 2015), and in the Pens' 'comeback' win in 2016, Crosby was arguably outperformed (and was outscored) by... Phil Kessel.


I think some of us take a cautious position on this because no player's actual playing career has been more over-hyped by the Canadian hockey media than Crosby's. But I think there's also a danger of believing hype equals substance sometimes. To be clear, Crosby is one of the greatest players of all time and deserves all his accolades... except when people are naming him the 5th greatest player of all time. He doesn't deserve that.

I'll make the case for how Crosby could have ended up the consensus #5 player all-time.

Let's assume that he missed a bit less time during his peak (but he doesn't have perfect health - so he still misses 29 games in 2008, 28 games in 2020, 13 games last year, etc). Specifically let's give him 40 games in 2011, 55 games in 2012, 10 games in 2013, and 5 games in 2015. That's 110 extra games (9% of his current career total).

The biggest issue with Crosby's resume now is he never had an all-time great season. Sure, 2007 and 2014 were very good, but he doesn't have a truly historic season (like Beliveau in 1956, Hull in 1956, Jagr in 1999, Ovechkin in 2008 etc). He was playing exceptionally well in 2011 through 2013 (during those three years, he averaged 132 points per 82 games - Malkin averaged 98, and the closest non-teammate, Stamkos, averaged 95). If Crosby was fully healthy during that period, he would have had one of the greatest peaks of any player in NHL history. Instead, we have a really strong level of performance, but that's based on parts of three seasons mashed together.

If we assume Crosby plays those extra 110 games, he'd have:

• six Art Ross trophies (tied with Howe and Lemieux for the second-most ever) - it's possible he only ends up with five as it's unclear how his return would have impacted Malkin in 2012, who won the Art Ross that year, but worst case he's tied for 4th all-time with Jagr and Esposito.
• 14 years as a top ten scorer (more than anyone except Howe and Gretzky) and 11 years in the top five (also more than anyone except those two legends)
• probably four Hart trophies (2007, 2011, 2013 and probably still 2014 - let's assume voter fatigue in 2012 and 2015), again only Gretzky and Howe would have more
• probably nine years as a Hart finalist (you'd have to think he'd be a finalist in at least two of 2011, 2012 and 2015), which again would rank him behind only Howe and Gretzky
• at least five years as a first-team all-star (four in real life plus at least 2011) and five years as a second-team all-star (four in real life plus 2012) - he'd rank behind Gretzky (8/7) and Beliveau (6/4), but ahead of every other centre in NHL history including Lemieux
• I've often said that it's misleading to look at goals or assists in isolation, but for those that do, he'd have three goal-scoring titles as a playmaking centre (two actual, plus 2011) and possibly four straight assist titles (2012-2015) with three years as runner-up (2007, 2009, 2011)
• I don't think career numbers (especially when unadjusted) are overly informative, but if he plays those extra 110 games, and plays five more seasons (until he's 40 - a longer career, but not exceptional these days for a star player), he likely finishes his career right around 700 goals (as a playmaking centre in a low-scoring era), over 1,200 assists (3rd all-time), and maybe one season away from 2,000 points (something only Gretzky has ever achieved).
• he certainly isn't Clarke or Bergeron defensively, but Crosby massively tilts the ice at ES (R-ON/OFF has its limitations, but in this case, the result it shows - Crosby being a historically great ES performer - is completely consistent with what watching the games tells you)
• Crosby played in three major international tournaments and helped Canada win the gold medal in all three. He was clearly the best player at the 2016 World Cup (leading scorer and tournament MVP). He was good in 2010 (scoring the "golden goal", and was tied for 2nd on the team in scoring). He was definitely underwhelming in 2014 though.
• Crosby is one of only six players in NHL history to score 200+ playoff points (four of the players ahead were on the Oilers dynasty, and he did it in 33 fewer games than Jagr). Crosby could end up in 4th place all-time (or even 3rd if he asks for a trade to contending team).
• Crosby is probably the best playoff performer of the post-lockout era. His critics say that his 2016 Conn Smythe was a lifetime achievement award. But he played on four Stanley Cup finalists. He was probably the team's best player twice (2008 and 2017), runner-up once (2009), and even in 2016 he was one of four players who had a valid case for the trophy. He also has several other very strong (non-SCF) performances - 2010 and 2018 stand out. (How many other players post-2005 approach that resume? Among forwards, Malkin, Kane, and Kucherov can match Crosby's peak playoff performances, but none have sustained that level of play with the same amount of consistency).

If Crosby had this resume, he'd be (more or less) the consensus #5 all-time. I currently have Beliveau fifth, and the resume above looks clearly better to me. And I don't think there would be any reasonable case to rank Jagr, Ovechkin, Hull, Richard, etc above him.

A few caveats so I don't get misquoted on this in the future:

• Crosby doesn't deserve credit for what could have happened. Crosby (like every player) should be judged based on what he actually accomplished, not hypotheticals.
• McDavid looks like he'll be able to put together a regular season resume that should be pretty close to what hypothetical-Crosby could have done. That's extraordinary, and that will give him a legitimate case for #5 all-time. (He needs to do more in the playoffs, but he has time).
• I've assumed that Crosby would have actually maintained his pace in 2011 through 2013. Who knows if that's true? It's concerning that he spent three years playing at a 130-point pace, but only scored 109 and 104 points in the two full seasons that sandwiched that span. That calls into question if that pace was really sustainable.
• I've assumed that nothing changes in Crosby's later career if he's healthy during his peak. It's possible that after September 2016 (with four Hart trophies, five or six scoring titles, three Olympic gold medals - including the "golden goal" and a tournament MVP, and a Stanley Cup), Crosby would have felt like he accomplished enough. He might not have been as motivated the next few seasons and lost out on two Stanley Cups and two Conn Smythes. That's a big part of his legacy. This probably isn't a big issue (as Crosby seems to be remarkably focused and motivated), but there's always a risk in assuming nothing else changes along the way (butterfly effect).

====

* Just to show my math on the career totals. As of today Crosby has 548 goals and 949 assists. We'll conservatively assume he ends the season with 550 & 950 (1,500 points). With 110 games at his peak, he would have got at least 50 goals and 95 assists (145 points). Then if he plays five more seasons - let's assume 320 games (to be conservative, we'll assume he misses around one season's worth of games). Crosby's on pace for 93 points this year. Let's be pessimistic and assume that he'll average (from age 36 to 40) 25 goals and 45 assists (70 points) per 82 games. That works out to (roughly) another 95 goals and 175 assists. Add all this together and you get 695 goals, 1,220 assists, and 1,915 points.

 

[markymarc1215]

To me, Crosby is in the same class as Yzerman and Sakic, which is meant to be a compliment. They all won multiple cups, were great 2 way centers, role models off the ice, terrific work ethic, great captains, clutch as hell, had a few seasons of league leading scoring prowess, and were always amongst the league leaders in scoring as long as they were healthy. They also benefitted from HOF 2nd line centers as well for most of their careers (Oates, Federko, and Fedorov for Yzerman.....Sundin and Forsberg for Sakic......Malkin for Crosby).

 

[daver]

To me, Crosby is in the same class as Yzerman and Sakic, which is meant to be a compliment. They all won multiple cups, were great 2 way centers, role models off the ice, terrific work ethic, great captains, clutch as hell, had a few seasons of league leading scoring prowess, and were always amongst the league leaders in scoring as long as they were healthy. They also benefitted from HOF 2nd line centers as well for most of their careers (Oates, Federko, and Fedorov for Yzerman.....Sundin and Forsberg for Sakic......Malkin for Crosby).

Crosby's career offensive resume is clearly well above those two, and his closest comparable for career per game production is arguably Howe (and McDavid so far).

You are correct in highlighting his 2 way play, Cups etc.. as he lacks nothing in this regard to any other GOATs.

 

[MadLuke]

To me, Crosby is in the same class as Yzerman and Sakic, which is meant to be a compliment.

Not an insult but considering how large the gap not sure if it would be seen has a compliment
Points Finish
Yzerman: 3-3-4-7-7-10, 6th in playoff points below Hull-Gilmour
Crosby.: 1-1-2-2-3-3-3-3-5-6-10-10, lead the league in playoff points during his career by a significant margin

Crosby maybe should not be a big tier above Yzerman but clearly above imo, peak Crosby has not the continous trade rumours and missing team Canada a la Yzerman (even if it was a bit crazy and unfair to him).

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Crosby's big problem is 2010-2013. Those should have been monster seasons, but they're glaring holes in the resume instead. It's not his fault obviously but that's just the reality of it.

I disagree on Crosby being well-rounded when you compare him to players prior to the 90s. To be a well-rounded forward in those days you needed what you may call 'dread factor' because intimidation and violence were a routine and significant part of the game. Crosby doesn't have it. Doesn't really matter in the 2010s too much, but it's what gives Gordie Howe the edge.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So because the game evolved away from violence being a determining factor, Crosby gets discounted. But those guys, who would take a ton of penalties playing against Crosby, get "rewarded" for their side of the evolutionary chain? That's a really tough way to go for me...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

So because the game evolved away from violence being a determining factor, Crosby gets discounted. But those guys, who would take a ton of penalties playing against Crosby, get "rewarded" for their side of the evolutionary chain? That's a really tough way to go for me...

I'd question the well rounded label mostly because it's come around the last few years with the false notion in the media that he's turned into a defensive weapon. The "Selke Crosby" movement is the media finding something to try to praise him on to explain away his scoring drop. A scoring drop that is nothing more than simple and normal aging. His defense has not improved, at all. His defensive metrics haven't improved and his utilization is still heavily weighted towards offense with next to no defensive assignments.

Comparing his 1st 4 seasons to the last 4:

ESGA/60: 3.1/3.2/2.6/3.0 vs 3.5/2.7/2.6/3.2

This isnt driven by goaltending as the on ice SV% are nearly the same .919/.902/.885/.915 vs .890/.907/.923/.903

He has 31 total SH minutes combined in the last 4 seasons and he has the same 65%-70% o-zone start that he's always had

His CFrel has been nearly the same every year of his career (incredible consistency).

Which isnt to say he isnt above average to good defensively, he is. But too often the "well rounded" label gets put on him as another way to say "he's turned himself into a shut down guy"

 

[MadLuke]

n. The "Selke Crosby" movement is the media finding something to try to praise him on to explain away his scoring drop.

Does it not pre-date Crosby scoring drop significantly ?

It started after the summer he became good at faceoff and his corsi both took quite the jump in 2009-2010, he got selke mention in 2010, 2013, 2014 winning Rocket or Art Ross (or massive leads in ppg)


It peaked probably around 2018-2019 when is GF got close to 66% at 5v5 and is esga/60 was around 2.06 he was still a 100pts top 5 scorer in the league at the time, which was lower than peak Crosby, but that year it was not crazy specially in the first half, at least number wise his line was quite solid.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I'll make the case for how Crosby could have ended up the consensus #5 player all-time.

Let's assume that he missed a bit less time during his peak (but he doesn't have perfect health - so he still misses 29 games in 2008, 28 games in 2020, 13 games last year, etc). Specifically let's give him 40 games in 2011, 55 games in 2012, 10 games in 2013, and 5 games in 2015. That's 110 extra games (9% of his current career total).

The biggest issue with Crosby's resume now is he never had an all-time great season. Sure, 2007 and 2014 were very good, but he doesn't have a truly historic season (like Beliveau in 1956, Hull in 1956, Jagr in 1999, Ovechkin in 2008 etc). He was playing exceptionally well in 2011 through 2013 (during those three years, he averaged 132 points per 82 games - Malkin averaged 98, and the closest non-teammate, Stamkos, averaged 95). If Crosby was fully healthy during that period, he would have had one of the greatest peaks of any player in NHL history. Instead, we have a really strong level of performance, but that's based on parts of three seasons mashed together.

If we assume Crosby plays those extra 110 games, he'd have:

• six Art Ross trophies (tied with Howe and Lemieux for the second-most ever) - it's possible he only ends up with five as it's unclear how his return would have impacted Malkin in 2012, who won the Art Ross that year, but worst case he's tied for 4th all-time with Jagr and Esposito.
• 14 years as a top ten scorer (more than anyone except Howe and Gretzky) and 11 years in the top five (also more than anyone except those two legends)
• probably four Hart trophies (2007, 2011, 2013 and probably still 2014 - let's assume voter fatigue in 2012 and 2015), again only Gretzky and Howe would have more
• probably nine years as a Hart finalist (you'd have to think he'd be a finalist in at least two of 2011, 2012 and 2015), which again would rank him behind only Howe and Gretzky
• at least five years as a first-team all-star (four in real life plus at least 2011) and five years as a second-team all-star (four in real life plus 2012) - he'd rank behind Gretzky (8/7) and Beliveau (6/4), but ahead of every other centre in NHL history including Lemieux
• I've often said that it's misleading to look at goals or assists in isolation, but for those that do, he'd have three goal-scoring titles as a playmaking centre (two actual, plus 2011) and possibly four straight assist titles (2012-2015) with three years as runner-up (2007, 2009, 2011)
• I don't think career numbers (especially when unadjusted) are overly informative, but if he plays those extra 110 games, and plays five more seasons (until he's 40 - a longer career, but not exceptional these days for a star player), he likely finishes his career right around 700 goals (as a playmaking centre in a low-scoring era), over 1,200 assists (3rd all-time), and maybe one season away from 2,000 points (something only Gretzky has ever achieved).
• he certainly isn't Clarke or Bergeron defensively, but Crosby massively tilts the ice at ES (R-ON/OFF has its limitations, but in this case, the result it shows - Crosby being a historically great ES performer - is completely consistent with what watching the games tells you)
• Crosby played in three major international tournaments and helped Canada win the gold medal in all three. He was clearly the best player at the 2016 World Cup (leading scorer and tournament MVP). He was good in 2010 (scoring the "golden goal", and was tied for 2nd on the team in scoring). He was definitely underwhelming in 2014 though.
• Crosby is one of only six players in NHL history to score 200+ playoff points (four of the players ahead were on the Oilers dynasty, and he did it in 33 fewer games than Jagr). Crosby could end up in 4th place all-time (or even 3rd if he asks for a trade to contending team).
• Crosby is probably the best playoff performer of the post-lockout era. His critics say that his 2016 Conn Smythe was a lifetime achievement award. But he played on four Stanley Cup finalists. He was probably the team's best player twice (2008 and 2017), runner-up once (2009), and even in 2016 he was one of four players who had a valid case for the trophy. He also has several other very strong (non-SCF) performances - 2010 and 2018 stand out. (How many other players post-2005 approach that resume? Among forwards, Malkin, Kane, and Kucherov can match Crosby's peak playoff performances, but none have sustained that level of play with the same amount of consistency).

If Crosby had this resume, he'd be (more or less) the consensus #5 all-time. I currently have Beliveau fifth, and the resume above looks clearly better to me. And I don't think there would be any reasonable case to rank Jagr, Ovechkin, Hull, Richard, etc above him.

A few caveats so I don't get misquoted on this in the future:

• Crosby doesn't deserve credit for what could have happened. Crosby (like every player) should be judged based on what he actually accomplished, not hypotheticals.
• McDavid looks like he'll be able to put together a regular season resume that should be pretty close to what hypothetical-Crosby could have done. That's extraordinary, and that will give him a legitimate case for #5 all-time. (He needs to do more in the playoffs, but he has time).
• I've assumed that Crosby would have actually maintained his pace in 2011 through 2013. Who knows if that's true? It's concerning that he spent three years playing at a 130-point pace, but only scored 109 and 104 points in the two full seasons that sandwiched that span. That calls into question if that pace was really sustainable.
• I've assumed that nothing changes in Crosby's later career if he's healthy during his peak. It's possible that after September 2016 (with four Hart trophies, five or six scoring titles, three Olympic gold medals - including the "golden goal" and a tournament MVP, and a Stanley Cup), Crosby would have felt like he accomplished enough. He might not have been as motivated the next few seasons and lost out on two Stanley Cups and two Conn Smythes. That's a big part of his legacy. This probably isn't a big issue (as Crosby seems to be remarkably focused and motivated), but there's always a risk in assuming nothing else changes along the way (butterfly effect).

====

* Just to show my math on the career totals. As of today Crosby has 548 goals and 949 assists. We'll conservatively assume he ends the season with 550 & 950 (1,500 points). With 110 games at his peak, he would have got at least 50 goals and 95 assists (145 points). Then if he plays five more seasons - let's assume 320 games (to be conservative, we'll assume he misses around one season's worth of games). Crosby's on pace for 93 points this year. Let's be pessimistic and assume that he'll average (from age 36 to 40) 25 goals and 45 assists (70 points) per 82 games. That works out to (roughly) another 95 goals and 175 assists. Add all this together and you get 695 goals, 1,220 assists, and 1,915 points.

Amazing post.

 

[seventieslord]

but secondary assists

 

[TheGuiminator]

Crosby's big problem is 2010-2013. Those should have been monster seasons, but they're glaring holes in the resume instead. It's not his fault obviously but that's just the reality of it.

I disagree on Crosby being well-rounded when you compare him to players prior to the 90s. To be a well-rounded forward in those days you needed what you may call 'dread factor' because intimidation and violence were a routine and significant part of the game. Crosby doesn't have it. Doesn't really matter in the 2010s too much, but it's what gives Gordie Howe the edge.

Crosby’s peak seasons, robbed by injuries, do leave a hole in his resume, but these circumstances were out of his control.

What makes a bigger hole in Crosby’s career is losing Art Ross’s in his prime that he had no business losing : 2010 to Henrik Sedin, 2015 to Jamie Ben, 2016 to Patrick Kane and 2017 to sophomore McDavid

Having won these scoring titles when he actually had the opportunity and control, the hole of 2010-13 wouldn’t look as big as it is.