Sidney Crosby Top 5 player of all time

[b in vancouver]

Holy ****, I leave the thread for a while and next thing you know people are trying to give Lemieux credit for Selke level defense.



Longtime members of the History/ATD/BTN boards have spent the better part of a decade tweaking a system called vsX which does something similar. Basically it looks at players' scoring as a percentage, relative to the highest scorer in a given year. It can be adjusted to aim at the 1st place mark, 2nd place, 5th place, etc. And you can adjust for outlier seasons when it makes sense to do so. It's sort of a logical conclusion to what you were up to with that list.

Here's the thread with what I think are the most recent numbers -- look at the last page of the thread for results, first page for a detailed explanation of how it works: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1361409

The bottom line is, as a point scorer Crosby and Ovechkin and Thornton are all in the top 20 all time. None of them are top 10. And Gretzky is just laughably far above anyone else.

How does Orr's rank against defensemen only?
'70 Orr 120 #2 Vandals 44
'71 Orr 139 #2 Tremblay 63
'72 Orr 117 #2 Park 73, #3 Tremblay 57
'73 Orr 101 (63 games) #2 Lapointe 54
'74 Orr 122 #2 Park 82, #3 Redmond 59
'75 Orr 135, #2 Potvin 76

I always find that more impressive than Gretzky's numbers. He got 2 or 3 times as many points as the second or third best d-man in the league. That's insane numbers.
I lived in Calgary in the 80s and saw a lot of Wayne and co. (treated to some exciting hockey with those two teams) but Orr's dominance is unparalleled. Especially considering he was great defensively and tough as nails.

 

[b in vancouver]

p.s. those #2 and #3 are HOFers.
p.p.s. that would be akin to Karlsson putting up 180 points to that ahead of Burns.

When we talk about Crosby or Ovy or others - people seem to forget how dominant some of these other guys actually were.

Bobby Hull should be most people's #5 with Belliveau right behind him. Hull revolutionized the sport - then went to the WHA and people kinda forgot while Belliveau was just behind Howe in dominance and won - I'm going to say - Everything. Those two are closer to bumping Lemieux out of the top 4 than Crosby is to bumping them out of the top 6.

 

[daver]

p.s. those #2 and #3 are HOFers.
p.p.s. that would be akin to Karlsson putting up 180 points to that ahead of Burns.

When we talk about Crosby or Ovy or others - people seem to forget how dominant some of these other guys actually were.

Bobby Hull should be most people's #5 with Belliveau right behind him. Hull revolutionized the sport - then went to the WHA and people kinda forgot while Belliveau was just behind Howe in dominance and won - I'm going to say - Everything. Those two are closer to bumping Lemieux out of the top 4 than Crosby is to bumping them out of the top 6.

Crosby has been just as, if not more dominant than Beliveau and has a very impressive resume of winning himself with 6 major championships.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

How does Orr's rank against defensemen only?
'70 Orr 120 #2 Vandals 44
'71 Orr 139 #2 Tremblay 63
'72 Orr 117 #2 Park 73, #3 Tremblay 57
'73 Orr 101 (63 games) #2 Lapointe 54
'74 Orr 122 #2 Park 82, #3 Redmond 59
'75 Orr 135, #2 Potvin 76

I always find that more impressive than Gretzky's numbers. He got 2 or 3 times as many points as the second or third best d-man in the league. That's insane numbers.
I lived in Calgary in the 80s and saw a lot of Wayne and co. (treated to some exciting hockey with those two teams) but Orr's dominance is unparalleled. Especially considering he was great defensively and tough as nails.

I'm a huge Gretzky fan, but I'm with you about Orr. Love the comparisons with other dmen. Thanks.

Orr won two scoring titles. As a defenseman. LOL. In 1970-71, he scored 120 points. Next was teammate Espisito who had 99. Orr had 20% more. Orr was 34 points (40% better) than the 3rd highest scorer, Stan Mikita of the Hawks.

In 74-75, Orr led the league with 135 points. That's insane. He was 28 years old and he only played 36 more games after that season.

He skated like the wind and as you pointed out, he was tough. I saw him beat the living **** out of the late Keith Magnuson one time. It was ugly

Had Orr not had his knee problems, he would be rated the best player of all time by most, I think. He still warrants consideration given his ridiculous dominance over other defensemen.

Orr and Gretzky were the best to watch. Mario was great, but not quite in their league. The notion of many here that Crosby rates with these guys is flat out ridiculous.

 

[b in vancouver]

I'm a huge Gretzky fan, but I'm with you about Orr. Love the comparisons with other dmen. Thanks.

Orr won two scoring titles. As a defenseman. LOL. In 1970-71, he scored 120 points. Next was teammate Espisito who had 99. Orr had 20% more. Orr was 34 points (40% better) than the 3rd highest scorer, Stan Mikita of the Hawks.

In 74-75, Orr led the league with 135 points. That's insane. He was 28 years old and he only played 36 more games after that season.

He skated like the wind and as you pointed out, he was tough. I saw him beat the living **** out of the late Keith Magnuson one time. It was ugly

Had Orr not had his knee problems, he would be rated the best player of all time by most, I think. He still warrants consideration given his ridiculous dominance over other defensemen.

Orr and Gretzky were the best to watch. Mario was great, but not quite in their league. The notion of many here that Crosby rates with these guys is flat out ridiculous.

Maybe I was a bit jaded at the time, and just expected it. No one has been or ever will be better at anticipating the play nor buying himself time nor as elusive. He was also filthy amazing a bunch of times.
Mario was amazing but... just not quite that level. More Esposito like. Or Thornton. Big and had great puck skills. Better version but kinda like that.
As much as I hated him at the time - Lafleur was electrifying. One of my friends has him as the second best player he's ever seen - behind Orr.

I never got to see Howe nor Hull during their prime - but even when I watched them when they were older - they were the best players on the ice. Easily.

People have to remember that because of Eagleson (and Orr's knees) - for The Summit Series - Canada was missing three of their best four players in Orr, Howe and Hull (Espo being the other)

Orr was simply playing a different sport/level than anyone.
If you don't believe me - go look at interviews with Bobby Clarke or Bobby Hull or whomever during the '76 Canada Cup - when Orr couldn't walk.
I put Orr as #1 all-time. over Gretzky.

edit: wasn't meant towards you. just anyone else reading this.

 

[b in vancouver]

Talking about Orr and Gretzky is off-topic... because no one has Crosby in that tier. I'm just trying to say that simply because you never saw some of these guys play - don't discount how dominant they were.

Crosby's amazing. I think getting swept by the Bruins was the best thing that happened to him (especially after the Flyers series for a few years) and he's been machine-like since but he's not that removed from his peers like a lot of these other players have been.
Even Espo taking the scoring from 50 goals to 76 to not just break the record but shatter it (Bobby Hull) is insane. That's like Crosby scoring 90 goals to out-do Ovechkin and Stamkos.

 

[b in vancouver]

Crosby has been just as, if not more dominant than Beliveau and has a very impressive resume of winning himself with 6 major championships.

There weren't as many tournaments for Beliveau to win.
Bergeron, Perry and Niedermayer all have 6 tournaments they've won. Doesn't put them to the level. (Bergeron actually won MVP during one or two of those tournaments when he was on the same team with Sid)

 

[daver]

There weren't as many tournaments for Beliveau to win.

So what more does Crosby have to do besides being the best player of his era in the regular season and playoffs, and having the most NHL and international team success in his era along with possibly the best junior career ever?

He has just as many notable Art Ross finishes and Hart nominations as Hull and Belliveau. He is right there with them at this stage of his career.

 

[vt89*]

Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux, Beliveau/Lafleur/Tyler Bouck

Crosby is top 10 fo sho

 

[b in vancouver]

So what more does Crosby have to do besides being the best player of his era in the regular season and playoffs, and having the most NHL and international team success in his era along with possibly the best junior career ever?

He has just as many notable Art Ross finishes and Hart nominations as Hull and Belliveau. He is right there with them at this stage of his career.

He's an amazing player. No doubt.
But so were they. Top 5 is lofty - and I don't think he's separated himself enough. He's trying to cement himself somewhere in the top 20. Has he done more than Bourque, Clarke, Esposito, Messier, etc. ?
He's working himself into that tier - which is an incredible achievement! He doesn't have to be in the top 10 to be one of the best ever. It's lofty company.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

He's an amazing player. No doubt.
But so were they. Top 5 is lofty - and I don't think he's separated himself enough. He's trying to cement himself somewhere in the top 20. Has he done more than Bourque, Clarke, Esposito, Messier, etc. ?
He's working himself into that tier - which is an incredible achievement! He doesn't have to be in the top 10 to be one of the best ever. It's lofty company.

He has def did more than Clarke and messier. Crosby also didn't have the benefit of playing with a top 4 player ever in his prime like Esposito.

Crosby>

 

[b in vancouver]

He has def did more than Clarke and messier. Crosby also didn't have the benefit of playing with a top 4 player ever in his prime like Esposito.

Crosby>

He's had Malkin.
I'm not arguing that Crosby isn't one of the all-time great players the league has seen. - just not in that top tier.

 

[armani]

He has def did more than Clarke and messier. Crosby also didn't have the benefit of playing with a top 4 player ever in his prime like Esposito.

Crosby>

Malkin?

Take your homer goggles off.

 

[b in vancouver]

So what more does Crosby have to do besides being the best player of his era in the regular season and playoffs, and having the most NHL and international team success in his era along with possibly the best junior career ever?

He has just as many notable Art Ross finishes and Hart nominations as Hull and Belliveau. He is right there with them at this stage of his career.

He has to dominate the game and change it more than he has.
There's always best players who are great and have a lot of success. That's amazing. Fantastic. But doesn't put you in the top 10. For example - what puts Crosby ahead of Jagr?

Beliveau and Hull weren't losing those trophies to H. Sedin, D. Sedin, Benn, St. Louis, Stamkos, (19 year-old) McDavid, Price, Corey Perry, Patrick Kane, his own teammate...
Ovechkin, sure you can understand, but
That's a lot of Hart and Art Ross trophies he hasn't won against (as good as they are) not the who's who of hockey royalty.

Hull and Belliveau lost their's to Howe. Bit of a difference.

 

[Up the Irons]

He's an amazing player. No doubt.
But so were they. Top 5 is lofty - and I don't think he's separated himself enough. He's trying to cement himself somewhere in the top 20. Has he done more than Bourque, Clarke, Esposito, Messier, etc. ?
He's working himself into that tier - which is an incredible achievement! He doesn't have to be in the top 10 to be one of the best ever. It's lofty company.

Well put. To make the top 5, u have to be more than just the best. U have to be historically impactful. Like Richard. Is he top 5 in actual calibre? IDK, but he certainly is when u factor in cultural impact.

Besides, is Crosby the slam dunk best of his era? Maybe by a tiny smidge. Malkin, OV, Kane, Daughty, Karlsson are all on his level.

He is not a notch above the rest.

 

[Up the Irons]

He has to dominate the game and change it more than he has.
There's always best players who are great and have a lot of success. That's amazing. Fantastic. But doesn't put you in the top 10. For example - what puts Crosby ahead of Jagr?

Beliveau and Hull weren't losing those trophies to H. Sedin, D. Sedin, Benn, St. Louis, Stamkos, (19 year-old) McDavid, Price, Corey Perry, Patrick Kane, his own teammate...
Ovechkin, sure you can understand, but
That's a lot of Hart and Art Ross trophies he hasn't won against (as good as they are) not the who's who of hockey royalty.

Hull and Belliveau lost their's to Howe. Bit of a difference.

Heh heh heh. Yeah, just a tiny little bit.

I'm willing to concede that Crosby may very well be better/greater than Lafleur, Messier, Clarke, Dion, Jagr.

But let's hold our horses when it comes to Beliveau, Espo and Hull. They were very special. Cros hasn't been more special than they were.

And then, if we factor in goalies and D? Is Crosby better/more impactful than Lidstrom? Roy? Hasek? Harvey? Shore?

 

[daver]

He has to dominate the game and change it more than he has.
There's always best players who are great and have a lot of success. That's amazing. Fantastic. But doesn't put you in the top 10. For example - what puts Crosby ahead of Jagr?

Beliveau and Hull weren't losing those trophies to H. Sedin, D. Sedin, Benn, St. Louis, Stamkos, (19 year-old) McDavid, Price, Corey Perry, Patrick Kane, his own teammate...
Ovechkin, sure you can understand, but
That's a lot of Hart and Art Ross trophies he hasn't won against (as good as they are) not the who's who of hockey royalty.

Hull and Belliveau lost their's to Howe. Bit of a difference.

I think you need to brush up on your hockey history if you think Howe was the only thing holding these guys back from more hardware.

 

[ted2019]

No and please refer to the History of Hockey section for Crosby questions. Might learn something. He's not top 10 and he might be top 15-20. Top 5, not a chance.

 

[ted2019]

Crosby and his mark on history

He's not a top 5 or top 10 player all time. Look and see on who's in that select group at the History of Hockey section. It's borderline ridiculous to see this question even brought up. IF he can win another cup or two and stay healthy, then maybe he would be in that kind of discussion.

 

[Sypher04]

Top 5 feels a bit premature, though definitely possible yet. I should clarify, 5 seems possible. The Top 4 ain't being touched.

I'd say he's arguable now though just inside the top 10.

 

[Plural]

I'd guess he's getting close to being unanimously considered as a top-10 player ever. Might be around 15 for some and maybe as high as 7th for some.

I also see his max potential as top-5, right after the "big-4".

 

[Crease]

To be within reach of #5 all-time is a testament to how fantastic his career has been.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2355889

 

[Duke Silver]

He's not a top 5 or top 10 player all time. Look and see on who's in that select group at the History of Hockey section. It's borderline ridiculous to see this question even brought up. IF he can win another cup or two and stay healthy, then maybe he would be in that kind of discussion.

Such a fantastic, well-supported argument you've made.

Winning 3 cups in a 30-team league with a salary cap and four rounds of playoff hockey is harder than winning 5-6 cups in a 6-team league with 2 rounds of playoff hockey.

But yeah, a couple more cups is all that's the determining factor.

Let's keep dangling that carrot just a little further away each time Crosby crosses a milestone.

What he's done, in this low-scoring era, is amazing. He averages 10.7 more points per season than his next closest competitor when comparing their points-per-game.

The fact he might end up top-10 in scoring all-time after starting his career in this era is mind-boggling.

 

[66871]

Other than longevity and playing on a stacked team in the O6 era, what does Beliveau have on him?