Sidney Crosby Top 5 player of all time

[Yackiberg8]

There is no comparison to be made with Lemieux. Lemieux dominated in a way Crosby could only dream of. Lemieux was also a crazy prolific goal scorer. Also, Lemieux best ppg seasons are his longer ones, making it pretty evident that if he were to be healthy he would have been more productive if he played full seasons instead of shortened ones. On the other hand, Crosby best ppg seasons are his shorter ones. I’m sure Lemieux would never have lost the Art Ross to guys like Sedin, even he was able to play only 60-70 games.

Finally, and imo most importantly, talking about not being able to look at point totals with context... why are you comparing the point totals of a winger and a center? Would you compare the point totals of a defenseman and a center as if it was the same context? History has shown us that centers cumulate more points than wingers, that is the nature of the position.

Lemieux is probably the most talented player ever imo so save your spiel.

I was responding to a poster who was saying you don’t help your team in games you don’t play so Crosby’s stock goes down. If you are able to think even a little bit you will realize that although someone like Lemieux (or Orr) didn’t play as many games as the other top players, they were clearly a couple of the best ever.

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe
Messier
Yzerman
Francis
Esposito
Hull

Certainly a few others. Crosby is strikingly similar to Joe Sakic. But to say "AINEC", stop. Just stop.

 

[Aladyyn]

If you have Roy above Hasek your rankings shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

If you have Roy above Hasek your rankings shouldn't be taken seriously.

In this case, the opposite could also be true.

 

[Freudian]

The parity created by the salary cap and the lower scoring levels may hurt the legacy of current players. NHL has never been more competitive than it is now and it's unreasonable to conclude that the last 20-25 years didn't produce a top ten all time player. If you have a list that has no player drafted from 1995 onwards in your top ten, then you have fallen way too much in love with the written history of the league.

 

[Yackiberg8]

Lemieux >>>>> Crosby, the eye test tells you this without looking at a single statistic. Not so with Crosby/Ovy imo.

But Lemieux only played 915 NHL games. What happened to the “you can’t help your team when you’re not playing argument so the person with more GP and hardly more points is the better player”?

Ron Francis had 75 more points than Lemieux, he has to be the better player. Or does your argument just make no sense?

 

[Yackiberg8]

Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe
Messier
Yzerman
Francis
Esposito
Hull

Certainly a few others. Crosby is strikingly similar to Joe Sakic. But to say "AINEC", stop. Just stop.

Would love to see some reasoning from people aside from Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe. Your list doesn’t seem very good imo.

Ron Francis won 1 Selke as his only award and hardly cracked 100 points in the highest scoring era ever and you have him as the 5th best forward all-time?

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

Would love to see some reasoning from people aside from Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe. Your list doesn’t seem very good imo.

I will never understand this boards hate for Messier. I get why Canucks fans hate him. They have every right. But the man managed to win cups even after Gretzky, put up stellar seasons and is top 10 all time in scoring.

Hull was one of the most prolific scorers in the world and was the greatest American born NHL player. He is one I can see an argument against based on lack of hardware.

Yzerman has won his cups, has his trophies. He scored 155 points in a season. One of the top goal scorers in the game and is also top 10 in points, along with being 11th in playoff points.

Francis: I'm actually arguing this one? He was to Lemieux as Messier was to Gretzky. Also top 10 in both points all time in regular season and playoffs.

Orr: I honestly don't need to say anything. I really don't.

Esposito:...

You know what. Just search these players yourself.

 

[Yackiberg8]

I will never understand this boards hate for Messier. I get why Canucks fans hate him. They have every right. But the man managed to win cups even after Gretzky, put up stellar seasons and is top 10 all time in scoring.

Hull was one of the most prolific scorers in the world and was the greatest American born NHL player. He is one I can see an argument against based on lack of hardware.

Yzerman has won his cups, has his trophies. He scored 155 points in a season. One of the top goal scorers in the game and is also top 10 in points, along with being 11th in playoff points.

Francis: I'm actually arguing this one? He was to Lemieux as Messier was to Gretzky. Also top 10 in both points all time in regular season and playoffs.

Orr: I honestly don't need to say anything. I really don't.

Esposito:...

You know what. Just search these players yourself.

Ive shared my reasoning many times in this thread, just curious as to what your opinion was based on you don’t have to get defensive. I don’t have an issue with Messier, Hull, Esposito but Yzerman and Francis seem like they don’t fit. Orr wasn’t mentioned in your list of forwards I responded to, he was a defenceman if you didn’t realize.

Francis has a single Selke win as his only award and barely broke 100 points in the highest scoring era ever. He finished in the top 10 in scoring 4 times (when he was playing with Lemieux) in a 23 year career never finishing higher than 5th. He is 40th all-time in PPG.

Yzerman was a great player but more of a top 15-20 than top 10 due to lack of individual awards and shorter peak than others at the very top (3 extremely impressive seasons).

 

[BehindTheTimes]

But Lemieux only played 915 NHL games. What happened to the “you can’t help your team when you’re not playing argument so the person with more GP and hardly more points is the better player”?

Ron Francis had 75 more points than Lemieux, he has to be the better player. Or does your argument just make no sense?

No my argument makes perfect sense, I think you took it a bit too literally and are trying to avoid context. Ovy/Sidney are close enough comparatively in talent where you can basically flip a coin and a lot of the discussion boils down to personal preference, ie what you value more goalscorer and a heavy hitter vs a point producer with a better all around game. Lemieux had more impact on the games he did play than anyone and points is not my only criteria, the eye test is important, Lemieux was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francis, this is huge attempt at trolling and completely avoiding context and focusing on a single criteria. Lemieux is also >>> Ovy who imo is = to Sidney.

A lot of the mystique around Crosby is what could have been if he were not hurt the games, but imo, he still doesn't separate from Ovy even if we choose to prorate his numbers.

 

[Yackiberg8]

No my argument makes perfect sense, I think you took it a bit too literally and are trying to avoid context. Ovy/Sidney are close enough comparatively in talent where you can basically flip a coin and a lot of the discussion boils down to personal preference, ie what you value more goalscorer and a heavy hitter vs a point producer with a better all around game. Lemieux had more impact on the games he did play than anyone and points is not my only criteria, the eye test is important, Lemieux was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francis, this is huge attempt at trolling and completely avoiding context and focusing on a single criteria. Lemieux is also >>> Ovy who imo is = to Sidney.

A lot of the mystique around Crosby is what could have been if he were not hurt the games, but imo, he still doesn't separate from Ovy even if we choose to prorate his numbers.

So the statement you made earlier was admittedly false.

Ovie and Sid are both great players and I think they are both top 10. They have dominated their era. I think Sid is better than Ovie however. He is the better point producer and all around player while having better team success in both the NHL and internationally.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

So the statement you made earlier was admittedly false.

Ovie and Sid are both great players and I think they are both top 10. They have dominated their era. I think Sid is better than Ovie however. He is the better point producer and all around player while having better team success in both the NHL and internationally.

Nope, I stand by my statement when comparing two players of similar skill. You distorting the point by laughably comparing Francis to Lemieux did nothing to sway me.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe
Jagr

Crosby is in the mix to round out the top 5 forwards, along with players like Richard, Beliveau, Hull, Mikita, Esposito, Lafleur, Messier, and Ovechkin. If we just restrict it to the last ~50 years (post-expansion), then he's a top 5 forward, behind Gretzky, Lemieux & Jagr... in the mix with Esposito, Lafleur, Messier, Sakic, and Ovechkin. I think he narrowly bests Sakic & Ovechkin, so that most likely leaves Esposito, Lafleur & Messier to fight Crosby for the 4/5 spots.

 

[Yackiberg8]

Nope, I stand by my statement when comparing two players of similar skill. You distorting the point by laughably comparing Francis to Lemieux did nothing to sway me.

If the statement “you don’t help your team win in games you don’t play” were used to determine the talent level of players as you suggested then Lemieux would be dropped down considerably in your eyes. It just shows your lack of rationale is all.

 

[Lomez]

Eye isn't everything. If that's the case, Orr >>>>>>>> everyone else.

Talking about my eyes. Never saw Orr!

 

[Voight]

Dom Hasek says hello...

Roy is better. Hasek is #2 and very close, but he is not better than St Patrick.

 

[Voight]

If you have Roy above Hasek your rankings shouldn't be taken seriously.

I must've missed that time where Hasek was playoff MVP 3x & was the best player in 5 different finals runs.

 

[Aladyyn]

I must've missed that time where Hasek was playoff MVP 3x & was the best player in 5 different finals runs.

You must have missed the part where they played at the same time and Hasek was better uhhhhh, every single season?

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

You must have missed the part where they played at the same time and Hasek was better uhhhhh, every single season?

But did he win three Conn Smythe? Or 151 playoff wins? Or even 4 Stanley Cups as a starter? Roy was clearly better in the playoffs when the stakes are at the highest.

 

[Aladyyn]

But did he win three Conn Smythe? Or 151 playoff wins? Or even 4 Stanley Cups as a starter? Roy was clearly better in the playoffs when the stakes are at the highest.

Roy played for better teams.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Roy played for better teams.

Or Hasek just choked more in the playoffs.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

But did he win three Conn Smythe? Or 151 playoff wins? Or even 4 Stanley Cups as a starter? Roy was clearly better in the playoffs when the stakes are at the highest.

Adjusted for era, Roy's save percentage in the playoffs is higher than Hasek's. Not by much, mind you, but he maintained that level of play over more than twice as many games, on deeper runs on average. No question that Roy is the superior playoff performer.

Goalies: Adjusted Playoff Save Percentage

 

[SeanConn]

Roy is better. Hasek is #2 and very close, but he is not better than St Patrick.

Hasek is definitely better than Patrick Roy...

Hasek at his peak was the best goalie we've ever see play the game... he played like no goalie before, and no goalie since.

Hasek:

6 Vezinas (94,95,97, 98, 99, 2001)
2 Harts (97, 98)
2 Pearsons (97, 98)
2 cups

Roy:

3 Vezinas (89, 90, 92)
0 Harts
0 Pearsons
4 Cups
3 Conn Smythes (86, 93, 01) Which is absolutely mind blowing

There's no argument... Roy is the greatest playoff goaltender of all time, and maybe best overall career of a goalie, but career doesn't always equate to greatness.

Hasek is the only goalie to have won multiple Hart trophies... and he won them back to back (when guys like Jagr, Selanne, Forsberg, Sakic, Kariya, Lidstrom, Bure, Federov were at their peaks) I'd give Roy the edge for better career, but no way would I say was he greater than Hasek, Hasek is the G.O.A.T. goaltender.

 

[bobholly39]

Roy played for better teams.

He made those teams better though. He's the main reason for all those cups - yes even in 96 during Sakic's historic conn smythe.

In terms of compete level and 'will to win' - I may rank Patrick Roy #1 in the history of the NHL.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Hasek is definitely better than Patrick Roy...

Hasek at his peak was the best goalie we've ever see play the game... he played like no goalie before, and no goalie since.

Hasek:

6 Vezinas (94,95,97, 98, 99, 2001)
2 Harts (97, 98)
2 Pearsons (97, 98)
2 cups

Roy:

3 Vezinas (89, 90, 92)
0 Harts
0 Pearsons
3 Cups
3 Conn Smythes (86, 93, 01) Which is absolutely mind blowing

There's no argument... Roy is the greatest playoff goaltender of all time, and maybe best overall career of a goalie, but career doesn't always equate to greatness.

Hasek is the only goalie to have won multiple Hart trophies... and he won them back to back (when guys like Jagr, Selanne, Forsberg, Sakic, Kariya, Lidstrom, Bure, Federov were at their peaks) I'd give Roy the edge for better career, but no way would I say was he greater than Hasek, Hasek is the G.O.A.T. goaltender.

In this case yes, there is a difference between best and greatest, Hasek could have been the best goalie (prime/peak) but Roy for all what he has accomplished as a goalie and his impact on the game is clearly bigger than Hasek's when he revolutionized the NHL with his butterfly style, you know the style every goalie is using nowadays. Roy is the greatest goaltender of all time period.

By the way, Roy has FOUR Stanley Cups as a starter, not three and Hasek just one as a starter. Concerning Hasek's Harts and Pearsons, look at the years, 1997 and 1998, Gretzky was at the end of his career and Mario was retired at the time, no way Hasek could have won the Hart and Pearson against prime/peak Gretzky and Lemieux between 1988-1994 (prime/peak years of Roy).