Okay, in all honesty we need some objective thinking here. Let's all agree on one thing, and I think someone on TSN said it tonight (Craig Button?) that he can't see Crosby ever surpassing Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux. I think he left out Howe and then said he could see Crosby catching him or something. I am not so sure, because Crosby will be just 30 years old in August and have 12 seasons under his belt. Mr. Hockey played a TON of hockey from 30 years old and on. This would be everything after 1958 for him. So can Crosby top that? I really don't think he can because Howe was 3rd in scoring when he was 40 years old. He's going to have to have a heck of a time in his 30s to surpass Howe. So for me the top 4 are set in stone more or less with the 5th pick being up for grabs.
Sid has played in 12 seasons. Beliveau's first 12 seasons were 1953-'65. Hull's first 12 were 1957-'69. Rocket's first 12 were 1942-'1954. After that I don't think anyone else matches him for their first 12 seasons. Jagr started off slower, Lafleur started off slower than Crosby as well and his 12th season was 1983 which is a clear notch below what Crosby is now. Esposito started off too slow. Mikita? Just a bit slower than Sid and wasn't as strong after his 12th season either. All of Sakic, Yzerman, Schmidt, Trottier and such either declined a bit, or didn't hit the ground running like Crosby. So right now is it crazy to put him as a top 10 player of all-time? I mean, right now? For me I don't think it is, I think that is pretty rational.
So right now let's just focus on the Beliveau, Hull and Richard trio because they are the most common #5 guys. How do his first 12 seasons compare to theirs? I say they are all similar. Crosby is being talked in the same way these guys were when they played. Beliveau too won a Smythe in his 12th season. So for me right now he might not quite have the full career value of these three, but I think he is on pace to surpass them all because I think you can make a case that Crosby has the best first 12 years out of them.
The biggest question is moving forward from here. How does the second half of his career go? Beliveau won 4 more Cups after 1965 as captain and was routinely among the top players in the game while doing it. He too had someone that usually finished ahead of him in points (Hull, Mikita) that Crosby has (McDavid possibly from here on in) so they are similar there. Richard put in a good 3 elite more years and a few more great postseasons after his 12th year, so Crosby has his work cut out for him there. Hull bolted to the WHA after 15 years in the NHL and while you can give him a bit of credit since his last elite season in the NHL he still had 50 goals the point is that it hurt him a bit. Still, I don't think Crosby has surpassed the Golden Jet's career value.
When all is said and done it all depends on how well Crosby plays in his 30s. I personally think as long as his health holds up that he should be a unanimous #5 guy of all-time, but that it is still very hard to crack that top 4, and I don't think he does it.
A few things. It's wrong to look at the player's "first 12 years" as opposed to "up to age 29".
Players usually retire when they reach a certain age - not when they reach a certain season count. What I mean is - you just said Beliveau also won a smythe in his 12th year. Ok but he was 33 years old. At 33 years old, expectation was he maybe had 5 years left?
Crosby is only 29. He can have a full 10 years left (and a few still as best player in the world).
Crosby is *so much more likely* to ad more to his legacy after his 12th season than Beliveau was at the same point. So I think that's the comparison to make if you want to look at Crosby's pace and make some reasonable expectations, each player up to age 29.
All that being said - Crosby will never touch Orr, Gretzky or Lemieux. They are the best because they were the "best". They are just better players than everyone else and no one will catch them unless they show a talent level not seen in the NHL in 20+ years.
Howe? I'd say at a cursory glance, I would argue that Howe > Crosby as of age 29. But it's now Howe >> Crosby, I think Crosby is at least somewhat close to Howe up to age 29. So if Crosby ages better, there's a plausible chance to catch and surpass Howe.
The problem with Howe of course is that - there's no way in hell Crosby will do anything but lose ground after age 29. Howe's longevity is legendary, above even Jagr's.
So I agree - top 4 are secure and out of reach for Crosby.
Everyone else? Everyone else is 100% within reach, and i'd even argue Crosby is ahead/favorite for #5 now. If he can add some reasonable amount of longevity for a player of his stature, and not decline too sharply, i think he might become a consensus #5 best player ever by the time he retires.
As of "right now" ? I don't really care about right now. There's no agreed upon criteria. Some people will still argue Sakic > Crosby purely because 20 seasons > 12 seasons, even if Sid is clearly a better player. But I say Crosby is definitely going to be in the conversation for #5 when he retires, and might even become a consensus #5 pick.
