Sidney Crosby Top 5 player of all time

[Horse McHindu]

How Stan Smyl hasn't factored into anyone's Top 5 is beyond me. Crosby is definitely Top 10 now however, but lets not forget about Stan Smyl's contributions either.

 

[AquaticBirdman]

Can we create a thread about how Malkin should now probably be considered worthy of top-100 all time consideration?

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

He'll definitely retire top 15, but boy, that first Smythe certainly merits a real asterisk next to it.

 

[AquaticBirdman]

Sid has yet to see his 30th birthday as of yet and already has a trophy case that 99.9% of players who've played this game can only dream of. 3 cups, 2 Harts, 2 Smythe's, 2 Art Ross's, 2 Richard's, 2 Olympic Golds...

If he stays healthy and manages to play to 40 I fully expect him to push the 1700-1800pt plateau, which will definitely cement him in the top 10 and potentially even top 5 in my opinion.

 

[golfortennis]

I'm hardly a fan of using Cups as a primary differentiation metric, but it holds water when the discrepancy is that large.

Teams in that era with hall of famers also had to regularly face Hall of Famers. The Ted Lindsay question is an impossible to answer hypothetical, because it'd be like asking "what if the Caps drafted Erik Karlsson and Henrik Lundqvist?" Does Crosby still have three Cups in that universe?

Your scenarios don't hold water because those guys never actually played for that team. So you're really putting a hypothetical out there. Detroit won 4 of 6 cups from 50-55, and then after leading the league in assists Lindsay gets traded to a bottom feeder, off a team that finished 1st overall. All out of spite. Marty Pavelich was also cut loose from that team.

This isn't a hypothetical "well if we put this guy on that team", this is a real life team that had the real life player, and dealt him for non hockey reasons. Toronto did the same, but the Habs didn't..... and they win 5 straight cups. Maybe they do anyway, but take away a hall of famer in his prime from a great team, and someone else is going to benefit.

I'm just saying even though he has his name on there 10 times, it's not a real good argument over Crosby. When you start out with a 1/6 chance of winning, a great player is likely to win it more often than a 1/30 chance.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Top 15 for sure.
Top 10 debatable.
I don't see him ever being a top 5 player but that's just my opinion.

 

[golfortennis]

Can we create a thread about how Malkin should now probably be considered worthy of top-100 all time consideration?

I think anyone with half a brain knows Malkin is well inside the top 100. I cannot imagine how a person could say he isn't.

 

[vancityluongo]

Your scenarios don't hold water because those guys never actually played for that team. So you're really putting a hypothetical out there. Detroit won 4 of 6 cups from 50-55, and then after leading the league in assists Lindsay gets traded to a bottom feeder, off a team that finished 1st overall. All out of spite. Marty Pavelich was also cut loose from that team.

This isn't a hypothetical "well if we put this guy on that team", this is a real life team that had the real life player, and dealt him for non hockey reasons. Toronto did the same, but the Habs didn't..... and they win 5 straight cups. Maybe they do anyway, but take away a hall of famer in his prime from a great team, and someone else is going to benefit.

I'm just saying even though he has his name on there 10 times, it's not a real good argument over Crosby. When you start out with a 1/6 chance of winning, a great player is likely to win it more often than a 1/30 chance.

Okay, then change the scenario to Malkin bolting to the KHL after the 2012 lockout. It's hard to deal with hypotheticals in a comparison that already is not exactly apples to apples.

I also completely disagree that the odds of a team winning are 1/number of teams in the league. It's semantics or even going against my argument because those Habs teams probably had a 50% chance of winning whereas these Pens were at 25% or whatever at best... but I just don't buy that 5x more teams means it's 5x harder to win a Cup.

 

[yababy]

He isn't and never will be able to top Gretzky
Orr
Howe
Lemieux

By the time he retires he'll prob have an argument for #5

You're forgetting goalies
He won't top Plante, Patrick Roy, Vezina, Dryden, Sawchuk either

 

[NDiesel]

I would say yes - but I also have never had the pleasure to watch some of the legends that should be in the argument so I feel like my opinion shouldn't be worth as much in this case.

 

[PJT]

You're hard-pressed to find more than a handful of players with his trophy case combined with his skill-level and leadership, not to mention significance to his franchise and the game itself in his respective era. And you must weigh into context the expansive and incredibly difficult playing atmosphere of 2017. Measuring all of these things, this is why people are considering placing him in the #5 slot GOAT already. For those who don't see him inside of the Top 10, you are burdened with hate.

 

[NDiesel]

You're hard-pressed to find more than a handful of players with his trophy case combined with his skill-level and leadership, not to mention significance to his franchise and the game itself in his respective era. And you must weigh into context the expansive and incredibly difficult playing atmosphere of 2017. Measuring all of these things, this is why people are considering placing him in the #5 slot GOAT already. For those who don't see him inside of the Top 10, you are burdened with hate.

This is pretty much my reasoning. I can really only look at the stats of past legends, but just what he has done for the game in the short time he's been around it's pretty clear he's in the conversation. He has done so much in an era where teams don't repeat, players rarely dominate or win trophies in back-to-back years, and where 100 points is becoming a rarity.

He's having an impact on this league much like Orr/Gretz/Lemeiux did.

 

[Darcy Tucker]

How Stan Smyl hasn't factored into anyone's Top 5 is beyond me. Crosby is definitely Top 10 now however, but lets not forget about Stan Smyl's contributions either.

Lmao

 

[NDiesel]

Can we create a thread about how Malkin should now probably be considered worthy of top-100 all time consideration?

Lol he should've been in the top 100 when it was first announced anyway (this coming from a Pens hater ).

 

[Boxscore]

IMO, the two biggest hurdles Crosby faces are...

1. The NHL's hard-sell of him
There's a saying in marketing - "people love to shop but hate being sold to." And the same rings true whenever a corporation or the media tries to "sell the public." Since day 1, the NHL has used every ounce of its power to oversell Crosby to the masses in hopes of gaining popularity. To the longtime, die-hard fans, this tactic has unfairly backfired and is most responsible for their dislike of Crosby IMO.

It's not jealously or envy (I'm sure to a certain extent fans are jealous Crosby doesn't play for their team) but it's the non-stop Crosby narrative that wears on fans who follow the game religiously. I compare it to a radio station playing the same song over and over and over. At some point fatigue sets in, followed by disgust. IMO, if the NHL (and media) wasn't blatantly so "Pro-Crosby", the fans would fight to give him his just due.

2. The eye test
This is the biggest hurdle IMO. I insist that Crosby is a hockey player's hockey player. The dedication, the non-stop practice, the ability to face adversity and never rattle, the pressures that come with being "the face" of the NHL and always keeping your nose clean. The ability to lead by example night after night, shift after shift. These are the things that make Crosby incredibly special.

Yes, Sid is extremely talented, let's be honest. But he doesn't fly at top speed like McDavid. He doesn't take blistering shots like Ovechkin or Laine. He doesn't dangle and make your chin drop like Kane or Malkin. He doesn't blast people through the boards like Burns or Byfuglien. I've been watching Crosby since day one and he's rarely "wowed" me. He's made some awesome plays and shots but he doesn't do it with the same flair as a Kane, Malkin, McDavid... let alone legends like Lemieux, Jagr, Orr and Bure, who "wowed" you every game.

Crosby does all the things that result in wins and making his team better - things that don't always play well on YouTube. The more I've watched Sid over the years, the more I've learned to appreciate how great he really is - but I'd take $100 out of my pocket and pay to watch Karlsson or McDavid play before I did Crosby.

 

[Macbanan]

It all comes down to how much weight you want to give longevity of career and total career production. Those who think it's very important will argue since Crosby's career is not completed he can't be properly judged. Others will argue his body of work is obviously enough to judge him as a player.

I belong in the latter category. I judge greatness of players by their skill level and dominance. I don't particulary care for Howe's, Messier's or Jagr's longevity. Howe and Messier I think are overrated, Jagr did have an amazing peak nonetheless.

I think Lemieux, Forsberg and Crosby are underrated on these types of list because of that.

Crosby top 5, yes!

 

[1967th Heaven]

One case regarding the bolded is that in Crosby's three cups, the Pens have beaten out 87 (there's that number, again) other teams. In Beliveau's ten cups, the Habs beat out 70 other teams.

It could also be argued that Beliveau's career was extended (or at least his stat line was improved) by the league doubling in size just as he should have started to decline.

And in my view, they both missed enough games to look at how many years each led the league in PPG. Sid has led that number 5 times in a 30 league team. Beliveau 3 times -- each of them in a 6 team league.

It's funny, a few weeks ago when the "Crosby in the top 10" thread was posted in the NHL Talk forum I figured Crosby would finish his career somewhere just above Yzerman. After watching a lot of the arguments against him fail, I have him higher. And at this point I don't think Morenz and Beliveau have anything on him other than longevity. He's not past them yet, but I believe he will be.

Great post

 

[Lindros_for_rizzle_]

Crosby is top 5 most overrated player of all time. He is 15-25 all time currently. His playoff performance is vastly overrated. Winning the Smythes Marketing award doesn´t change that fact except for people who thinks it´s difficult to think for themselves.

 

[SabresSharks]

He certainly doesn't displace any of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, or Howe. There are plenty of guys in the conversation for top-5 inclusion - Beliveau, Richard, Lidstrom, Messier, Borque, etc., etc.

Sid isn't ready to be in that conversation yet. Let's see what he does in the next 5-10 years.

 

[bert]

Gretzky
Orr
Howe
Lemieux

are all still solidly above him.

He might slide into that 5 slot, but it's not clear cut. He's competing with guys like Hull, Beliveau, Richard, Harvey, Shore, etc.

This exactly bang on. Plenty of arguments to suggest he is 5th but he is definitely not ahead of those 4.

 

[vancityluongo]

You're hard-pressed to find more than a handful of players with his trophy case combined with his skill-level and leadership, not to mention significance to his franchise and the game itself in his respective era. And you must weigh into context the expansive and incredibly difficult playing atmosphere of 2017. Measuring all of these things, this is why people are considering placing him in the #5 slot GOAT already. For those who don't see him inside of the Top 10, you are burdened with hate.

Jean Beliveau
Bobby Hull
Eddie Shore
Doug Harvey
Maurice Richard
Howie Morenz

Please do a direct comparison of Crosby to convince people including me that Sid is Top-10. Just saying 2017 > 1957 isn't a convincing argument btw. If you can't, you are burdened with ignorance.

 

[Paxton Fettel]

Without question, Sid is now one of the Top 5 best players of all time...

3 Stanley Cups
2 Conn Smythes
2 Olympic Gold Medals
2 Art Ross Trophies
2 Hart Trophies

Take away Malkin and his Canadian citizenship from the equation, that leaves him with zero Cups, zero Smythes and zero Olympic golds.

 

[Puck]

At least I think everyone would agree that on that players with 'concussion issues' list, Sid Crosby passed Eric Lindros by awhile ago (for Top 10, not for concussions). Hopefully Sid has many more years, but I'd still rather he retire safe and early rather than go too long. I think he makes the top 10, no need to shrink the list to 5 and argue forever.

Beliveau was a very humble man, I think he would take himself off the top 5. However I think Richard and Messier would argue they fit.

 

[authentic]

IMO, the two biggest hurdles Crosby faces are...

1. The NHL's hard-sell of him
There's a saying in marketing - "people love to shop but hate being sold to." And the same rings true whenever a corporation or the media tries to "sell the public." Since day 1, the NHL has used every ounce of its power to oversell Crosby to the masses in hopes of gaining popularity. To the longtime, die-hard fans, this tactic has unfairly backfired and is most responsible for their dislike of Crosby IMO.

It's not jealously or envy (I'm sure to a certain extent fans are jealous Crosby doesn't play for their team) but it's the non-stop Crosby narrative that wears on fans who follow the game religiously. I compare it to a radio station playing the same song over and over and over. At some point fatigue sets in, followed by disgust. IMO, if the NHL (and media) wasn't blatantly so "Pro-Crosby", the fans would fight to give him his just due.

2. The eye test
This is the biggest hurdle IMO. I insist that Crosby is a hockey player's hockey player. The dedication, the non-stop practice, the ability to face adversity and never rattle, the pressures that come with being "the face" of the NHL and always keeping your nose clean. The ability to lead by example night after night, shift after shift. These are the things that make Crosby incredibly special.

Yes, Sid is extremely talented, let's be honest. But he doesn't fly at top speed like McDavid. He doesn't take blistering shots like Ovechkin or Laine. He doesn't dangle and make your chin drop like Kane or Malkin. He doesn't blast people through the boards like Burns or Byfuglien. I've been watching Crosby since day one and he's rarely "wowed" me. He's made some awesome plays and shots but he doesn't do it with the same flair as a Kane, Malkin, McDavid... let alone legends like Lemieux, Jagr, Orr and Bure, who "wowed" you every game.

Crosby does all the things that result in wins and making his team better - things that don't always play well on YouTube. The more I've watched Sid over the years, the more I've learned to appreciate how great he really is - but I'd take $100 out of my pocket and pay to watch Karlsson or McDavid play before I did Crosby.

Not a bad overall post, but I do think you may be mistaking talent for flashy play.

 

[Dacks]

Take away Malkin and his Canadian citizenship from the equation, that leaves him with zero Cups, zero Smythes and zero Olympic golds.

What a dumb argument. What's Malkin's hypothetical trophy case without Sid? Kane without Toews? Gretzky without the all-star Oilers that, you know, won a cup without him?

Players can only be asked to succeed with the cards they've been dealt. Knocking them down for a hypothetical failure in an imaginary alternate reality is about the stupidest thing I've heard.