KoozNetsOff 92
Hala Madrid
- Apr 6, 2016
- 8,567
- 8,240
Who is the greater player: Crosby or Beliveau
- Thread starter slapKing
- Start date
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
In terms of quality of competition/talent pool, "difficulty to win", etc...
There is like an ocean of difference in between 1960 and 1990
Really not as much in between 1990 and 2020. I suspect it won't be as huge as 1960-1990 in 3o years as well.
If you don't agree OK I guess, everyone has the right to have an opinion
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,131
- 16,898
You can't pick and choose which provinces to include. I agree BC produces more talent now compared to Beliveau's era, but Quebec produces far less. The difference from Quebec is enormous. (There are two HOF skaters from Quebec who played 200+ games during Crosby's era - Bergeron and St. Louis. In Beliveau's era, you have both Richard bothers, Geoffrion, Keon, Lemaire, Moore, Ratalle, Gilbert, Cournoyer, Harvey, Pilote, Pronovost, Laperriere, Savard). Fine, adjust for Crosby facing a few more players from BC. But then adjust for Beliveau facing far more talent from Quebec. If want to adjust, then adjust for both players, otherwise you're just trying to prop up Crosby.
The conclusion that Crosby would have led the league in scoring ten years in a row is (to put it mildly) optimistic. Nobody in NHL history did that - not even Gretzky. Is Crosby better than Gretzky now?
"Nowhere close to being the same caliber of player". Beliveau is in the top ten on any credible list that I've seen (and usually closer to #5 than #10). If you want to rank Crosby ahead, that's fine. But saying that they're not the same calibre of playing is implying that Crosby is at the Gretzky/Orr level, and he obviously isn't.
Last edited:
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,757
- 10,625
I wonder what the voting would look like if only people who had watched both in their prime were allowed to vote?
I've been a Leafs fan, watching/listening to NHL hockey since the very early '60s. In my opinion, it's reasonably close, but Béliveau is clearly the right answer.
I've been a Leafs fan, watching/listening to NHL hockey since the very early '60s. In my opinion, it's reasonably close, but Béliveau is clearly the right answer.
There was never more than one regular skater from BC (sometimes 0) until Beliveau was 34. That isn't a lull in talent, it's a wasteland in hockey talent development.
In 58-59, there were 26 players born in Quebec vs. 126 players in the NHL who played at least 5 games (20.6%).
This season, there are 52 Quebec-born players who have played 5+ games. 371 Canadian players. (14%) Subtract 39 from BC and 9 from NS and you get 16.1%. Not a massive difference, and it seems like much of Quebec's drop has come due to the emergence of other regions for player development.
And no, I don't think it's really all that questionable that a talent such as Crosby could lead the league in league in scoring 10 straight years in a low-talent era like the O6 if he was healthy. 99 or 66 probably would have done it for 20.
Also, of course there would be more HOFers from any given province back then when induction is based off of relative NHL stats of a much narrower group of players/nationalities/provinces. Someone has to make the HOF every year, it doesn't mean they would repeat their success in the current NHL.
First off, kudos for the effort. People don't appreciate the time it takes to come up with this stuff.
Secondly, I don't think there is much change in the comparison when doing this analysis which is good as I hate when hypothetical narratives become overwhelming in a comparison.
That being said, not a huge fan on the "Canadian only" analysis. We have no idea if any Canadians in Crosby's era step up their production if they replace a non-Canadian on their team i.e. given first line minutes, better linemates etc... or if their production goes down. The NHL is certainly not 32 team league with only Canadians which could affect Crosby's playoff resume.
I think it is reasonable to presume that in any given season the pack of elite scorers is of similar strength but the # of elite scorers has to be bigger if you presume league size has grown with the level of eligible talent. Of course there are discussions to be had about specific times in NHL history e.g. the war years, expansion, but nothing stands out in either of there resumes which are statistical anomalies that need context.
Given this, we can then add statistical context which indicates that, on average, Top 3 and 5 scoring and Hart finishes in the O6 are equal to Top 5 and 10 in Crosby's era. This adds some strength to Crosby's edge.
Of course Beliveau's superior playoff resume is an edge for him even with reasonable context on winning Cups in a six team league (effectively still a six team league after expansion).
As per my previous email, not looking to finetune this comparison but cannot resist making a comment.
Howe should be removed in one year only - 52/53. His three other Art Ross wins during his peak were not above the best of Beliveau, Hull and Mikita and there is no debate that his other seasons do not stand out as statistical anomalies.
If we remove all of Howe's seasons from Beliveau's seasons then McDavid should be removed (and maybe Drai's points in some seasons are reduced.
Came here to say this, the poster you are quoting needs to listen to Mark Twain as
Statistics can be useful but not when they are manipulated in this way.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,757
- 10,625
“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts — for support rather than illumination.”
Andrew Lang
I've often used the phrase "elite consistency" when describing Crosby. To me he's top 4 all-time in that regard - and may even be #1. The only players in his tier are Gretzky/Bourque/Howe.
He didn't peak as high as Gretzky or even Howe of course - but he never dipped below a certain level. 17 straight seasons above points per game - if he keeps it up this year, it would be a record.
Beliveau was great - and pretty consistent too - but he had a few off-seasons, and took longer to get going (Crosby out the gate at 18 yrs old was great). Crosby has yet to have a season where he was bad or disappointing in my opinion.
Also - not that it really matters since it didn't happen - but it's hard to completely ignore some of the "what if" scenarios for Crosby. Changing very little outside of removing freak injuries, he so very easily goes from 2 Art Rosses to ~5-6+. I think he was simply a better player.
Beliveau is better for playoffs - but Crosby pretty damn strong there too, so the gap has shrunk a lot since 2018.
I have them both in my top 7 players all-time, but give me Crosby above Beliveau
He didn't peak as high as Gretzky or even Howe of course - but he never dipped below a certain level. 17 straight seasons above points per game - if he keeps it up this year, it would be a record.
Beliveau was great - and pretty consistent too - but he had a few off-seasons, and took longer to get going (Crosby out the gate at 18 yrs old was great). Crosby has yet to have a season where he was bad or disappointing in my opinion.
Also - not that it really matters since it didn't happen - but it's hard to completely ignore some of the "what if" scenarios for Crosby. Changing very little outside of removing freak injuries, he so very easily goes from 2 Art Rosses to ~5-6+. I think he was simply a better player.
Beliveau is better for playoffs - but Crosby pretty damn strong there too, so the gap has shrunk a lot since 2018.
I have them both in my top 7 players all-time, but give me Crosby above Beliveau
Always a challenge to compare playoff resumes at the best of times but moreso over different eras.
I tried to here: Comparing the playoff resumes of Howe, Beliveau and Crosby
A question to ask is who would you draft on your team for the playoffs? Even though Mario and Orr are rated outside the Top 10 in the HOH playoff performers list, I cannot imagine that anyone would not draft them in the Top 4 except a goalie perhaps.
Beliveau has the better playoff resume but that needs obvious context given the league was effectively a 3 to 4 team league for Beliveau's career.
Pound for pound, Crosby was more of the catalyst for his team's playoff success than Beliveau.
Who would I draft on a team for playoffs - definitely Lemieux or Orr above Beliveau or Crosby. And Beliveau definitely has the best playoff resume out of the 4 names. But you simply don't pass up that potential peak of Orr/Lemieux in my opinion.
For playoffs - not all opportunities are created equal, and that's just too bad - but you still give credit to the guy who performed more. Beliveau played on dynasties - more opportunities to shine - but too bad for Crosby and good for Beliveau, who made the most of his opportunities (and obviously, who was largely responsible for those opportunities as a key contributor to those dynasties).
Beliveau has very very easily a better playoff resume than Crosby - and that's never going to change. Crosby simply can't reach that high (I suppose if he were to win 2-3 more conn smythes he would, so maybe not "never", but nobody here thinks that's realistic).
Who would I draft to my team for a playoff run, Beliveau or Crosby? I'd pick Beliveau. Similar caliber players - Beliveau simply way more proven and longer track record. And obviously, better leadership. Not a huge gap or anything since Crosby does good in those areas, but a clear one.
Proven how?
What is a fair way to compare an O6 playoff resume when most seasons it was between 3 to 4 teams competing for the Cup vs., will say, 8 to 12 teams in Crosby's era.
What is a fair way to compare two rounds of playoff hockey in the O6 era vs. four rounds in a 30 team league?
What is a fair way to compare Beliveau's impact vs. Crosby's when Beliveau joined the defending Cup champs in 53/54 while Crosby joined the last place team and the Habs won a Cup with Beliveau playing three games?
Their raw career playoff numbers show their per game impact being quite similar and Crosby was much more relied on to produce to help his team advance than Beliveau was.
Like Beliveau, Crosby is the best playoff performer of his era and his team has had the most playoff success. Both have resumes befitting their regular season level of play. IMO, kudos to Beliveau for taking advantage of the opportunities that were presented to him but I don't think it moves him ahead of Crosby's superior regular season resume.
My father got to see them both play and would rank Beliveau right behind Gretzky and Lemieux as far as centers go. Resumes aside, i believe Beliveau had a much bigger impact on the sport.
I think it's too difficult to vote one way or the other, really.
I think it's too difficult to vote one way or the other, really.
Proven how? More playoff success and performances = more proven. He did it more often, seems pretty straight forward.
I would agree with your last sentence - I prefer Crosby's regular season resume to Beliveau's, which is why despite's Beliveau's edge in the playoffs, I rank Crosby ahead overall. But - it's close.
I don't think that "Beliveau was very easily better playoff resume than Crosby" as you state here as he was very ordinary in a 4 year stretch from 61-64 with still very well built teams and great supporting casts.
To me the elite consistency that Crosby has rivaled only by Gretzky and Howe is why I place him higher than Jean.
I also give credit to Jean being at least a star player before the age of 22 when he became an NHL regular in an injury filled season.
He was no doubt the best player in the world outside of the NHL for several seasons before that.
Last edited:
When I look at resumes, I like to "add positives" rather than focus on "deducing points for negatives". It comes out to pretty much the same in the end, but still.
So - Beliveau has more positive performances than Crosby. More runs, more good runs, etc. His best runs are better than Crosby's best ones too (Crosby doesn't have a playoff run that can touch 1956).
Now if you insist on focusing on negatives - it's not like Crosby also doesn't have bad playoff runs? Just look at the last 3 years.
I think for me - the biggest factor that closes the gap between Crosby and Beliveau for playoffs is 4 rounds vs 2. Simply put - it's more impressive to be good over 4 rounds, than just 2. So - this is a reverse of "not all opportunities created equal", since Beliveau didn't play in a 4 round era, so he didn't get to play more than 2 rounds. I still think more rounds/games is better.
Overall:
Regular season Crosby > Beliveau
Playoffs: Beliveau > Crosby
International: Crosby > Beliveau
Overall: Crosby > Beliveau. Close though
No context for different eras? Just straight up comparison of raw numbers?
It seems unfair to hold a player to an unattainable bar of matching Cup wins from players from previous eras, and especially the O6. There has been only three teams in the past 30 years to repeat vs. this occurring almost 50% of the time (21 times out of 44 chances) in the 44 years before 1993.
Pound for pound, Crosby's playoff resume matches up well with Beliveau's once reasonable context is applied. Edge to Beliveau for the best playoff Cup run and the best SCF. Edge to Crosby for clearly being relied on for his team's success.
Caps8112
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2008
- 3,364
- 2,165
never saw Beliveau play. Gut says Crosby but this is where not having seen him play can go in many different directions. Team awards. Was he the reason montreal won all those cups? was he a really good player that got lucky to be on the dynasty of that era? would he have been as good on another team of that era? Looks like an exceptional player based off stats. Crosby has to be better then him tho.
Shinjuku Calling
Registered User
- Jun 20, 2017
- 3,164
- 2,723
Lots of similarities here as players. Both are given massive amounts of credit for the environment they came into - Beliveau for coming into an all-time great dynasty, and Crosby for being a mediocre contributor on a team Canada that would have been the overwhelming favorite with or without him, and of course Crosby also benefitted from having Malkin - who often outscored Crosby on their deeper runs.
JMO, but I try to separate player from environment, maybe moreso than most. So for me, a guy like Marcel Dionne or Jerome Iginla may fare a bit better than for others.
In 17 playoff seasons, Beliveau led the league in points one time and goals one time, despite his team winning the cup 10 times. Clearly, the other guys on that squad were sharing the burden.
Beliveau led his team in playoff goals 8 times out of 17 appearances, and points 6 out of 17 appearances. For Crosby those are both 6 times out of 14 appearances. Pretty similar in that regard.
Believeau's team won the cup the year before he got there, and again within 2 years of when he left. Beliveau was sometimes significantly outscored by teammates and his playoff PPG was basically the same as 2 other players on that dynasty.
Point is, I don't think Beliveau was some sort of playoff monster that Michael Jordanned his team to championships, but rather he was on the best team and he did what a very elite player is supposed to do.
IMO Crosby is the greater player. While it's true that Crosby's peak seasons are a weakness relative to Beliveau (or virtually any other top 15 player), he just spent more time as a top player as compared to his peers, and his peers constitute a larger and more competitive environment in my estimation.
JMO, but I try to separate player from environment, maybe moreso than most. So for me, a guy like Marcel Dionne or Jerome Iginla may fare a bit better than for others.
In 17 playoff seasons, Beliveau led the league in points one time and goals one time, despite his team winning the cup 10 times. Clearly, the other guys on that squad were sharing the burden.
Beliveau led his team in playoff goals 8 times out of 17 appearances, and points 6 out of 17 appearances. For Crosby those are both 6 times out of 14 appearances. Pretty similar in that regard.
Believeau's team won the cup the year before he got there, and again within 2 years of when he left. Beliveau was sometimes significantly outscored by teammates and his playoff PPG was basically the same as 2 other players on that dynasty.
Point is, I don't think Beliveau was some sort of playoff monster that Michael Jordanned his team to championships, but rather he was on the best team and he did what a very elite player is supposed to do.
IMO Crosby is the greater player. While it's true that Crosby's peak seasons are a weakness relative to Beliveau (or virtually any other top 15 player), he just spent more time as a top player as compared to his peers, and his peers constitute a larger and more competitive environment in my estimation.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 9,757
- 10,625
Yes. People can use all kinds of stats to support their position, usually predetermined. Often the same numbers are used to support both sides.
Especially when comparing different eras, I find the best opinions cone from people who actually watched both players.
Nathaniel
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,660
- 6,281
Crosby has add 3 more ppg seasons of longevity to the discussion
TruePowerSlave
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2015
- 7,211
- 9,705
I have a really hard time putting guys who played back in the day in a closed league and much less professional environment ahead the all-time greats of the modern era. The level of competition is significantly higher.
