Why is Crosby considered a clutch SCF performer?

[blundluntman]

Which is still incorrect. Kane has 2 career GWGs in the cup finals.

And Crosby has 1 goal in all of his cup-winning campaigns. Kane has 7. Not to mention it's not just about game winning goals, it's about the timing/momentum shift that comes from any goal/assit

 

[Empoleon8771]

And Crosby has 1 goal in all of his cup-winning campaigns. Kane has 7. Not to mention it's not just about game winning goals, it's about the timing/momentum shift that comes from any goal/assit

And Crosby has 20 career points in the cup finals to 16 for Kane.

I'm not arguing that Kane isn't a clutch playoff performer, because he certainly is. But applying that title to Kane but not Crosby is just downright nonsensical.

 

[blundluntman]

I'm not arguing that Kane isn't a clutch playoff performer, because he certainly is. But applying that title to Kane but not Crosby is just downright nonsensical.

And around in circles we go. Like I have said 3x already, it's not just the number of points, it's the timing/context. Crosby is a good playoff performer, but words have meaning. I don't think of him when I think of clutch. Clutch players thrive under pressure, sometimes they don't thrive until there is pressure. I wouldn't say Crosby thrives or buckles under pressure.

 

[Video Nasty]

You're just proving my point more and more.

Your arguments are always about tearing Crosby down and coming up with any argument to downplay him, even if the argument is completely disingenuous.

Yep, tearing him down is not viewing him as top 5, and only somewhere between 6-8, and stamping out lies and exaggerations whenever they crop up.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yep, tearing him down is not viewing him as top 5, and only somewhere between 6-8, and stamping out lies and exaggerations whenever they crop up.

Whether Crosby is a "clutch SCF performer" has nothing to do with whether he's a top-5 player. It has to do with how well he performs in the cup finals relative to other players.

You're only bringing up the top-5 argument because it's easier to argue "Crosby isn't Gretzky" than actually make a legitimate argument against Crosby being a clutch SCF player.

And around in circles we go. Like I have said 3x already, it's not just the number of points, it's the timing/context. Crosby is a good playoff performer, but words have meaning. I don't think of him when I think of clutch. Clutch players thrive under pressure, sometimes they don't thrive until there is pressure. I wouldn't say Crosby thrives or buckles under pressure.

But if you're going to say that, you need to bring proof that Crosby isn't putting up "momentum influencing points" while Kane is.

 

[McShogun99]

Getting points is hard in the Cup finals when you’re playing an equally great team, facing the best checkers and the refs put away the whistles. It’s the reason why the role players usually end up being the stars of the finals.

 

[Video Nasty]

Whether Crosby is a "clutch SCF performer" has nothing to do with whether he's a top-5 player. It has to do with how well he performs in the cup finals relative to other players.

You're only bringing up the top-5 argument because it's easier to argue "Crosby isn't Gretzky" than actually make a legitimate argument against Crosby being a clutch SCF player.



But if you're going to say that, you need to bring proof that Crosby isn't putting up "momentum influencing points" while Kane is.

He scored 2 goals in 19 games across 3 instances his team won the Cup. That’s literally the argument. We just watched McDavid score more goals and put up nearly as many points in one series in a losing effort than Crosby’s three combined winning efforts and you think that is some insignificant point? Who else can get away with doing so little?

 

[Empoleon8771]

He scored 2 goals in 19 games across 3 instances his team won the Cup. That’s literally the argument. We just watched McDavid score more goals and put up nearly as many points in one series in a losing effort than Crosby’s three combined winning efforts and you think that is some insignificant point? Who else can get away with doing so little?

And now it's all about goals as if assists don't count. If you have to completely disregard production that doesn't fit your agenda, it's pretty obvious that you're not making an honest argument.

 

[Video Nasty]

And now it's all about goals as if assists don't count. If you have to completely disregard production that doesn't fit your agenda, it's pretty obvious that you're not making an honest argument.

If someone mentions goals and points, what do you think is also being factored in?

 

[Empoleon8771]

If someone mentions goals and points, what do you think is also being factored in?

You literally just said "Crosby only has 2 goals in 19 games in finals he has won", which is completely erasing his assists that he has.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond at this point. You're making strawman arguments that basically say "Crosby isn't Gretzky therefore he's not a clutch SCF player", as if that makes any sense.

 

[Video Nasty]

You literally just said "Crosby only has 2 goals in 19 games in finals he has won", which is completely erasing his assists that he has.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond at this point. You're making strawman arguments that basically say "Crosby isn't Gretzky therefore he's not a clutch SCF player", as if that makes any sense.

I mentioned how McDavid got nearly as many points in one losing effort (11) compared to Crosby in three winning efforts (14). You’re the only one who keeps banging on about Gretzky.

 

[blundluntman]

Whether Crosby is a "clutch SCF performer" has nothing to do with whether he's a top-5 player. It has to do with how well he performs in the cup finals relative to other players.

You're only bringing up the top-5 argument because it's easier to argue "Crosby isn't Gretzky" than actually make a legitimate argument against Crosby being a clutch SCF player.



But if you're going to say that, you need to bring proof that Crosby isn't putting up "momentum influencing points" while Kane is.

Look, I'm not gonna sit at a desk with spreadsheets open digging for excerpts from all his games; you're more than welcome to share any moments/memories you have of Sid coming in the clutch. All I can say is that I recall a fair amount of key/clutch goals/plays Kane has made in the playoffs to earn his reputation, I don't have anywhere near as many memories of Sid doing the same.

Just by searching "Kane clutch" in Youtube, I found this. Obviously this isn't just in the SCF but my OP was about the playoffs in general, which may even strengthen Crosby's argument as clutch applying the same logic:




Here's what I could find for Sid (feel free to share any others this may miss):



Kane is clutch in the playoffs because he scores game tying/winning/shifting goals and gives his team life when a series is in the balance or on the line; he's done it repeatedly to earn that reputation. Crosby has a few of those moments here and there, but his production is more evenly spread.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

My “analysis” is comparing him to each member of the Big Four and the incoming member who will boot Crosby down a spot on any list as he remolds it into a new Big Five. I’m sorry that Crosby never demonstrated the individual dominance expected of him or shown by his successor multiple times over. He’s still a top 6-8 player ever, in a league with over a hundred years of history. He still did well.

Gordie Howe had 8 points in 19 games in his first 4 finals. Whoopsie!

 

[Video Nasty]

Gordie Howe had 8 points in 19 games in his first 4 finals. Whoopsie!

You clearly missed the part where I said all members of the Big Four had a signature performance in the SCF, i.e. Howe scoring 5 goals, factoring in on 12 of his team’s 27 goals, and scoring what turned out to be the game winner in Game 7 in the 1955 SCF. Nice try. Tell me again why Crosby scoring 2 goals total in 3 Cup wins makes him untouchable?

 

[Video Nasty]

*delete*

 

[jigglysquishy]

Howe also had the benefit of putting up multiple great SCFs in the 60s

1961 - Lead with 8 points in 6 games. Red Wings only scored 12 points so he was in on 66% of offense. Delvecchio was only other Red Wing with more than 3 points. Newspapers praise him highly.

1963 - Lead with 6 points in 5 games. Red Wings only scored 10 goals so he factored in on 60%. Newspapers praise him highly.

1964 - Lead with 8 points in 7 games. Delvecchio was second on the Wings with 5 points. Red Wings only scored 17 goals so he was in on 47% of Red Wings goals. Newspapers praise him highly.

The early mid 60s Red Wings were not great teams that basically lived on Howe and Sawchuk being the team.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Would love to have seen mcdavids stats in 2009 going against a prime lidstrom, zetterberg and rafalski on his ass every shift while playing with guerin n kunitz

 

[bambamcam4ever]

You clearly missed the part where I said all members of the Big Four had a signature performance in the SCF, i.e. Howe scoring 5 goals, factoring in on 12 of his team’s 27 goals, and scoring what turned out to be the game winner in Game 7 in the 1955 SCF. Nice try. Tell me again why Crosby scoring 2 goals total in 3 Cup wins makes him untouchable?

Well I'm sure if Crosby could play in a 6 team league, and on the best defensive team in the league during his prime, he'd get plenty more chances to do that. Alas he had to play in a deeper NHL than the inland Canada league that Howe thrived in.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Howe also had the benefit of putting up multiple great SCFs in the 60s

1961 - Lead with 8 points in 6 games. Red Wings only scored 12 points so he was in on 66% of offense. Delvecchio was only other Red Wing with more than 3 points. Newspapers praise him highly.

1963 - Lead with 6 points in 5 games. Red Wings only scored 10 goals so he factored in on 60%. Newspapers praise him highly.

1964 - Lead with 8 points in 7 games. Delvecchio was second on the Wings with 5 points. Red Wings only scored 17 goals so he was in on 47% of Red Wings goals. Newspapers praise him highly.

The early mid 60s Red Wings were not great teams that basically lived on Howe and Sawchuk being the team.

Agreed that the 60s Red Wings were not as impressive. It should be noted that those Red Wing teams:
1. Probably don't even make the playoffs in a larger league given their goal differential, instead of one where 2/3 of the teams make it.
2. Were the 4 seed each time, and benefitted from the bizarre 1/3 & 2/4 matchup system. Good chance they don't make the final facing the 1 seed, and certainly not in one of those instances when they lost to the 1 seed Toronto in the Final.

If we're going to give Howe credit for some of these, shouldn't we also note that Crosby in 08 had 6 points in a 6 game series when his team only had 10 goals total?