tinyzombies
Registered User
Can an argument be made? I’m guessing he also puts up Gretzky like numbers in the 80s. And he’s probably the best two way player ever. Just thinkin..
I’m guessing he also puts up Gretzky like numbers in the 80s.
0 chance of a coherent argument for Crosby as the best player ever.
Even the nonsense argument that todays players are so much better than the past so we can discount them thing that was going around years ago doesn’t work when McDavid is clearly better than Crosby ever was..
He's clearly has a better regular season resume through his first nine seasons due to less injuries. Other than that, Crosby was similarly as dominant vs. his peers on a per game basis through their first nine seasons.
Credit to daver for not starting this.
The best I can say for Crosby is that he's had an all time great career and he's been a better player than his career looks on the surface level, as in if someone resorts to the laziest measures. But he's got no case for the best player ever. Any team would be thrilled to build around Crosby for his career but he can't be the first pick in an all time sense.
Outside of young Ovi, McDavid's offensive peers are better imo.
Why would you play two way hockey when it doesn’t matter and would just serve to wear you down for when it does? Doesn’t that make him smarter? Also he was the engine of back to back championships on teams that had weak bluelines and plug and play goalies.I deserve credit for not starting this thread.
Setting aside the inevitable era comparisons, he has a frustratingly small, relative to his career, amount of unfinished business on his resume due to unlucky and untimely injuries that places him aside or behind players will more complete resumes.
He could have the consensus #5 resume all-time if he played 40 to 50 more games (about 3% of his career games) at key times:
- 30 more games in 10/11 likely gets him a dominant Art Ross win and a Hart; a full season likely is the clear best season out of the Big 3.
- 5 or 6 more games in 12/13 wins him the Art Ross; 5 or 6 more is another dominant, best of era level season which really separates him from Malkin and Ovechkin.
- 2 or 3 more games in 14/15 wins the Art Ross and salvages what was promising to be another solid, if not dominant, Art Ross win after a great 1/4 season start was wiped away by a viral infection
- in 2017, despite a concussion at the start of the season, he leads the league in goals and in PPG (until the last part of the season).
- In the 2017 playoffs, he is off to a great start but is then concussed in Game 3 vs. the Caps. He comes back and still wins the Cup and the Smythe but one is left to wonder if he could have put up 30 plus points again.
- Same with 2022, is off to a great start for a Pens team that maybe has one more playoff run in them but is concussed again.
He could have had 4 -5 Rosses and 4 to 5 Harts; two Smythes and three Cups; a resume that is only clearly bettered by the Big 4.
That being said, it is too hard to judge that a player would play the exact same if they were not injured. I think motivation plays a large role in these things.
But Crosby's resilience and elite longevity deserves recognition. He is only behind Wayne and Howe in elite longevity; an achievement given retirement was a possibility after his first concussions and after the three more he has gotten. That he came back to dominate the 2017 SCF and win his 2nd Smythe is not talked about enough.
He just had a very Howe-like season at age 36; his 19th season.
All things considered, he has a great argument for #5 all-time; and for being a great all around player and leader, perhaps only behind Howe in that regard for forwards among the Top 20.
The 80s were a joke - that’s the argument. Not mine but that’s the argument.What's the argument for Crosby over Gretzky? Or am I just missing a joke?
That's also reductive - which I know you know and it's not your argument. The 80's aren't even the same for hockey. The NHL in 1981 is not the same NHL in 1989. It's a really big difference.The 80s were a joke - that’s the argument. Not mine but that’s the argument.
The 80s were a joke - that’s the argument. Not mine but that’s the argument.
Not to mention Gretzky had the single highest-scoring season of the 1990s. His 163 points (in 78 games) that year is 43 points more than Crosby's single highest season.The 80's aren't even the same for hockey. The NHL in 1981 is not the same NHL in 1989. It's a really big difference.
The 80s were a joke - that’s the argument. Not mine but that’s the argument.
Who says.You can't start this thread in the fashion that you did, and then punt on critique with "it's not my argument".
The goalies in the 90s other than Hasek were basically off-duty carnies compared to what Sid faced.Not to mention Gretzky had the single highest-scoring season of the 1990s. His 163 points (in 78 games) that year is 43 points more than Crosby's single highest season.
Then, there's this:
Even Strength Points (post-1980s):
103 - Gretzky
96 - Gretzky
72 - Crosby
Yea and Gretz dropped like 60-70 points in that span also. I’d love to hear Wayne make an argument for Sid, he’s honest to a fault.That's also reductive - which I know you know and it's not your argument. The 80's aren't even the same for hockey. The NHL in 1981 is not the same NHL in 1989. It's a really big difference.
I agree.The goalies in the 90s other than Hasek were basically off-duty carnies compared to what Sid faced.