Big 4: 2 Questions

[bobholly39]

I don't think that who "holds the crown" of the best player is very meaningful at all. Whether you want to believe that Crosby still is the best player in the league despite probably not being top 10 during the regular season, it doesn't add any value to the season he actually had.

Really don't see much point in that kind of thinking. Instead of imaginary crowns we can evaluate exactly what Crosby has done.

Were Gretzky fans pumping Gretzky's tires for being the best in the world for so long in 1998?

I've not really argued about how relevant or not it is. I agree it's subjective as to how much importance you want to give it.

What I am arguing about is why I feel Crosby deserves that title for 13 years.

Brodeur Kane Karlsson....no. they never took it away. I already explained why above.

It's something that is important for me. It's one of the things I like a lot about Crosbys resume. But yes it's relevancy as a useful metric is subjective

 

[daver]

Haven't given it much thought to be honest. As I said earlier, evaluating players by this metric has all sorts of issues; namely the performance of other players that the player in question has no control over. Calling it trivia might be a bit extreme, but I'd still say it's more of a footnote to the actual performance that occurred in those seasons.

So what metric is appropriate when measuring longevity and lengths of peak/prime? Those come up quite often in HOH ranking discussions.

 

[daver]

Ultimately, there are two things Crosby could accomplish that would, at best, start the conversation for a Big 5.

1. Be viewed as being at the very top of the league for a period longer than Wayne and Howe were. Throwing out raw point totals and listing Art Ross wins with no context is intellectually dishonest given the clear consideration for Orr's partial career, and Belliveau's and Mario's partial seasons. I think this is an absolute must in order for Crosby to make up for the gap in peak level of play and peak full seasons; the latter being a weakness for Crosby even against most of the Top 20 players let alone the Big 4. I don't believe Howe's peak is on the level of Mario, Wayne, and Orr thus the door is open for longevity and length of prime for Crosby to make up for that as Howe does vs. the other three.

2. Have a playoff resume that is better than Orr, Mario and Howe and join Howe, Richard and Belliveau in the 2nd tier of forwards you would want at their playoff best after Wayne, Mario and Orr. Crosby is arguably ahead of Howe in the playoffs thru their first 12 seasons so this is very doable. If Crosby happens to add two more Conn Smythes to his resume, that would also give him something that no other Big Four player has. I am not sure that would be enough on its own without the extension of his prime mentioned above.

 

[JackSlater]

When Crosby's case is based on giving him the most favourable interpretation of seasons/era possible, using a ridiculously subjective standard but treating it as if it was fact and hoping that he can compete with Howe in terms of longevity and playoffs... then I'm afraid that Crosby is without a legitimate case. His peak is not up there with Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr/Howe, and the guy with the most reachable peak out of that group has the most impressive longevity in hockey history and was a more well rounded player than Crosby. Each of them was a great playoff performer. Crosby has no way in. He is only comparable to the next level of players barring a Barry Bonds-esque late career peak.

 

[daver]

When Crosby's case is based on giving him the most favourable interpretation of seasons/era possible, using a ridiculously subjective standard but treating it as if it was fact and hoping that he can compete with Howe in terms of longevity and playoffs... then I'm afraid that Crosby is without a legitimate case. His peak is not up there with Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr/Howe, and the guy with the most reachable peak out of that group has the most impressive longevity in hockey history and was a more well rounded player than Crosby. Each of them was a great playoff performer. Crosby has no way in. He is only comparable to the next level of players barring a Barry Bonds-esque late career peak.

What interpretation is that?

And longevity of what exactly? Career, peak, prime? If Crosby has another five years like the last five years, would that not be more impressive than what Howe did in the five years after 63/64?

If you want to talk about all around play then we need to talk about quality of linemates and roles and league parity. I am happy to focus on their offensive numbers before getting into secondary qualities.

 

[bobholly39]

When Crosby's case is based on giving him the most favourable interpretation of seasons/era possible, using a ridiculously subjective standard but treating it as if it was fact and hoping that he can compete with Howe in terms of longevity and playoffs... then I'm afraid that Crosby is without a legitimate case. His peak is not up there with Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr/Howe, and the guy with the most reachable peak out of that group has the most impressive longevity in hockey history and was a more well rounded player than Crosby. Each of them was a great playoff performer. Crosby has no way in. He is only comparable to the next level of players barring a Barry Bonds-esque late career peak.

I still fully stand by my interpretation of why I viewed Crosby as best in world those seasons. No bias or overtly favoritism needed - just an objective look that values highly track record and expectations in addition to results.

I disagree with daver that it would ever differentiate him from Howe. It's arguable he's close to Howe in that counting. 14-13 or 15-13 doesn't move the needle in the Howe vs Crosby ranking.
If Crosby can keep this up for 20 years instead of 13? Sure. At that point it's enough of a differentiator to make up ground on Howe and others. But we're nowhere near that.

Conn smythes is the only realistic avenue for Crosby to raise his stock significantly.

 

[JackSlater]

What interpretation is that

That Crosby was the best player in hockey when he really wasn't, most egregiously during the three season span (2008-2010) when Ovechkin was the best player in hockey. Second most egregious is that Crosby could go into next season still with that title even though McDavid is clearly better at this point.

And longevity of what exactly? Career, peak, prime? If Crosby has another five years like the last five years, would that not be more impressive than what Howe did in the five years after 63/64?

Longevity as an elite player and nope, five more years is not enough. Gordie Howe was a top five scorer for 20 consecutive years in the NHL. Even if, to be fair to Crosby and cognizant of changes in the NHL, we recognize top ten finishes today as basically equivalent to top five finishes in Howe's era, Crosby only has ten. Crosby missed three very likely top ten finishes due to injury, while Howe missed one. Even if we give Crosby the benefit of the doubt and pretend that injured seasons are exactly equal to healthy seasons, Crosby is still behind in top five (ten) season 21-13. Five more top seasons puts him behind 21-18. In addition to those seasons however Howe still had a few elite, or near elite, seasons like 1970, 1974. That is only scoring as well, and we know that Howe was a very well rounded player (more than Crosby is) and he had some very elite playoff runs over this span as well.

Crosby basically needs ten more elite seasons to be able to argue that he is close to Howe in longevity, and even then his peak would still be behind Howe's.

If you want to talk about all around play then we need to talk about quality of linemates and roles and league parity. I am happy to focus on their offensive numbers before getting into secondary qualities.

I don't doubt that you are happy to focus solely on offence, given that Howe was better outside of offence than Crosby has been. I do believe that Crosby has it in him to be a top two way player, and he has certainly made strides in that direction for years now, but we'll have to see if he can do it.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

So what metric is appropriate when measuring longevity and lengths of peak/prime? Those come up quite often in HOH ranking discussions.

A metric that isn't completely changed by the existence or non-existence of another all-time great/greats concurrently. What if it just so happened that John Tavares was a Lemieux or Gretzky level player and was clearly the best in the world shortly after entering the NHL? Crosby has an identical career, except now he can really only claim to have been the best in the world for a couple of seasons. Should this appreciably diminish his standing?

This metric also treats "best in world" in a completely binary fashion. Crosby being arguably the best by a thin margin (which is the case in many seasons) is treated with the same gravity as Big 4 members lapping the field.

Any of these arguments that attempt to put Howe within reach of Crosby in an all-time sense seem to be a case of drawing up a conclusion and trying to create evidence that supports it.

 

[daver]

A metric that isn't completely changed by the existence or non-existence of another all-time great/greats concurrently. What if it just so happened that John Tavares was a Lemieux or Gretzky level player and was clearly the best in the world shortly after entering the NHL? Crosby has an identical career, except now he can really only claim to have been the best in the world for a couple of seasons. Should this appreciably diminish his standing?

This metric also treats "best in world" in a completely binary fashion. Crosby being arguably the best by a thin margin (which is the case in many seasons) is treated with the same gravity as Big 4 members lapping the field.

Any of these arguments that attempt to put Howe within reach of Crosby in an all-time sense seem to be a case of drawing up a conclusion and trying to create evidence that supports it.

No, of course not but what relevance does this have to Howe and Crosby?

 

[daver]

That Crosby was the best player in hockey when he really wasn't, most egregiously during the three season span (2008-2010) when Ovechkin was the best player in hockey. Second most egregious is that Crosby could go into next season still with that title even though McDavid is clearly better at this point.

I have asked everyone who wants to dismiss Crosby from being the best/co-best player from anytime in the '06 to '17 period to apply the exact same metrics to Howe after his 53/54 season to the 63/64 season.

Noone wants to take that on for some reason.

I am really have a hard time figuring out why the possibility of Crosby staying at the top for a period longer than Howe did is causing so much consternation.

 

[JackSlater]

I have asked everyone who wants to dismiss Crosby from being the best/co-best player from anytime in the '06 to '17 period to apply the exact same metrics to Howe after his 53/54 season to the 63/64 season.

Noone wants to take that on for some reason.

I am really have a hard time figuring out why the possibility of Crosby staying at the top for a period longer than Howe did is causing so much consternation.

Howe was the clear cut best in the world from the 1951 season through to the 1958 season, when healthy. He was also the best in the 1963 season. Crosby was the clear cut best in 2007 and (again when healthy) from the 2011 season to the 2014 season. That's a 9 to 5 edge for Howe, with each player having seasons outside of this period that are debatable. Malkin's 2012 season is similar to Beliveau's 1956 in that we can assume that Crosby/Howe retains for the time being. Howe wins again.

That isn't even the point though. In the search for straws to grasp on behalf of Crosby, this highly subjective and metric that is heavily influenced by external factors beyond the control of the player is being thrust forward as if it is a massive deal. Kyle McMahon already pointed out the major flaw here.

Again, Crosby should be compared to Beliveau, Hull, Jagr and the other guys in that tier. He doesn't compare favourably with the big four by any reasonable metric.

 

[daver]

I know this is all speculation. If Crosby can do things that continues to mirror Howe's post 53/54 career ( which I think he inargubly has done) then we should have raw point finishes, trophy stats, and playoff performances to compare rather than relying on a "Best in the World" discussion. As I said from the beginning, the HOH "Best in the World" thread seemed to be a the general consensus among the HOH regulars so it seemed like a reasonable thing to reference. I must say the lack of willingness by some to apply the same metrics to Howe to dismiss Crosby is frustrating.

 

[daver]

Howe was the clear cut best in the world from the 1951 season through to the 1958 season, when healthy. He was also the best in the 1963 season. Crosby was the clear cut best in 2007 and (again when healthy) from the 2011 season to the 2014 season. That's a 9 to 5 edge for Howe, with each player having seasons outside of this period that are debatable. Malkin's 2012 season is similar to Beliveau's 1956 in that we can assume that Crosby/Howe retains for the time being. Howe wins again.

Take a pill will ya. Where have I even begun to say that Crosby is remotely close to Howe in any regard save for their respective playoff performances after the first 13 seasons?

But thanks for doing Howe.

Questions:

How is Howe the clear best player after the 54/55 season when he was 5th in points, 4th in PPG and 1st in playoff scoring (arguably the best run of his era) while Crosby who was 2nd in PPG and 1st in playoff scoring in 2008 was not?

How is Howe the clear best player after the 55/56 season after a 2nd season of being behind Belliveau in scoring, this time well behind, and Belliveau having a playoff run that was on par with Howe's career best while Crosby was 3rd in scoring, 2nd in playoff scoring (the 2nd highest point total of his era) with the highest playoff goal total of his era was not?

During those two years, Howe was 3rd in scoring (4th in PPG) while being the top playoff scorer. Crosby was 7th in scoring (2nd in PPG) while being T1 in playoff scoring. Where is the huge difference in performance here?

If you want to afford Howe some goodwill or benefit of the doubt based on his previous four seasons, I don't have an issue with that but it's not like Crosby was some flash in the pan who got lucky in one season. At the very least, you have to acknowledge that their performances over those two seasons are very similar.

And if you are giving Howe the benefit of the doubt for those two seasons, how is Crosby not given the same treatment after 13/14 when he had separated himself from the rest of the league by an even bigger margin than he did in 2007? Hewas 3rd in scoring in 14/15 (1st in PPG), gets beaten soundly the next year like Howe did by Belliveau but has a very good playoff to counter things. He then has a very good 16/17 (better than Howe's 57/58) which should be keeping him at the top like Howe was after 57/58.

 

[JackSlater]

Take a pill will ya. Where have I even begun to say that Crosby is remotely close to Howe in any regard save for their respective playoff performances after the first 13 seasons?

But thanks for doing Howe.

Questions:

How is Howe the clear best player after the 54/55 season when he was 5th in points, 4th in PPG and 1st in playoff scoring (arguably the best run of his era) while Crosby who was 2nd in PPG and 1st in playoff scoring in 2008 was not?

How is Howe the clear best player after the 55/56 season after a 2nd season of being behind Belliveau in scoring, this time well behind, and Belliveau having a playoff run that was on par with Howe's career best while Crosby was 3rd in scoring, 2nd in playoff scoring (the 2nd highest point total of his era) with the highest playoff goal total of his era was not?

During those two years, Howe was 3rd in scoring (4th in PPG) while being the top playoff scorer. Crosby was 7th in scoring (2nd in PPG) while being T1 in playoff scoring. Where is the huge difference in performance here?

If you want to afford Howe some goodwill or benefit of the doubt based on his previous four seasons, I don't have an issue with that but it's not like Crosby was some flash in the pan who got lucky in one season. At the very least, you have to acknowledge that their performances over those two seasons are very similar.

And if you are giving Howe the benefit of the doubt for those two seasons, how is Crosby not given the same treatment after 13/14 when he had separated himself from the rest of the league by an even bigger margin than he did in 2007? Hewas 3rd in scoring in 14/15 (1st in PPG), gets beaten soundly the next year like Howe did by Belliveau but has a very good playoff to counter things. He then has a very good 16/17 (better than Howe's 57/58) which should be keeping him at the top like Howe was after 57/58.

Your attempts to compare Howe and Crosby are pretty clear, and Howe continues to be better. Anyway, In 1956 Beliveau has the better season (as Malkin did with Crosby in 2012 for instance) but Howe is the clear #2 scorer. Two important factors: Beliveau has better offensive support (the third, fourth and seventh scorers and the best defenceman) though Howe has very good linemates himself, and Howe is still a very good two way player. Howe probably has enough good will to keep his crown. The next year Howe outscores Beliveau, due in part to a resurgent Lindsay, and so probably keeps it again. The next year Howe continues breaking in new linesmates (not that Delvecchio is chopped liver by any stretch) and finishes fourth in scoring, though with the top ppg in the league. Howe wins the Hart again. Outside of the one year of 1956 Howe's case is almost unassailable over that span. Howe and his team struggle to have the huge cup runs earlier in the decade, and his 1957 playoffs look weak, but funny how that seems to be a problem for players playing against a the greatest team of all time like Howe was in 1956 and 1958.

The 2008-2010 span was Ovechkin's, not Crosby's. Seeing as Ovechkin was the better player in 2006 it isn't like Crosby had built up a big enough legacy to maintain that he was still the best player. Ovechkin and Crosby were similar in terms of points but Ovechkin dominated in goal scoring and would have very likely won three Hart trophies and two scoring titles if not for a suspension. That was also the period when Ovechkin's playoff performances were very strong and his team let him down, as opposed to some of the runs he and Washington have had this decade. There is little case for Crosby over that span. If Crosby never had the ankle injury in the 2008 season he may indeed have been the best player of that span and beyond but unfortunately it happened.

I also had to laugh at the idea that Howe was getting the benefit of the doubt but not Crosby. Howe at least played basically full seasons over that span. It is very generous to give Crosby 2012 or instance and arguably even 2011. Crosby 2015 or 2016 or 2017 is arguable, but as I already said Howe has arguable seasons too. Overall it is a foolish metric though as already pointed out by Kyle McMahon. I would be more inclined to take 2012 away from Crosby's "reign" than to extend it much beyond 2014.

This all feels like a waste of time to go through however as again, it is fairly obvious that Crosby has no case against Howe or any of the other big four players. I don't even know why Howe is the desired mark for Crosby when, if a person plans to use favourable assessment and selective context, Lemieux seems like an easier target.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I have asked everyone who wants to dismiss Crosby from being the best/co-best player from anytime in the '06 to '17 period to apply the exact same metrics to Howe after his 53/54 season to the 63/64 season.

Noone wants to take that on for some reason.

I am really have a hard time figuring out why the possibility of Crosby staying at the top for a period longer than Howe did is causing so much consternation.

You are dancing a bit with time frames, concepts, etc so there is little, probably no benefit to constantly engaging. Ran the following to illustrate at least three points:

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Picked the 1955-56 thru 1963-64 season because it is one of the time frames raised.

Reduced to basics your point(get Howe out of the top 4) is based on raw counting limited to offensive points.

However you have failed to research the era, the players or value of a player relative to contemporaries.

Based on raw counting, Andy Bathgate ranks with Gordie Howe but any substantial discussion quickly dimisses such a notion as it is fairly easy to place maybe 15-20 contemporaries between Howe and Bathgate. So your raw counting efforts are non-starters. Be they cross era or within era. Both are close as a result of a feed the winger offensive strategy. But the comparison starts and ends here.

You disregard positional value and responsibilities. Respective wingers to respective wingers. Centers to centers. Different responsibilities always create a bias in favour of a center in center to winger comparisons.

So Crosby should be compared to Gretzky,Lemieux,Beliveau and other centers. This creates an impossible situation for you.
Crosby does not do anything better than Gretzky,Lemieux and Beliveau ever did.Beliveau alone did at least five things better than Gretzky and Lemieux -faceoffs, ability to lead rush the length of the ice, more physical, better defensively, better overall skater. Will leave secondary skills aside.

The third point touches what you have overlooked in Crosby's portfolio. His ability to play with and elevate marginal to average players. Still he is not as good as Beliveau was in this regard.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No, of course not but what relevance does this have to Howe and Crosby?

Frankly, none.

But some in here are trying to push the notion of Crosby having superior longevity of prime to Howe based entirely on the stretch of time where it could be argued either player was the best in the world. The flaws with this reasoning have been pointed out more than enough times by now.

At the end of the day, the OP asked if any player had a chance to break into the Big 4. Barring something extraordinary occurring, Crosby's chance has come and gone, and only the most selective of reasoning can place him on an equal footing with Howe or any of the others, at present or under any reasonable projection scenario.

At this point, I'd bet on McDavid breaking into that group long before I bet on Crosby. It's still entirely unknown what level he will achieve. His first three seasons compare pretty well with Lemieux's. Crosby's did too, but he never had the next level spike. The possibility exists that McDavid will.

 

[daver]

Frankly, none.

But some in here are trying to push the notion of Crosby having superior longevity of prime to Howe based entirely on the stretch of time where it could be argued either player was the best in the world. The flaws with this reasoning have been pointed out more than enough times by now.

At the end of the day, the OP asked if any player had a chance to break into the Big 4. Barring something extraordinary occurring, Crosby's chance has come and gone, and only the most selective of reasoning can place him on an equal footing with Howe or any of the others, at present or under any reasonable projection scenario.

At this point, I'd bet on McDavid breaking into that group long before I bet on Crosby. It's still entirely unknown what level he will achieve. His first three seasons compare pretty well with Lemieux's. Crosby's did too, but he never had the next level spike. The possibility exists that McDavid will.

You just used the key word "argued". Of course everything to do with rating players is an argument, especially when most of these players usually never played at the same time and/or in the exact same role and situation even if they did.

The OP was asking for a legitimate argument. Crosby has legitimately been in the conversation for the best player since 2006 if one chooses to look beyond assessing seasons individually and in a complete vacuum, and with reasonable consideration for partial seasons. Using the same metrics, Howe was the best player fro 50/51 to 63/64 IMO. Crosby has a chance to be in that position for a longer period of time. I understand that "Best Player" can be very subjective but I would argue that any argument against Crosby being the best/co-best at any time from 06/07 to 16/17 can be made against Howe, or any other player for that matter.

Does this mean the quality of prime is better? Nope

Does this lessen the gap in their peaks? Nope

Should it hold some value? I think it would make him the unanimous #5 player, and at least present a legitimate argument whether he did enough to be put on the same tier as the Big 4. If he can add to his playoff resume to be clear of Mario and Orr, and maybe Howe, then that would also significantly add to the argument.

Would he be close in peak to Orr, Wayne, and Mario? Nope but there are strong arguments that Howe, on peak alone, would not be in the Big 4. IMO, Howe has the 4th best RS peak but does not have a clear 4th best playoff peak, let alone one that is as statistically close to the other 3 as his RS peak is.

Would he have a "longevity" argument that, like Howe, makes up for perceived differences in peak? I don't see why not.

Would he have a resume that "outacheives" Mario's? I don't see why not since actual achievements usually place Mario 4th behind Howe who is usually viewed has not being on the same level talent-wise or peak-wise.

Would a playoff resume that matches or even betters Howe's add a significant second argument for inclusion with the Big 4? I don't see why not.

The narrative for Crosby would be a career that was spent at the very top of the league longer than any other player in history plus one of the best playoff resumes and/or peaks other than Wayne.

 

[daver]

Your attempts to compare Howe and Crosby are pretty clear, and Howe continues to be better.

No kidding. I would think that my attempts to compare Crosby to Howe are pretty damn clear because that's who Crosby is closest to in level of peak and in longevity of prime.

And congrats on agreeing with me that Howe was better. You seem to think I have made the claim at some point and have made it your mission to prove me wrong.

I am trying to establish a foundation for Crosby vs. Howe based on the formula used for Howe vs. the other Big 3: close in peak performance, superior longevity, Top 5- 10 playoff peak, Top 5 -10 playoff resume.

 

[JackSlater]

No kidding. I would think that my attempts to compare Crosby to Howe are pretty damn clear because that's who Crosby is closest to in level of peak and in longevity of prime.

And congrats on agreeing with me that Howe was better. You seem to think I have made the claim at some point and have made it your mission to prove me wrong.

I am trying to establish a foundation for Crosby vs. Howe based on the formula used for Howe vs. the other Big 3: close in peak performance, superior longevity, Top 5- 10 playoff peak, Top 5 -10 playoff resume.

There is no comparison to be made between Howe and Crosby, as Howe isn't the guy that Crosby is closest to in level of peak, where Crosby is clearly a level below, or in longevity of prime, where Howe is largely untouched. You seem to be working under the faulty assumption that Crosby has already passed Beliveau/Hull/Jagr when that is not clear at all.

My claim is very clear - Howe is obviously better than Crosby and (please notice that the sentence is not over) is out of reach for Crosby barring an unprecedented final several seasons. Gordie Howe has an incredibly strong post-30 career. If you aren't ahead of him at age 30, like Crosby isn't, then the chances of catching him are minuscule to none. There is no foundation to be made for the argument that you claim you are laying out.

 

[daver]

Your attempts to compare Howe and Crosby are pretty clear, and Howe continues to be better. Anyway, In 1956 Beliveau has the better season (as Malkin did with Crosby in 2012 for instance) but Howe is the clear #2 scorer. Two important factors: Beliveau has better offensive support (the third, fourth and seventh scorers and the best defenceman) though Howe has very good linemates himself, and Howe is still a very good two way player. Howe probably has enough good will to keep his crown. The next year Howe outscores Beliveau, due in part to a resurgent Lindsay, and so probably keeps it again. The next year Howe continues breaking in new linesmates (not that Delvecchio is chopped liver by any stretch) and finishes fourth in scoring, though with the top ppg in the league. Howe wins the Hart again. Outside of the one year of 1956 Howe's case is almost unassailable over that span. Howe and his team struggle to have the huge cup runs earlier in the decade, and his 1957 playoffs look weak, but funny how that seems to be a problem for players playing against a the greatest team of all time like Howe was in 1956 and 1958.

The 2008-2010 span was Ovechkin's, not Crosby's. Seeing as Ovechkin was the better player in 2006 it isn't like Crosby had built up a big enough legacy to maintain that he was still the best player. Ovechkin and Crosby were similar in terms of points but Ovechkin dominated in goal scoring and would have very likely won three Hart trophies and two scoring titles if not for a suspension. That was also the period when Ovechkin's playoff performances were very strong and his team let him down, as opposed to some of the runs he and Washington have had this decade. There is little case for Crosby over that span. If Crosby never had the ankle injury in the 2008 season he may indeed have been the best player of that span and beyond but unfortunately it happened.

I also had to laugh at the idea that Howe was getting the benefit of the doubt but not Crosby. Howe at least played basically full seasons over that span. It is very generous to give Crosby 2012 or instance and arguably even 2011. Crosby 2015 or 2016 or 2017 is arguable, but as I already said Howe has arguable seasons too. Overall it is a foolish metric though as already pointed out by Kyle McMahon. I would be more inclined to take 2012 away from Crosby's "reign" than to extend it much beyond 2014.

I don't see how Belliveau and Malkin are comparable. Howe got beat handily by Belliveau in points, PPG, and playoffs after Howe got beat in points and PPG the year before in the RS. Although he was right with Crosby after 2009, Malkin then had two seasons of being clearly behind Crosby in points, PPG and playoffs prior to 2012 meaning he did not have a strong case to overtake Crosby to begin with at the start of the 11/12 season. Crosby, unlike Howe, at least created some doubt in 2012 by having a higher PPG albeit in only 22 games. Like Howe, Crosby would have removed doubts as to his status with a notable season next year.

2012 was a season where it is certainly debatable whether Crosby is the clear best or should share the title with Malkin but I don't see how it is any less debatable than Howe still being the clear best after 55/56.

As for OV taking the crown on his own after 2008, I disagree with their rookie seasons being used as leverage, especially where the gap in their rookie seasons was not nearly as wide as the one created after 2007. Noone should have reasonably placed OV ahead of Crosby as a player after their rookie season, at least in respect to making a case for the world's best player. Both laid notice that they were as advertised as prospects, likely to soon ascend to the top of the league very soon, and who was going to be better was a great debate but neither were in the best player conversation given the strength of Thornton's and Jagr's seasons and their respective track records. Crosby did put himself in that conversation in 2007 while OV was still out of the conversation. 2008 hardly presented a case that OV had returned to his dominant self above Crosby but rather put himself into the conversation with Crosby who did nothing that pointed to him not being as good or the best save for getting injured with a similar PPG to OV (edge to OV with his generational goals scored though) and leading the playoffs in scoring.

I, again, would say that in a vacuum, Howe should lose the clear best title in 55/56 to co-best with Belliveau than Crosby losing the title outright to OV in 07/08. I don't have an issue with Howe having built up goodwill (for lack of a better term) from 50/51 to 53/54 that his next two seasons are excused to a certain extent but while Crosby had not built up the same level of goodwill by 2007, he also was better in 07/08 to 08/09 than Howe was from 54/55 to 55/56 so did not have to rely on as much goodwill. It is also worth noting that during those respective time periods, both players were facing peak versions of players which are among the best of all-time (outside of the Big 4).

As for the inclusion of linemates and offensive support into the discussion, I prefer to view things from an offensive production standpoint first. Frankly, the linemates angle seems to only crop up when statistical analysis fails to back up one's opinion. As always, it is a double-edged sword where if one positions a lower than expected offensive performance as being due to the quality of linemates, it opens the door to positioning a player's better offensive performances as being the product of their linemates. A great example would be comparing Howe's '55 playoffs vs. Crosby's 2009 playoffs. Who had the better offensive support there?

I generally believe great players produce regardless of linemates or era and would put Howe and Crosby in that very select category. Offtopic, I would be interest to hear your opinions on Crosby vs. Belliveau given the importance you have placed on offensive support.

 

[daver]

There is no comparison to be made between Howe and Crosby, as Howe isn't the guy that Crosby is closest to in level of peak, where Crosby is clearly a level below, or in longevity of prime, where Howe is largely untouched. You seem to be working under the faulty assumption that Crosby has already passed Beliveau/Hull/Jagr when that is not clear at all.

Where have I presumed this? I think it is obvious that three or four more years of Crosby's prime inargubly puts him ahead of those players given that his prime is arguably already very close and longevity is the only thing keeping him behind.

Whether that opens the door to inclusion into the Big Four is the discussion.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't see how Belliveau and Malkin are comparable. Howe got beat handily by Belliveau in points, PPG, and playoffs after Howe got beat in points and PPG the year before in the RS. Although he was right with Crosby after 2009, Malkin then had two seasons of being clearly behind Crosby in points, PPG and playoffs prior to 2012 meaning he did not have a strong case to overtake Crosby to begin with at the start of the 11/12 season. Crosby, unlike Howe, at least created some doubt in 2012 by having a higher PPG albeit in only 22 games. Like Howe, Crosby would have removed doubts as to his status with a notable season next year.

2012 was a season where it is certainly debatable whether Crosby is the clear best or should share the title with Malkin but I don't see how it is any less debatable than Howe still being the clear best after 55/56.

As for OV taking the crown on his own after 2008, I disagree with their rookie seasons being used as leverage, especially where the gap in their rookie seasons was not nearly as wide as the one created after 2007. Noone should have reasonably placed OV ahead of Crosby as a player after their rookie season, at least in respect to making a case for the world's best player. Both laid notice that they were as advertised as prospects, likely to soon ascend to the top of the league very soon, and who was going to be better was a great debate but neither were in the best player conversation given the strength of Thornton's and Jagr's seasons and their respective track records. Crosby did put himself in that conversation in 2007 while OV was still out of the conversation. 2008 hardly presented a case that OV had returned to his dominant self above Crosby but rather put himself into the conversation with Crosby who did nothing that pointed to him not being as good or the best save for getting injured with a similar PPG to OV (edge to OV with his generational goals scored though) and leading the playoffs in scoring.

I, again, would say that in a vacuum, Howe should lose the clear best title in 55/56 to co-best with Belliveau than Crosby losing the title outright to OV in 07/08. I don't have an issue with Howe having built up goodwill (for lack of a better term) from 50/51 to 53/54 that his next two seasons are excused to a certain extent but while Crosby had not built up the same level of goodwill by 2007, he also was better in 07/08 to 08/09 than Howe was from 54/55 to 55/56 so did not have to rely on as much goodwill. It is also worth noting that during those respective time periods, both players were facing peak versions of players which are among the best of all-time (outside of the Big 4).

As for the inclusion of linemates and offensive support into the discussion, I prefer to view things from an offensive production standpoint first. Frankly, the linemates angle seems to only crop up when statistical analysis fails to back up one's opinion. As always, it is a double-edged sword where if one positions a lower than expected offensive performance as being due to the quality of linemates, it opens the door to positioning a player's better offensive performances as being the product of their linemates. A great example would be comparing Howe's '55 playoffs vs. Crosby's 2009 playoffs. Who had the better offensive support there?

I generally believe great players produce regardless of linemates or era and would put Howe and Crosby in that very select category. Offtopic, I would be interest to hear your opinions on Crosby vs. Belliveau given the importance you have placed on offensive support.

I already gave the reasons for Howe in 1956. Crosby's situation in 2008 was quite different in that he only had two years played at that point, and in one of those seasons Ovechkin had been the better player. Howe had just come off one of the most dominant peaks in hockey history and is more deserving of consideration than 2008 Crosby. I also got a laugh at the second last paragraph. Ignoring context when it doesn't help Crosby makes the argument look ridiculous and the bias involved becomes quite clear. It's even funnier because at the end of the paragraph you seem to come around to the idea that it may help Crosby. Certainly Howe in his early career had tremendous support (Kelly, Lindsay, Abel) just as the top players on Montreal did in the late 1950s.

Crosby and Beliveau is a debate worth having, unlike the Howe and Crosby discussion which never rises to the level of debate. I would give Crosby a clear offensive edge, probably a peak edge though Beliveau's 1956 is probably the best individual season between them. Beliveau was a better defensive player. Both had diverse offensive games, both had success elevating some weak linemates. Beliveau was fortunate enough to play with top end linemates early in his career. Each probably lost scoring titles due to injuries. If Crosby can age well I expect that he will pass Beliveau.

Where have I presumed this? I think it is obvious that three or four more years of Crosby's prime inargubly puts him ahead of those players given that his prime is arguably already very close and longevity is the only thing keeping him behind.

Whether that opens the door to inclusion into the Big Four is the discussion.

It comes off very clearly that you assume that Crosby has either passed those guys or inevitably will, otherwise it makes no sense to go after Howe. Of course Lemieux makes more sense than Howe does but you seem quite unwilling to consider that. Crosby fans should worry more about Crosby passing Beliveau/Hull/Jagr and all of those guys since it is actually a realistic target. McDavid is also worthy of concern I would imagine.

There isn't really a valid discussion over whether Crosby will be included in that group. He won't be, barring some unprecedented second peak. Even with the most Crosby friendly criteria his case is too weak.

 

[The Panther]

The narrative for Crosby would be a career that was spent at the very top of the league longer than any other player in history plus one of the best playoff resumes and/or peaks other than Wayne.

Crosby has not been "at the very top of the League longer than any other player in history".

Crosby has not had "one of the best playoff resumes and/or peaks other than Wayne."


I don't get this endless narrative to try to push up active players beyond their station. Just wait until the guy retires, then wait another 5 or 10 years, and a consensus will emerge.

As George Harrison liked to say: "It'll all come out in the wash."

 

[Midnight Judges]

JMO, but there is no big 4. There is a big 1.

Then there is a second tier. The second tier is not close to the first.

Putting anyone else with Gretzky is not indicative of the truth. Gretzky is head and shoulders above every other player. Nobody compares.

 

[daver]

I already gave the reasons for Howe in 1956. Crosby's situation in 2008 was quite different in that he only had two years played at that point, and in one of those seasons Ovechkin had been the better player. Howe had just come off one of the most dominant peaks in hockey history and is more deserving of consideration than 2008 Crosby. I also got a laugh at the second last paragraph. Ignoring context when it doesn't help Crosby makes the argument look ridiculous and the bias involved becomes quite clear. It's even funnier because at the end of the paragraph you seem to come around to the idea that it may help Crosby. Certainly Howe in his early career had tremendous support (Kelly, Lindsay, Abel) just as the top players on Montreal did in the late 1950s..

OV was not better than Crosby to the extent that Belliveau was better than Howe in 55/56. In a vacuum, Crosby has the better case to still hold the title or share than Howe does based on those seasons. You want to say OV was the better player without reasonable context then I will say Belliveau was the better player in 55/56 with a similar lack of context and earned the title of Best player.

But I don't believe that. I have tried to compromise here by saying things are debatable; you seem hellbent on putting things in black and white which seems to based on your belief that there is nothing Crosby could possibly do to move into Big Four territory despite having one of the more successful 18 month periods of his era just last year and just turned 30. Surely if you are going to give McDavid some credit for having an unknown factor, then Crosby deserves some too. There are plenty of examples of players having peak, or close to peak seasons in their '30s and look no further than Mr. Hockey himself for an extension of close to prime level well into their late '30s/early '40s.