Big 4: 2 Questions

[bobholly39]

But wouldn't having the #1 prime be something better than any of them have? To me that would be more relevant than playoff performances unless he goes off with some "best of era" performances.

Maybe not though. The question was asked before if you would pick any player outside of the Big 4 for the playoffs before any member of the Big 4 at their peak. I guess if Crosby would be picked over Howe, which may be the most reasonable thing for him to achieve, then that should hold some leverage.

To be clear i'm not saying Crosby would have the best prime i'm saying he would have the most consistently elite prime.

Gretzky was super consistent for his first what 10-11 years? Then started to drop off significantly throughout the 90s. You just said Howe has 13 years. Lemieux has...i don't even know, way too intermittent.

What Crosby has (or can have if he reaches #1) above all those guys is consistency. Lemieux and Howe's prime are more peaks and valleys whereas Crosby has no valleys (outside of seasons with injuries). But the other 3 guy's peaks are still significantly higher than Crosby's, and therefore there overall primes are also quite a bit better.

All i'm saying is Crosby could one day have an argument for being the most consistent elite performer of all time. Key word consistent - in terms of "eliteness" he's still well behind the others.

And to answer your question - no that consistency alone is not really something important enough of having "better" than the other big 4 as I was implying in my other post. It's not all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things and also subjective. It's something that looks very good for Crosby when comparing him to other players in the top 10 (as does him being the best player in the world for so long) - but in order to make a dent in the big 4 he needs something quite a bit more significant imo.

The only truly significant item within his grasp is playoffs and conn smythes.

Patrick Roy is in large part argued above Hasek (and all others) due to 3 conn smythes (and more conn smythe worthy runs). If Crosby is to crack the big 4 (or come really close) it will be because one day people can say "sure regular season is weaker, but look at those 4 or more conn smythes". Not sure how realistic him getting 4+ smythes is but i think it's the only way he can make a dent in the big 4.

 

[bobholly39]

I think Howe was the best player/co-best until 63/64 but there were seasons where he was given some leeway when he finished well behind in scoring.

I think Crosby has earned some similar leeway after an 18 month period where he earned three of the five MVP trophies handed out and finished 2nd in the other two. He has been at the top since 2006 so one RS should not be enough to remove him (assuming he gets back to his form from last year).

This argument held true last year. In large part because throughout the regular season he kept pace with McDavid and seemed prime to overtake him in the scoring race till McDavid grew the gap at end.

This is going to be McDavid's 2nd art ross - and a pretty strong one on a weak team all things considered. He might even get a 2nd hart.

If you remove McDavid from the equation - sure maybe i'd argue Crosby #1 still going into next year. McDavid is a game changer. Generational prospect and 2 straight years of domination give him the track record of being hailed the best in the world.

As of today - Crosby's only way to hold onto #1 is if he has a dominating playoffs, like he did last year. If Pens stumble and are out in round 1 i'd say his 13 years of consecutively being best player in the world are over. If Crosby dominates in the playoffs and they reach round 3/4 with him standing out - sure let's give him benefit of doubt into next season as co-best player. But without that i'd say his streak is over. (that being said - I DO expect Crosby to have a monstrous playoffs - i'm just saying without it his streak is over).

Going into next season - I would argue McDavid is the favorite for Hart/Ross over Crosby. There hasn't been a regular season since 2007 where I felt Crosby wasn't the favorite to the Hart/Ross going into a year. It's not exactly a scientific definition - but I think it works. Favorite/co-favorite

 

[quoipourquoi]

Patrick Roy is in large part argued above Hasek (and all others) due to 3 conn smythes (and more conn smythe worthy runs). If Crosby is to crack the big 4 (or come really close) it will be because one day people can say "sure regular season is weaker, but look at those 4 or more conn smythes". Not sure how realistic him getting 4+ smythes is but i think it's the only way he can make a dent in the big 4.

It would be something to differentiate him from other skaters with similar regular season value (Morenz), but I think there has to be enough of a foundation in the regular season to get to there - otherwise Ted Kennedy is a bigger factor in these discussions than he usually is. Patrick Roy in 2000 was already being discussed as the greatest goaltender in history before he added the third Conn Smythe and fourth 1st Team selection because his cumulative regular season value was already among the very best with his five-consecutive All-Star selections in the 21-team era, two additional Vezina nominations, and having broken Terry Sawchuk's wins record. Crosby can't bridge the gap to Mario Lemieux from his playoff success, because Patrick Roy can't even do that.

 

[bobholly39]

It would be something to differentiate him from other skaters with similar regular season value (Morenz), but I think there has to be enough of a foundation in the regular season to get to there - otherwise Ted Kennedy is a bigger factor in these discussions than he usually is. Patrick Roy in 2000 was already being discussed as the greatest goaltender in history before he added the third Conn Smythe and fourth 1st Team selection because his cumulative regular season value was already among the very best with his five-consecutive All-Star selections in the 21-team era, two additional Vezina nominations, and having broken Terry Sawchuk's wins record. Crosby can't bridge the gap to Mario Lemieux from his playoff success, because Patrick Roy can't even do that.

Well I think a lot of discussions around Crosby on this sub-forum usually have him already (or very near) top 10 all time and some already acknowledge him as a contender for #5. That's his regular season foundation right there. If what he's already done (and might still add in terms of longevity) is enough to have him in the top 5-10 discussion of all time - what i'm saying is 4 conn smythes (so 2 more) should be quite significant.

Now i'm not making a silly blanket statement by saying "if he gets 4 smythes he's officially above Lemieux or Howe". But 4 smythes would be hugely significant - and i think it would merit a fair assessment of if that warrants discussion. At the very least it might separate him from anyone else in the top 10 after the big 4.

But yes you're right. 4 smythes alone may not put Crosby above Lemieux. Maybe it takes 5 smythes. Or more? And of course the "realistic" factor goes out the window with these hypotheticals. But I maintain smythes are his only realistic path.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You've actually underlined the inconsistency compared to Beliveau. Because while Beliveau has a long line of roughly PPG seasons, you could say 25% of the time he was in the playoffs Orr had a combined total of 4 points in 9 games and was a -5, as the plus/minus champion was around the middle or bottom of the pack in plus/minus on his own team. And those are 2 of the best 8 years Orr's got.

That 25% is certainly not the same part of the map as the great 25%.

In 3 consecutive playoff seasons (62-64) Beliveau had a total of 8 points in 16 games and was -6. First 3 seasons without Doug Harvey.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If he maintains his present level of play (or at least of last season as this one still going) for another three seasons, he has essentially matched Howe's reign as the best player/co-best player. Howe post 63/64 was obviously still one of the best but he had lost his position as the best (or sharing that title).

That is my main argument, Crosby has a chance to better Howe and Wayne in longevity as being the league's/world's elite player.

Hasn't McDavid been the best player in hockey last year and this year?

 

[K Fleur]

Hasn't McDavid been the best player in hockey last year and this year?

I think one could make a very solid argument that Crosby was the best player in hockey last year. This year it’s McDavid no question.

 

[The Panther]

I can't see how there's any hope for Crosby to match Gordie Howe's longevity, even in a best-case scenario where Crosby maintains his current level for another 10 years or something. Why? Crosby missed too many games in his prime. Whereas Howe was top-5 in scoring in twenty consecutive seasons, Crosby is almost 31 and has been top-5 in scoring eight times.

Crosby's career-arc in terms of point-production is so far pretty standard, which is to say he peaked between about age 20 and 26, and has since slowed down. He might not even be in the top-10 this season, and isn't the best player on his team.

I'd say Crosby has a decent chance to finish a top-10 player of all time when you factor in his team's impressive playoff success (even if he himself has been mostly just 'good' -- not 'great' -- in the playoffs, particularly in the Finals). But it's really that team success that drives his chances. Imagine, for example, if the Pens hadn't won the last two Cups. Would we be having this conversation? I don't think we would. The Pens were a playoff disappointment between 2010 and 2015, and in summer 2015 Crosby's legacy was looking a bit suspect (vs. expectations, that is).

So, again, in the most optimistic scenario I think Crosby has a chance to just sneak into the top-10 players all time, but this is unlikely and depends on his individual performance in the next three or four seasons. Most likely, he's going to end up around 15 or something all time.

 

[Thenameless]

I can't see how there's any hope for Crosby to match Gordie Howe's longevity, even in a best-case scenario where Crosby maintains his current level for another 10 years or something. Why? Crosby missed too many games in his prime. Whereas Howe was top-5 in scoring in twenty consecutive seasons, Crosby is almost 31 and has been top-5 in scoring eight times.

Crosby's career-arc in terms of point-production is so far pretty standard, which is to say he peaked between about age 20 and 26, and has since slowed down. He might not even be in the top-10 this season, and isn't the best player on his team.

I'd say Crosby has a decent chance to finish a top-10 player of all time when you factor in his team's impressive playoff success (even if he himself has been mostly just 'good' -- not 'great' -- in the playoffs, particularly in the Finals). But it's really that team success that drives his chances. Imagine, for example, if the Pens hadn't won the last two Cups. Would we be having this conversation? I don't think we would. The Pens were a playoff disappointment between 2010 and 2015, and in summer 2015 Crosby's legacy was looking a bit suspect (vs. expectations, that is).

So, again, in the most optimistic scenario I think Crosby has a chance to just sneak into the top-10 players all time, but this is unlikely and depends on his individual performance in the next three or four seasons. Most likely, he's going to end up around 15 or something all time.

This is bang-on Panther. Up to 2015, Crosby's career arc was not trending well. The last two seasons have been a massive boost to the "accomplishments" side of his resume. I'd still pretty easily consider him to be the best player of this era, but we wouldn't be talking about him possibly gunning for a lone decisive number 5 spot.

 

[blogofmike]

In 3 consecutive playoff seasons (62-64) Beliveau had a total of 8 points in 16 games and was -6. First 3 seasons without Doug Harvey.

Which is pretty good for his 15th to 17th best years since the other guy has 8 total. Beliveau gives you twice as many good playoff performances. Given the thought experiment proposed, Beliveau seems like a stronger pick.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

The obvious flaw is that adjusting in no way considers how a team actually performed defensively in the series where the points were accumulated. Perhaps in comparing one series to another, this can be given consideration but we are comparing 148 games worth of hockey in Crosby's case. I am sure there are many examples of good defensive teams playing bad and bad defensive teams playing good over that time. If there were obvious statistical anomalies to consider then I am all for looking to explain them but in Crosby's case, there is no surprise that the player with the best RS PPG has the best playoff PPG. That being said, it is understandable that Howe's 13 season playoffs stats need some context but I would apply the same context to Crosby's RS resume too.

Performance from game to game always varies, so small sample sizes naturally allow for greater deviation from the norm, but it also goes both ways. A good defensive team might play absurdly well (1959-60 Canadiens allowed only 11 goals in 8 games), and a bad defensive team might play like absolute garbage (1981-82 Oilers and the Miracle on Manchester). But like you pointed out, both Crosby and Howe played a sufficient number of games such that variations even out. And even in small samples, it's more likely for the one player that we are looking at to be over/under-performing than for the five opposing skaters and goalie to be over/under-performing simultaneously.

There needs to be some kind of baseline for comparison, especially when the schedule becomes heavily unbalanced. When Detroit and Montreal faced each other in 1958, for example, one team faced the best defensive team in the league and the other faced the 2nd worst. (Detroit averaged 31% more goals against than Montreal in the regular season.) Sure, Howe definitely under-performed that series (2 points in 4 games), and someone on the Red Wings clearly pissed off the Rocket... but it's safe to say that Howe faced tougher opposition than the Habs did.

Up to ages 29, I'd say if we're considering significant/multi-round playoff runs, on average Crosby is roughly the same tier as Richard, Beliveau, and Howe. Crosby doesn't have their peaks, but he's more consistent. Considering that they're the all-time #3, #4, and #5 playoff performers according to this board, that's already damned impressive. But like I said, all three managed to add very significant runs well into their thirties. Crosby still needs to do that.

As for Crosby's regular season, what happened was that he took two cheap shots to the head in successive games in the middle of his true breakout season, and then his "doctors" somehow mistook a broken neck for a concussion and set him back an additional year. As a result, we missed his peak years. Even without his peak years, Crosby still looks like the next Beliveau career-wise. If that really does end up being the case a decade from now, I'm more than willing to use that as a tie-breaker.

The last things that I'm going to say are that Crosby is still a young man, he always somehow manages to surprise me, and that I (and probably everyone else on HoH) would much love to watch history be made... but we need to see it, because "seeing is believing", so to speak.

Black Gold Extractor consistently provides a smarter, more articulate (and more complete) version of the things I want to say.

This is kind of you to say, but since the method that I'm using is derived from your work, I'm going to say that you're being far too modest.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Performance from game to game always varies, so small sample sizes naturally allow for greater deviation from the norm, but it also goes both ways. A good defensive team might play absurdly well (1959-60 Canadiens allowed only 11 goals in 8 games), and a bad defensive team might play like absolute garbage (1981-82 Oilers and the Miracle on Manchester). But like you pointed out, both Crosby and Howe played a sufficient number of games such that variations even out. And even in small samples, it's more likely for the one player that we are looking at to be over/under-performing than for the five opposing skaters and goalie to be over/under-performing simultaneously.

There needs to be some kind of baseline for comparison, especially when the schedule becomes heavily unbalanced. When Detroit and Montreal faced each other in 1958, for example, one team faced the best defensive team in the league and the other faced the 2nd worst. (Detroit averaged 31% more goals against than Montreal in the regular season.) Sure, Howe definitely under-performed that series (2 points in 4 games), and someone on the Red Wings clearly pissed off the Rocket... but it's safe to say that Howe faced tougher opposition than the Habs did.

Interesting observation. In step with other comments about O6 playoff upsets and playoff performance.

Question remains is this the best metric? An O6 season featur-4 home.ed 5 equal scheduling parts. - 70 game schedule each of the 6 teams played the other 14 times. What would be more revealing? How the Canadiens and Wings played against the league or how they played against each other in those 14 games. Specific to Gordie Howe it becomes a question of comparing his RS totals against the Canadiens against his playoff totals.

Over 14 RS games Detroit had a 3-7-4 record against Montreal home 2-2-3, 16GF 20GA, away 1-5-1 8GF 30 GA. Howe scored 5G + 5A for 10 PTS. 1-1 away, 4-4 home. However he was held scoreless in 9 games

So was his playoff performance surprising - scoreless in the first three games, 1 G 1 A in game 4 of a sweep? Was the team performance surprising?

Note -did not double check to see if Howe missed any RS games against Montreal.

 

[daver]

Hasn't McDavid been the best player in hockey last year and this year?

Not last year. But Howe wasn't the best player year in and year out either if every season is viewed in a vacuum.

 

[daver]

Performance from game to game always varies, so small sample sizes naturally allow for greater deviation from the norm, but it also goes both ways. A good defensive team might play absurdly well (1959-60 Canadiens allowed only 11 goals in 8 games), and a bad defensive team might play like absolute garbage (1981-82 Oilers and the Miracle on Manchester). But like you pointed out, both Crosby and Howe played a sufficient number of games such that variations even out. And even in small samples, it's more likely for the one player that we are looking at to be over/under-performing than for the five opposing skaters and goalie to be over/under-performing simultaneously.

There needs to be some kind of baseline for comparison, especially when the schedule becomes heavily unbalanced. When Detroit and Montreal faced each other in 1958, for example, one team faced the best defensive team in the league and the other faced the 2nd worst. (Detroit averaged 31% more goals against than Montreal in the regular season.) Sure, Howe definitely under-performed that series (2 points in 4 games), and someone on the Red Wings clearly pissed off the Rocket... but it's safe to say that Howe faced tougher opposition than the Habs did.

Up to ages 29, I'd say if we're considering significant/multi-round playoff runs, on average Crosby is roughly the same tier as Richard, Beliveau, and Howe. Crosby doesn't have their peaks, but he's more consistent. Considering that they're the all-time #3, #4, and #5 playoff performers according to this board, that's already damned impressive. But like I said, all three managed to add very significant runs well into their thirties. Crosby still needs to do that.

As for Crosby's regular season, what happened was that he took two cheap shots to the head in successive games in the middle of his true breakout season, and then his "doctors" somehow mistook a broken neck for a concussion and set him back an additional year. As a result, we missed his peak years. Even without his peak years, Crosby still looks like the next Beliveau career-wise. If that really does end up being the case a decade from now, I'm more than willing to use that as a tie-breaker.

The last things that I'm going to say are that Crosby is still a young man, he always somehow manages to surprise me, and that I (and probably everyone else on HoH) would much love to watch history be made... but we need to see it, because "seeing is believing", so to speak.

No disagreement with anything you have said. I don't think he would be pacing towards anything other than #5 at age 30 even if he had completed one or two of his peak seasons but I do think he has a chance to outperform some or all of the Big Four in two ways; playoffs and length of prime. And by playoffs, I mean he would establish himself as someone you pick over one of the Big Four at their peak i.e. Orr and Mario are lower on the all-time playoff performer list but they still get picked over every other non-Big 4 player by most people.

Is there any other player who can make that claim?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

When we talk full body of work I don't see how Crosby wasent the top player in hockey in 16-17. Dominant World Cup. Dominant reg season and dominant playoff. This season like @bobholly39 said. If Crosby doesn't have a great showing in the playoffs then I would agree its time to admit that after 13 years Crosby is no longer the top player in the league. We shall wait and see

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

No disagreement with anything you have said. I don't think he would be pacing towards anything other than #5 at age 30 even if he had completed one or two of his peak seasons but I do think he has a chance to outperform some or all of the Big Four in two ways; playoffs and length of prime. And by playoffs, I mean he would establish himself as someone you pick over one of the Big Four at their peak i.e. Orr and Mario are lower on the all-time playoff performer list but they still get picked over every other non-Big 4 player by most people.

Is there any other player who can make that claim?

I think if Crosby completed 2011 and 2013 he'd be solidified as the number 5 player. 4 harts and 4 art Ross on top of his multiple symthes would been great. It's a damn friggin shame

 

[daver]

This argument held true last year. In large part because throughout the regular season he kept pace with McDavid and seemed prime to overtake him in the scoring race till McDavid grew the gap at end.

This is going to be McDavid's 2nd art ross - and a pretty strong one on a weak team all things considered. He might even get a 2nd hart.

If you remove McDavid from the equation - sure maybe i'd argue Crosby #1 still going into next year. McDavid is a game changer. Generational prospect and 2 straight years of domination give him the track record of being hailed the best in the world.

As of today - Crosby's only way to hold onto #1 is if he has a dominating playoffs, like he did last year. If Pens stumble and are out in round 1 i'd say his 13 years of consecutively being best player in the world are over. If Crosby dominates in the playoffs and they reach round 3/4 with him standing out - sure let's give him benefit of doubt into next season as co-best player. But without that i'd say his streak is over. (that being said - I DO expect Crosby to have a monstrous playoffs - i'm just saying without it his streak is over).

Going into next season - I would argue McDavid is the favorite for Hart/Ross over Crosby. There hasn't been a regular season since 2007 where I felt Crosby wasn't the favorite to the Hart/Ross going into a year. It's not exactly a scientific definition - but I think it works. Favorite/co-favorite

I don't think McDavid dominated last year, all things considered. He was lucky to play a full season while his closest rivals missed games and his playoff performance was clearly behind Crosby's. And that's not taking 2-way play or deployment into consideration. Putting aside his age, last year he put himself in the position to be the #1 candidate to join or overtake Crosby. Players like Kane, Malkin, Karlsson, and Kucherov are/were also in that conversation too.

Like Howe, I feel Crosby has earned some leeway after so many years of elite play. Should anyone really be that surprised that Crosby wasn't at his normal elite level in the regular season after two Cup runs? Should he expend any more energy than he had to get his team back into a position to go for a 3rd Cup? Would it be a surprise if he turns it up again in this year's playoffs? A 3rd Conn Smythe would be an historical achievement and boost his legacy considerably more than another Top 3 Ross finish or even another Ross.

Regardless of how this year turns out, if he returns to his regular season and/or playoff level from last year moving forward, whether or not that keeps him right at the top, it should keep him going toe-to-toe with Howe in his prime which I think he moves out of after the 63/64 season.

 

[daver]

I think if Crosby completed 2011 and 2013 he'd be solidified as the number 5 player. 4 harts and 4 art Ross on top of his multiple symthes would been great. It's a damn friggin shame

To be fair, playing out hypothetical scenarios opens the door to alternative career paths.

Is he as motivated to win the AR in 13/14 if he won in 11 and 13? Do the Pens go farther in the POs in 11 and 13 with a healthy Crosby? If they won a Cup in one those years, do they win the last two? Does he suffer an even worse injury after 2013?

I agree with the general sentiment that his prime is among the other Top 5 player candidates and notable achievements moving forward gets him closer to a potential unanimous #5.

I think the very best he can achieve is a general sentiment that while he cannot make it a Big 5, he is closer to the Big 4 than he is to the 2nd tier players.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

To be fair, playing out hypothetical scenarios opens the door to alternative career paths.

Is he as motivated to win the AR in 13/14 if he won in 11 and 13? Do the Pens go farther in the POs in 11 and 13 with a healthy Crosby? If they won a Cup in one those years, do they win the last two? Does he suffer an even worse injury after 2013?

I agree with the general sentiment that his prime is among the other Top 5 player candidates and notable achievements moving forward gets him closer to a potential unanimous #5.

I think the very best he can achieve is a general sentiment that while he cannot make it a Big 5, he is closer to the Big 4 than he is to the 2nd tier players.

To be fair, playing out hypothetical scenarios opens the door to alternative career paths.

Is he as motivated to win the AR in 13/14 if he won in 11 and 13? Do the Pens go farther in the POs in 11 and 13 with a healthy Crosby? If they won a Cup in one those years, do they win the last two? Does he suffer an even worse injury after 2013?

I agree with the general sentiment that his prime is among the other Top 5 player candidates and notable achievements moving forward gets him closer to a potential unanimous #5.

I think the very best he can achieve is a general sentiment that while he cannot make it a Big 5, he is closer to the Big 4 than he is to the 2nd tier players.

Yeah anything could have happened to him those years. But in a perfect world Crosby should be at least a 4 time MVP and scoring champ. I don't think Sid would ever have problems with motivation. He lives and breathes hockey.

What we have now is Crosby basically building his legacy on a new foundation (smythes, cups) looks to be that Crosby is doing much of his achievements in his late 20's which is rather odd.

 

[daver]

Yeah anything could have happened to him those years. But in a perfect world Crosby should be at least a 4 time MVP and scoring champ. I don't think Sid would ever have problems with motivation. He lives and breathes hockey.

What we have now is Crosby basically building his legacy on a new foundation (smythes, cups) looks to be that Crosby is doing much of his achievements in his late 20's which is rather odd.

He really doesn't have a weakness vs. any other Top 5 player candidate (similar peak level of play, goalscoring, playmaking, leadership, Cups, playoff performances, all around play). He is very Belliveau-like in that sense. The lack of a truly signature peak season should become more of a footnote rather than anything that keeps him out of #5 if he has another five years like the last five years.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

He really doesn't have a weakness vs. any other Top 5 player candidate (similar peak level of play, goalscoring, playmaking, leadership, Cups, playoff performances, all around play). He is very Belliveau-like in that sense. The lack of a truly signature peak season should become more of a footnote rather than anything that keeps him out of #5 if he has another five years like the last five years.

Hopefully in future generations like 30 years he will be getting the benefit of the doubt on his injury years which will probably be the case. The only thing that might hurt Sids legacy is Mcdavid. I feel McDavid is likely going to do what Crosvy would have done in terms of art Ross and harts.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Howe is the weakest link for me. If all four started in the nhl at the same time and same age I think we would truly see that. What you'd have is Orr doing what he did. Dominating the Norris but in this case he's not winning any art Ross trophies. You'd have Gretzky and Lemieux going shot for shot. And then Howe.. Don't see him coming close to 66 and 99 when he could barely keep up with beliveau who's only three years younger

 

[quoipourquoi]

No disagreement with anything you have said. I don't think he would be pacing towards anything other than #5 at age 30 even if he had completed one or two of his peak seasons but I do think he has a chance to outperform some or all of the Big Four in two ways; playoffs and length of prime. And by playoffs, I mean he would establish himself as someone you pick over one of the Big Four at their peak i.e. Orr and Mario are lower on the all-time playoff performer list but they still get picked over every other non-Big 4 player by most people.

Is there any other player who can make that claim?

By length of prime, are we saying that Sidney Crosby - who has not been the points leader in 4 seasons or the points-per-game leader in 3 seasons and may not be a top-10 scorer this year - is still in his prime because he is still a very good player in 2018 despite not playing the very best hockey of his career? If so, then yes, there is another player who can make that claim that their playoffs and the length of time in which they were a top-level player is comparable to some of the big 4 (the one with 15 seasons with a top-10 save percentage and 1st Team All-Star selections in three different decades whose record number of Conn Smythe Trophies we are just casually projecting Sidney Crosby to reach).

What Sidney Crosby is going through now is similar to what Patrick Roy was going through in the mid-1990s at around the same age: extending his status as the best in some people's minds by having good regular seasons (that are surpassed by other players) and great playoffs.

He can win Stanley Cups, he can get appendicitis and rush back from the hospital for key games, but at some point, those players having better regular seasons (Hasek, McDavid) are going to have themselves a really nice playoff too, and whether it's The Hockey News and LCS Hockey in the late-1990s (who still had Patrick Roy as the best goaltender off-and-on until Nagano in 1998) or the people who think Sidney Crosby is still the best player in hockey now and have felt re-affirmed the last two Springs, those people are going to have to re-assess when that player truly exited his prime - the best stretch of his career - and when they were past that point but still running short-term in key moments on whatever fumes they had left.

It's that thing Toby Keith wrote that song about (...we, uh, just got back from Nashville).

If Crosby continues to trend like Roy, he'll have enough to get through a very, very good back-9 of his career, but I just don't think he's the best player in the world any more... but if he can play like it for the next eight weeks, then yeah, forget McDavid, sing Crosby's praises, and start work on a statue. That's what I did until 1997-98.

 

[daver]

By length of prime, are we saying that Sidney Crosby - who has not been the points leader in 4 seasons or the points-per-game leader in 3 seasons and may not be a top-10 scorer this year - is still in his prime because he is still a very good player in 2018 despite not playing the very best hockey of his career? If so, then yes, there is another player who can make that claim that their playoffs and the length of time in which they were a top-level player is comparable to some of the big 4 (the one with 15 seasons with a top-10 save percentage and 1st Team All-Star selections in three different decades whose record number of Conn Smythe Trophies we are just casually projecting Sidney Crosby to reach).

I am saying that similar to Howe being considered the best/co-best player from 50/51 to 62/63 according to the HOH thread (I would include 63/64 myself), Crosby has also been considered the best/co-best player from 2006 to last year.

Was Roy considered the best player in hockey (sans Mario and Wayne)? Was any goalie other than Hasek given serious consideration being the best hockey player in the world in the context spelled out by HOH?

 

[daver]

What Sidney Crosby is going through now is similar to what Patrick Roy was going through in the mid-1990s at around the same age: extending his status as the best in some people's minds by having good regular seasons (that are surpassed by other players) and great playoffs.

He can win Stanley Cups, he can get appendicitis and rush back from the hospital for key games, but at some point, those players having better regular seasons (Hasek, McDavid) are going to have themselves a really nice playoff too, and whether it's The Hockey News and LCS Hockey in the late-1990s (who still had Patrick Roy as the best goaltender off-and-on until Nagano in 1998) or the people who think Sidney Crosby is still the best player in hockey now and have felt re-affirmed the last two Springs, those people are going to have to re-assess when that player truly exited his prime - the best stretch of his career - and when they were past that point but still running short-term in key moments on whatever fumes they had left.

Reaffirmed? When was he not considered the best/co-best from 2006 until last year, again in the context of the HOH Best player thread?