HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[BenchBrawl]

Shouldn´t it be put in to the equation that we actually saw prime Lidstrom (even if 35+ and heading downwards...) go up against prime Crosby (even if 25- and heading upwards...) and prime Lidstrom was the one who won the match ups?

Meh.I don't put much weight into that no.

To me peak Lidstrom dominated the D-corpse (and leauge) more than Crosby has C and F (and leauge). And for an longer period of time. And definetley more games. And to me PO:s goes to Lidstrom as well.

I'm not sure this is true at all.I'm too lazy to go deep into it.Crosby dominated his peers offensively to a rare level (on a per-game basis).He's far ahead of Ovechkin who is 2nd (and Malkin who is 3rd).

It's very likely Crosby will pass Lidstrom eventually.He's a more important player than him in the grand scheme of things.

 

[authentic]

Meh.I don't put much weight into that no.



I'm not sure this is true at all.I'm too lazy to go deep into it.Crosby dominated his peers offensively to a rare level (on a per-game basis).He's far ahead of Ovechkin who is 2nd (and Malkin who is 3rd).

It's very likely Crosby will pass Lidstrom eventually.He's a more important player than him in the grand scheme of things.

Lidstrom dominated more in terms of trophies, but the way I see it is Lidstrom consistently played with players that were more favourable to Lidstrom being seen as the best defenseman than Crosby played with players who were favourable for him to put up the points to be seen as the best center or forward. There's also the competition at forward that Crosby faced which was higher and deeper than Lidstrom's at defense. Throw the injuries in there which are more a case of bad luck than anything and it's not hard to see why Lidstrom was considered the best defenseman more often. I think Crosby for the most part has been a better and more dominant player than Lidstrom ever was.

 

[feffan]

Regarding Lidstrom - he was rarely seen as the best overall player in the game.

Maybe he dominated among defenseman more than Crosby dominated among forwards (maybe?) - but Crosby was often called/seen as the best in the game all positions combined.

Lidstrom was rarely a top voter in hart. I'm sure some of that is due to defenseman not being rewarded as often as forwards, but not entirely.

I think that's what the poster was getting at when talking league domination.

This isn't just about Crosby. For many years, Crosby, Ovechkin, sometimes Malkin...called best player in game. Price was getting that a lot last year. Kane this year. I don't recall any single season where Lidstrom was getting such talk about him. Always about the best defenseman, but not necessarily best player overall. And if there were some years where it was discussed, i think it was much less often than Crosby.

The question rather should be if Lidstrom was the best player in the world at any given time. Not if he was called it.

Crosby sure has been in the duscussion since he entered the leauge. I would still, for the probably 6th straight season (since Ovechkins downyear...), pick him first if given the choice to build a team from scratch next year. But in reality he has had the greatest season in the leauge 3 times in his 11 year career.

And I don´t think we need the (maybe?). Lidstrom had 6 Norrises in 7 seasons. Was an First (10) or Second All Star (2) 12 out of 14 seasons straight. Crosby has played 11 seasons.

Last years Hart-voting is an perfect example of that defenders still are undervalued there. Karlsson got 12 votes. Doughty 2. None other more than 1. 13 other players got at least 7 votes (and Hudler 4 for that mather...).
From Lidstroms first Hart votes in 97/98 until last season 7 different defenders got more than 3 votes in the Hart race (Blake, MacInnis, Pronger, Niedermayer, Chara, Karlsson and Keith). Last season alone 10 forwards got more than that. For that mather 4 goalies. It sure ain´t an trophy that defenders gets vote on, so when evaluating an forward against an defender I think Hart voting is dangerous ground to base to much on.

As I see it Crosby and Lidstrom represent two opposite things here. Lidstrom was rarely called it, but probably was it. Crosby was called it for more periods of time than he really was it. Much like Forsberg and Lindros was called it for many of there injurie years. Crosby had 06/07, then Ovechkin was the better player until 2010. Then injuries and then he was the best in 12/13-13/14 again.

The question should therefore be if Lidstrom deserved to be called the best player in the game at some point? At first tought, wich defenders have really been called the best in the game? Orr, Harvey and Shore? Potvin for a short time?

Meh.I don't put much weight into that no.

It shouldn´t mean the world, but that two players in their primes play against each other and one is outplaying the other in two straight Stanley Cup finals should weight more than "meh" as I see it. Are numbers really more evidence than actually head to head combats?

I'm not sure this is true at all.I'm too lazy to go deep into it.Crosby dominated his peers offensively to a rare level (on a per-game basis).He's far ahead of Ovechkin who is 2nd (and Malkin who is 3rd).

It's very likely Crosby will pass Lidstrom eventually.He's a more important player than him in the grand scheme of things.

It always comes to per-game basis with Crosby doesn´t it. If that was the case for evulating other players I guess we should think about putting Forsberg ahead of Sakic. As Crosby a player that was injuried alot but still called "the best in the world" for many years and whos PPG stats look really great. Even if of course not as many years in the best player in the world as Crosby. But Forsberg was sure called that more times than Sakic (or Lidstrom...).

If we go by the general consensus of this thread many think in Crosby will settle down around Mikita. In 2009 this boards had Lidstrom at 17th best player ever and Mikita at 15. Lidstrom after that added 1 Norris, a 4th and a 5th place in Norris and with that an 1 First and 1 Second All Star Team. And 2 good PO:s. I would say that Lidstrom has taken a few steps up therefore. As always shadowing Bourque (who was 10th...) but not reaching all the way to him. Not impossible to reach for Crosby, he´s sure got the talent. But to me not likely.

If people already are putting Crosby ahead of Lidstrom, then are they also already putting him ahead of Messier, Potvin, Esposito, Clarke and others? Player who ranked lower than Lidstrom already 2009. Not that that ranking is end of all evidence, but it´s an nice guideline.

Lidstrom dominated more in terms of trophies, but the way I see it is Lidstrom consistently played with players that were more favourable to Lidstrom being seen as the best defenseman than Crosby played with players who were favourable for him to put up the points to be seen as the best center or forward. There's also the competition at forward that Crosby faced which was higher and deeper than Lidstrom's at defense. Throw the injuries in there which are more a case of bad luck than anything and it's not hard to see why Lidstrom was considered the best defenseman more often. I think Crosby for the most part has been a better and more dominant player than Lidstrom ever was.

Who in the top 20 didn´t play on great teams? Should we then take all from dynastys down a nodge in the rankings because they had good teammates? Dionne up an notch or three?
Lidstrom was the one stirring the drink. He was first amongst defencemen in the leauge in scoring with generation 1 Red Wings and generation 2 Red Wings. And playing great defense the whole time. Those teams where built around Lidstrom.

To me the "Crosby has bad teammates" is an overplayed myth. Crosby has always had one of the premium offensive defencemen from the rare end in either Gonchar or Letang to play with. He´s also had Malkin on that team since season 2, another top 1-3 offensively player in the leauge for most of his career. And on paper has had one of the greatest PP:s in the leauge basically since he entered it. And greater wingers than Penguins fans give them credit for. Those teams where built for Crosby. Of course he was in the best position to score points.

And I don´t see how you can give him points for time off even if the injuries was bad luck. What actually happened must have more leverage than what could have happened. And that´s from me who loves to dwell on "what if´s" and am an peak guy.
It ain´t as it´s been Ovechkin and Malkin that outduelled him every year. Crosby also has lost Art Rosses to H Sedin, Benn and Kane during injurie free years. That´s not exactly screaming high competition and all time greats.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom is probably higher too.But again, Crosby reached a level Lidstrom couldn't touch in league domination, and for quite some time.

That sounds to me like a could be ranked ahead of Lidstrom, or at least close as I read it.

And my response main point was that I think Lidstroms peak is way underrated when the statement following that went Crosby reached a level Lidstrom couldn't touch in league domination, and for quite some time.

That Lidstrom was one of the greatest defensive players of his time among with in earlier post named offensive peak domination amongst d-men makes me not agreing with that statement at all.

And Lidstrom during 15 years prime finished no lower than 6th in Norris. Including 3 runners up and 7 actual wins. I would say if one of him and Crosby has reached an level of domination in actual games played for quite some time it´s Lidstrom. If the Hart wasn´t so forward/goalie-driven, in my opionion he would have a couple of those as well.

If we where to rank the top 10 seasons between Crosby and Lidstrom, I would see Crosby having 3 in there.

It's just Bourque vs Potvin really.
While it is generally acknowledged that Potvin at his peak was better than Bourque. Bourque's longevity and ridiculous length of prime sets him above Potvin in the end.
That's no different than Crosby vs Lidstrom. Crosby might have been better than Lidstrom at his peak but he can't and won't match Lidstrom's length of prime. That window has already all but closed I think, an outside chance but not likely.

Crosby's Smythe has almost zero bearing on his all-time ranking. It was a weak win based on reputation two fold.
Sid's reputation for the winning of it and Kessel's reputation with certain voters for losing it.
Out of the last 10 Smythe winners, Crosby's ranks #10 and everyone knows it.

 

[ImporterExporter]

It's just Bourque vs Potvin really.
While it is generally acknowledged that Potvin at his peak was better than Bourque. Bourque's longevity and ridiculous length of prime sets him above Potvin in the end.
That's no different than Crosby vs Lidstrom. Crosby might have been better than Lidstrom at his peak but he can't and won't match Lidstrom's length of prime. That window has already all but closed I think, an outside chance but not likely.

Crosby's Smythe has almost zero bearing on his all-time ranking. It was a weak win based on reputation two fold.
Sid's reputation for the winning of it and Kessel's reputation with certain voters for losing it.
Out of the last 10 Smythe winners, Crosby's ranks #10 and everyone knows it.

Niedermayer, Ward, Kane (19 points, fewer GW goals and plays W vs C, among other tidbits) say hello. Kane's Smythe run wasn't even a top 3 playoff performance of his. Crawford was at .932 and 1.84, was more deserving, as was Duncan Keith, but again.....Sid is 10 and everyone knows it!!!

But hey, you have never shown an agenda regarding Crosby

 

[quoipourquoi]

Try to remember that this is the Top 60 Centers of All-Time thread. If your post would be better served in a different thread, make it there.

 

[daver]

Crosby's Smythe has almost zero bearing on his all-time ranking.

In order for this to be a viable opinion, you would have to evaluate every playoff performance by every centre ranked above him all-time (24 at last HOH count I believe) and conclude that every one of those say 250 - 300 playoff runs were better than his 2016 performance.

Is this is the case?

 

[Rhiessan71]

In order for this to be a viable opinion, you would have to evaluate every playoff performance by every centre ranked above him all-time (24 at last HOH count I believe) and conclude that every one of those say 250 - 300 playoff runs were better than his 2016 performance.

Is this is the case?

Everyone of of those all-time players that had a Conn Smythe winning playoff run was a better run than Cosby's Conn Smythe winning playoff run.
Again, this Smythe means next to nothing. He all but won it by default and biased voters.

Even you Daver admitted in the main forums just a few days ago that Kessel prolly has the best case for it.
Hey, Crosby won it. Fine, whatever. Everyone knows how and why he won it.
It's not a negative on Crosby but it's also not a positive either.
It just is.

 

[K Fleur]

Everyone of of those all-time players that had a Conn Smythe winning playoff run was a better run than Cosby's Conn Smythe winning playoff run.
Again, this Smythe means next to nothing. He all but won it by default and biased voters.

Even you Daver admitted in the main forums just a few days ago that Kessel prolly has the best case for it.
Hey, Crosby won it. Fine, whatever. Everyone knows how and why he won it.
It's not a negative on Crosby but it's also not a positive either.
It just is.

"Biased voters". Did you have to adjust your tinfoil cap while typing that out? It really does never end...

As far as Crosby's all time center ranking he's right there with Sakic at this point(which would put him in the top 10 discussion for me). Whether he passes him or not depends on what happens from here on out.

 

[Rhiessan71]

"Biased voters". Did you have to adjust your tinfoil cap while typing that out? It really does never end...

One doesn't need a tinfoil cap to know that there are certain TO based media persons that wouldn't relieve themselves on Kessel if he was on fire, let alone vote for him for the Conn Smythe.

As far as Crosby's all time center ranking he's right there with Sakic at this point(which would put him in the top 10 discussion for me). Whether he passes him or not depends on what happens from here on out.

Maybe, maybe not.
He's still got a long way to go to fully match Sakic's 20 seasons or even Yzerman's 22 for that matter.

 

[daver]

Maybe, maybe not.
He's still got a long way to go to fully match Sakic's 20 seasons or even Yzerman's 22 for that matter.

In what context? He has already matched and surpassed their primes, Yzerman moreso than Sakic, and is lacking nothing on his playoff or international resume.

He certainly doesn't need a bunch more prime seasons, let alone nine more seasons to clearly pass Sakic, maybe a few Top Ten scoring seasons, or even one more Top 3 Art Ross placing or another Cup.

Nothing against Sakic or Yzerman but the talk should be more about him challenging for a Top 5 spot in the years to come and what he needs to do to get there. He looks pretty good compared to Mikita and Belliveau at age 28.

 

[bobholly39]

Everyone of of those all-time players that had a Conn Smythe winning playoff run was a better run than Cosby's Conn Smythe winning playoff run.
Again, this Smythe means next to nothing. He all but won it by default and biased voters.

Even you Daver admitted in the main forums just a few days ago that Kessel prolly has the best case for it.
Hey, Crosby won it. Fine, whatever. Everyone knows how and why he won it.
It's not a negative on Crosby but it's also not a positive either.
It just is.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

Crosby had a very solid playoff run. Sure - maybe it wasn't worthy of a player of his caliber (some discussion in this thread about whether he can one day reach as high as #5 player all-time - and if this were to be the best playoff run ever for the #5 player of all time it would certainly be very underwhelming), but it was still an overall solid conn smythe run. And compared to other players in this year's playoffs - it also was one of the best, whether you personally would award him the smythe or not. So I don't think it's fair to say he only got the trophy because of voter bias. Unless thats something you say every year and not just this year, because it is a subjective award, and I think Crosby had as much of a case as anyone else to win it and as other winners in previous years where there wasn't a big standout performance won.

Jamie Benn won an extremely underwhelming Art Ross last year at 87 points - with Crosby, Malkin, Seguin, Kane all missing time to injuries and a few other people underachieving. But - when Jamie Benn retires, his record will show 1 art ross (if not more) and it will count as just that, an Art Ross. No one will say "yeah but it was such a weak year, let's forego counting this on his resume".

Same thing for this Smythe for Crosby. A smythe is a smythe, and he sure as hell didn't "steal" it. We count Hart Trophies for Gretzky - we don't try to say "well, maybe 89 Lemieux should have got it instead of him so let's subtract 1 for Gretzky". It's not how it works.

So yes - having 1 more cup and especially a smythe does contribute to Crosby's legacy.

To what extent does this playoff run bridge Crosby's overall playoff resume with some of the great playoff centers in history like Beliveau or Sakic, who themselves have had legendaries runs? Maybe not that much per se - but Crosby also has had a couple of previous very strong runs too. So this is just an extra accomplishment in his playoff resume, not necessarily his best run, but a strong accomplishment nonetheless. Will this run compare favorbly to Sakic or Beliveau's best playoff runs? Of course not. But it does other things for him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

In what context? He has already matched and surpassed their primes, Yzerman moreso than Sakic, and is lacking nothing on his playoff or international resume.

He certainly doesn't need a bunch more prime seasons, let alone nine more seasons to clearly pass Sakic, maybe a few Top Ten scoring seasons, or even one more Top 3 Art Ross placing or another Cup.

Nothing against Sakic or Yzerman but the talk should be more about him challenging for a Top 5 spot in the years to come and what he needs to do to get there. He looks pretty good compared to Mikita and Belliveau at age 28.

Relative to Sakic and Yzerman, Crosby has shown greater diversity/flexibility in his game but is still short on the concentration aspect - game in game out ability to perform despite the various challenges presented by the opposition. In Crosby's diversity/flexibility there are trade-off elements that you did not see with Sakic or Yzerman. Crosby's defence and control elements tend to come at the cost of stretches of reduced scoring.

As for Mikita and Beliveau, Crosby has to bring sustainability elements to his game.
Especially true when compared to Beliveau. Even in his last season, Beliveau sustained his game - dictating how the game was played when he was on the ice. Mikita, Sakic and Yzerman had to compromise in this regard. Notable examples about late career Beliveau. 1965(Hull/Mikita),1966(Howe) 1971(Orr/Esposito, Hull/Mikita). Beliveau played great defensive hockey while contributing offensively at a pace that was equal to or greater to a point per game.

 

[daver]

Relative to Sakic and Yzerman, Crosby has shown greater diversity/flexibility in his game but is still short on the concentration aspect - game in game out ability to perform despite the various challenges presented by the opposition. In Crosby's diversity/flexibility there are trade-off elements that you did not see with Sakic or Yzerman. Crosby's defence and control elements tend to come at the cost of stretches of reduced scoring.

This seems very nitpicky to me. Crosby has produced offensively under a variety of different conditions. His 104 point season in 2013/14 gets undervalued, IMO, given Crosby was playing the role of 2-way centre while Malkin's line got the offensive starts (similar to what we saw with the HBK line). He wins the Art Ross in a dominant fashion while having a borderline Top 6 winger (Kunitz) and a rotation of mainly AHL callups on the other wing.

That, IMO, along with his career long showing of producing with subpar wingers in comparison to his all-time peers greatly outweighs your small sample of reduced scoring which very much needs some context.

 

[daver]

As for Mikita and Beliveau, Crosby has to bring sustainability elements to his game.
Especially true when compared to Beliveau. Even in his last season, Beliveau sustained his game - dictating how the game was played when he was on the ice. Mikita, Sakic and Yzerman had to compromise in this regard. Notable examples about late career Beliveau. 1965(Hull/Mikita),1966(Howe) 1971(Orr/Esposito, Hull/Mikita). Beliveau played great defensive hockey while contributing offensively at a pace that was equal to or greater to a point per game.

We will leave aside Belliveau's post - 1960 career as we are only discussing up to age 28. I think you are reading too much into these past playoffs or not giving enough credit to Crosby's overall impact.

While I think Crosby is a very good 2-way player, he has been relied upon too much for his offense to play a full out defensive centre role. Belliveau had a heck of an supporting cast for his first five Cups; him not scoring was not an automatic failure for his team.

Similar to Sakic and Yzerman, I think you are nitpicking something that should be overshadowed by Crosby's career long showing of carrying his line and his team. His Conn Smythe clearly shows an appreciation for his all-around game and recognition that while his offensive numbers were not that great, he upped his game when needed in key moments throughout their run. I have no doubt he puts up sexier numbers if the Pens strategy was based on two scoring lines rather than three but that may not have lead them to victory.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if we're talking about after season 11, give Crosby a 2/3 in hart voting too, since we know he's a finalist but pretty sure not a winner.

that's a good point. so the hart voting is already starting to decisively tip in crosby's favour, to the tune of now two extra 3rd places (assuming that benn will be this year's runner up).

What i'm saying is player A at age 25 is likely going to be ~ player B at age 25.

And not necessarily that: Player A at season 5 will be ~ player B at season 5 if they started a few years apart.


Crosby started at 18. He's been elite since season 1.
Beliveau started at 22. Elite since season 2 (his 1st season seems a bit low'ish? I could be wrong though).
That's almost 5 years extra of "elite" for Crosby on his resume vs Beliveau.

Players typically start to decrease in play based on what age they are, as opposed to which season they're in.

So whenever you feel Beliveau started to decline (let's say age 33?) - it's safe to expect Crosby declines around the same age, or thereabout. Crosby won't decline 5 years earlier just because he started playing in the NHL 5 years younger than Beliveau.

So when their careers are done - Crosby will still have those early 5 years of "elite" play in his resume as "extra" than Beliveau does.

So I think comparing players age to age is more relevant than comparing to # of years played. The goal here isn't to have a "fair" comparison - but rather to try and predict how it turns out at the end of their careers.

So - Crosby starting at age 18 and being elite from the start might actually help him quite a bit counter the bad luck he's had from injuries over the years, since many of the centers on this list didn't get to start at 18 (Beliveau being a big one, at 22).

ah, i get you now. one thing i have mentioned in passing a few times that no one has really looked into, myself included, is when a player enters the league and/or when he was born, and what a short/normal/long/crazy long career expectancy is for that era.

for example, imagine the exact same sidney crosby, with the exact same games lost to injuries, the exact same awards, accomplishments, etc. one is botn in 1987, drafted in 2005, and enters the league in 2006. the other is born in 1931 and enters the league in 1952. if millennial crosby plays 19 seasons and O6 crosby plays 17 seasons, due to starting later, do you just say "well, millennial crosby is better because i am comparing seasons to seasons and he has more," or do you say "well, O6 crosby was better because it was rarer to play 17 seasons in his era than 19 season in the post-WHA era," or is some more complicated accounting needed for cross-era comparison?

or, as i asked in the potvin vs bourque thread recently, we all know that bourque's longevity (in terms of peak, prime, and career) trumps potvin's. but by how much? if we adjusted for era, how long would potvin have had to play to match bourque? because we know that it's more than the 15 actual years potvin played, but less than the 22 years that bourque played. nobody in potvin's era played that long so 22 years of potvin would be almost howe-ian, while a bunch of other players in bourque's era did.

 

[daver]

that's a good point. so the hart voting is already starting to decisively tip in crosby's favour, to the tune of now two extra 3rd places (assuming that benn will be this year's runner up).




ah, i get you now. one thing i have mentioned in passing a few times that no one has really looked into, myself included, is when a player enters the league and/or when he was born, and what a short/normal/long/crazy long career expectancy is for that era.

for example, imagine the exact same sidney crosby, with the exact same games lost to injuries, the exact same awards, accomplishments, etc. one is botn in 1987, drafted in 2005, and enters the league in 2006. the other is born in 1931 and enters the league in 1952. if millennial crosby plays 19 seasons and O6 crosby plays 17 seasons, due to starting later, do you just say "well, millennial crosby is better because i am comparing seasons to seasons and he has more," or do you say "well, O6 crosby was better because it was rarer to play 17 seasons in his era than 19 season in the post-WHA era," or is some more complicated accounting needed for cross-era comparison?

or, as i asked in the potvin vs bourque thread recently, we all know that bourque's longevity (in terms of peak, prime, and career) trumps potvin's. but by how much? if we adjusted for era, how long would potvin have had to play to match bourque? because we know that it's more than the 15 actual years potvin played, but less than the 22 years that bourque played. nobody in potvin's era played that long so 22 years of potvin would be almost howe-ian, while a bunch of other players in bourque's era did.

So what era-related factor stopped Mikita and Bellieveau from starting at age 18, and more importantly, from being impact players immediately in the league like Crosby was regardless of their age when they entered.

Speaking era-related factors, it seems modern players lose a lot more time to injury than 06 players. Should we factor in that Crosby plays more full seasons in the '50s and '60s?

 

[bobholly39]

that's a good point. so the hart voting is already starting to decisively tip in crosby's favour, to the tune of now two extra 3rd places (assuming that benn will be this year's runner up).




ah, i get you now. one thing i have mentioned in passing a few times that no one has really looked into, myself included, is when a player enters the league and/or when he was born, and what a short/normal/long/crazy long career expectancy is for that era.

for example, imagine the exact same sidney crosby, with the exact same games lost to injuries, the exact same awards, accomplishments, etc. one is botn in 1987, drafted in 2005, and enters the league in 2006. the other is born in 1931 and enters the league in 1952. if millennial crosby plays 19 seasons and O6 crosby plays 17 seasons, due to starting later, do you just say "well, millennial crosby is better because i am comparing seasons to seasons and he has more," or do you say "well, O6 crosby was better because it was rarer to play 17 seasons in his era than 19 season in the post-WHA era," or is some more complicated accounting needed for cross-era comparison?

or, as i asked in the potvin vs bourque thread recently, we all know that bourque's longevity (in terms of peak, prime, and career) trumps potvin's. but by how much? if we adjusted for era, how long would potvin have had to play to match bourque? because we know that it's more than the 15 actual years potvin played, but less than the 22 years that bourque played. nobody in potvin's era played that long so 22 years of potvin would be almost howe-ian, while a bunch of other players in bourque's era did.

I don't know that I ever really considered that tbh.

If i get you right - you're basically saying. At the end of their careers, if Crosby has 18 seasons and Beliveau has 18 seasons and the resumes are extremely comparable - if it's rarer/more impressive for a player starting in the 1950s to play 18 seasons than it is for a player starting in 2005, does that give Beliveau the edge?

I suppose it could. I don't know that it's a very big consideration though. Players have played 15-20 seasons for almost ever as far as I can tell (maybe pre-WWII was different?) so i'm not sure it really matters.

Regarding Bourque/Potvin. Some players in Potvin's era played quite a bit more than 15 years, and very few played as long as Bourque did. So i don't know that you can necessarily say "well in Potvin's era players generally played less years", and even if you can i would expect the aveage number of years to be a lot less than 7, maybe 2-3 at most.

I'll admit i'm probably not knowledgeable enough to state for sure what the expectation of seasons played per era is, but I wouldn't think there's a big difference.

And mostly - If Bourque has 22 seasons and Potvin has 15 seasons - a very large part of me simply wants to say "too bad for Potvin". That would be like "net positive" for Bouque, I wouldn't try to give Potvin credit by saying "yeah but players in his era played less seasons so 15 should be roughly comparable to 22" or something like that.

I hope my post is clear, I think I managed to even confuse myself while typing this up

 

[Rhiessan71]

So what era-related factor stopped Mikita and Bellieveau from starting at age 18, and more importantly, from being impact players immediately in the league like Crosby was regardless of their age when they entered.

Other than the minimum age to play in the NHL for many years was 19 or 20?

Speaking era-related factors, it seems modern players lose a lot more time to injury than 06 players. Should we factor in that Crosby plays more full seasons in the '50s and '60s?

Lose actual game time to injuries today because injuries would go unreported in fear of losing your job back then.
Or injuries that would sideline a player today would be told to "suck it up" back then.

You can factor in that Crosby plays more full seasons back then all you want but those added games played while under the effect of an unreported injury or a reported injury that he's told to suck it for where he's no where close to 100% are not going to help him much. Hurt his numbers is the much more likely outcome, especially his overly touted PpG numbers.

 

[daver]

Other than the minimum age to play in the NHL for many years was 19 or 20?

Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't appear Belliveau or Mikita would have been playing let alone impactful at age 18 or 19.

I would be really surprised if this is alluded to as a difference maker when Crosby's career is said and done.

 

[gary69]

Or it could be a tenth of the size if Crosby started the same year Sakic did.

Hypotheticals work both ways eh

Or, if say Crosby would have drafted by San Jose instead of Pat Falloon and played for them from 1991/1992 until 2002 during his peak & prime years missing as many games as he had due to injuries, he most certainly would have won nothing, no trophies or cups in the much more competitive 1990's.

Maybe a couple of 100 point seasons, but that's it.

 

[K Fleur]

One doesn't need a tinfoil cap to know that there are certain TO based media persons that wouldn't relieve themselves on Kessel if he was on fire, let alone vote for him for the Conn Smythe.

Then what stopped them from voting for Matt Murray? Murray of course being the guy you previously claimed was so far ahead of Crosby in the Smythe race that he made Crosby a "distant 5th".

Keep reaching.

Maybe, maybe not.
He's still got a long way to go to fully match Sakic's 20 seasons or even Yzerman's 22 for that matter.

Crosby's resume(awards/finishes, scoring titles/finishes,championships etc.) at year 11 is already as impressive if not more so than Yzerman's 22 year resume. And yes like I said we will all have to wait and see what happens from here on out.

 

[Joedaman55]

"Biased voters". Did you have to adjust your tinfoil cap while typing that out? It really does never end...

As far as Crosby's all time center ranking he's right there with Sakic at this point(which would put him in the top 10 discussion for me). Whether he passes him or not depends on what happens from here on out.

There is absolutely a bias when it comes to the media and Crosby and any realistic person can see that. The biases have become so strong that it has built such strong confirmation biases with different players based on national sports media coverage. The modern day "Sportscenter" generation tend to overinflate star players in terms of historical greatness. I don't even blame viewers but advertising/marketing has become so much better over the years that it tends to force people how to think instead of a person seeing something and judging for themselves.

Crosby, Sakic, and Yzerman are all pretty close and it's really tough to decide who should be higher. I don't think there will be any certainty who was better going forward. The counting trophy argument would work if they all played in the same era; however, they didn't and I don't think anyone would argue Sakic and Yzerman had stronger competition for achieving trophies. Another variable is Crosby's injuries which some people view as positive and some negative. The concussion rules in the modern day NHL create a more beneficial playing field for him while in older school hockey they were more brutal and less penalized. If Crosby is missing a ton of games in this era of hockey there is a certainty he misses more playing in the tougher eras of hockey.

These variables make it so tough to rank Crosby which shows why he has such a high variance in lists from top 5 to around the 15th spot.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I don't know that I ever really considered that tbh.

If i get you right - you're basically saying. At the end of their careers, if Crosby has 18 seasons and Beliveau has 18 seasons and the resumes are extremely comparable - if it's rarer/more impressive for a player starting in the 1950s to play 18 seasons than it is for a player starting in 2005, does that give Beliveau the edge?

I suppose it could. I don't know that it's a very big consideration though. Players have played 15-20 seasons for almost ever as far as I can tell (maybe pre-WWII was different?) so i'm not sure it really matters.

Regarding Bourque/Potvin. Some players in Potvin's era played quite a bit more than 15 years, and very few played as long as Bourque did. So i don't know that you can necessarily say "well in Potvin's era players generally played less years", and even if you can i would expect the aveage number of years to be a lot less than 7, maybe 2-3 at most.

I'll admit i'm probably not knowledgeable enough to state for sure what the expectation of seasons played per era is, but I wouldn't think there's a big difference.

And mostly - If Bourque has 22 seasons and Potvin has 15 seasons - a very large part of me simply wants to say "too bad for Potvin". That would be like "net positive" for Bouque, I wouldn't try to give Potvin credit by saying "yeah but players in his era played less seasons so 15 should be roughly comparable to 22" or something like that.

I hope my post is clear, I think I managed to even confuse myself while typing this up

i guess maybe the best example of what i'm talking about is if a guy plays 15 years in the O6 that is a decently long career. if a guy plays 15 years from, say, '83 to '98, that's a pretty normal career for a star-level player.

conversely, if a guy plays 10 years in the O6, that's a normal career. whereas if a guy played 10 years from '91 to 2001, you'd say "that guy did not have good longevity."

i don't know what the threshold is, or what the thresholds are. that would take a lot of analysis that i haven't done. but i think it is a factor we need to think about.

between 1965 and 1990, only ten players played more than potvin's 15 seasons. dionne and robinson with 18 each (robinson actually played 20 years-- he's the only guy on that list who played past 1990), four guys with 17 each, and six guys with 16.

for whatever reason, there were guys whose careers began in the 50s who lasted forever (sixteen different guys played 19+ seasons, with ten of them in the 20s, and they all came into the league 1956 or earlier, other than mikita in 1960 and ratelle in 1962), but no one born within ten years before or five years after potvin played more than 18 except larry robinson.

some crude numbers:

rookie year from 1950-1962 -- 16 guys played 19+ seasons
rookie year from 1962-1979 -- 1 guy played 19+ seasons (robinson)
rookie year from 1980-1990 -- 35 guys played 19+ seasons

my point in all of this is if we're comparing two guys from different eras, it might make sense to ask "how many elite years do we expect a guy who played in the 60s to have?" and "how many elite years do we expect a guy who played in the 80s to have?" instead of saying brad park and brian leetch both played 17 seasons. because expectations for longevity in different eras clearly can be quite different and it was much more impressive for park to last that long than for leetch to.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables II

This seems very nitpicky to me. Crosby has produced offensively under a variety of different conditions. His 104 point season in 2013/14 gets undervalued, IMO, given Crosby was playing the role of 2-way centre while Malkin's line got the offensive starts (similar to what we saw with the HBK line). He wins the Art Ross in a dominant fashion while having a borderline Top 6 winger (Kunitz) and a rotation of mainly AHL callups on the other wing.

That, IMO, along with his career long showing of producing with subpar wingers in comparison to his all-time peers greatly outweighs your small sample of reduced scoring which very much needs some context.

What you describe, basically defines Beliveau's(note the correct spelling,one l) and Stan Mikita. Both spent most of their career introducing rookies to the league or playing with a depth winger, fringe NHLer.

The Scooter Line (Ab McDonald,Stan Mikita, Ken Wharram) was put together from a Canadiens reject - McDonald who was not dressed in the 1960 playoffs and Ken Wharram considered a bust for eight season who blossomed into an AS playing with Mikita.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5697

Later, 1964-65. Doug Mohns, a converted defenceman replaced McDonald.

An elite center playing with one or two depth or fringe wingers is not unusual, rather it is the norm. So you are the one trying to make Crosby's situation into something that it is not.

Crosby will have to play thru stretches where his scoring suffers just like Beliveau, Mikita and other elite centers did to reach or maintain his stature.