HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[Rhiessan71]

On a per-game basis, Crosby is about at the level of Jaromir Jagr and Guy Lafleur in prime offensive domination over his peers.I'm too lazy to check year by year, but intuitively I doubt Sakic is just a case of a Crosby buried under outliers.But maybe he is.

I'm open to change my mind but from what I remember when I actually digged into it, the more you digged, the more Crosby looked good on a per-game basis.He's have been incredibly dominant offensively if you ignore his injuries.

And there it is folks, the famous Cosby PpG or per game basis argument.

I'm sorry but you don't get to say a player is better by missing time or through projections based on time missed.

 

[BenchBrawl]

And there it is folks, the famous Cosby PpG or per game basis argument.

I'm sorry but you don't get to say a player is better by missing time or through projections based on time missed.

I haven't said any of those things.

Admittedly my "if you ignore his injuries" could be interpreted as that, but that's not what I meant.I meant in the actual games Crosby played in his prime, he dominated on a Lafleur and Jagr level in their prime.There's no projection in that.He played those games.Hope that put to bed any confusion.

I'm not sure what's your problem about a per-game argument anyway.

 

[seventieslord]

Benchbrawl: People scoff at arguments like that all the time, yet no one ever points out how stupid it is to essentially consider a player who scored 80 points in 60 games to be merely equal to one who scored 80 in 80.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I haven't said any of those things.

Admittedly my "if you ignore his injuries" could be interpreted as that, but that's not what I meant.I meant in the actual games Crosby played in his prime, he dominated on a Lafleur and Jagr level in their prime.There's no projection in that.He played those games.Hope that put to bed any confusion.

I'm not sure what's your problem about a per-game argument anyway.

When has Crosby matched the full seasons of Jagr or Lafleur? The only time Crosby seemed to be consistently in a class with Jagr's and Guy's peak seasons was when he missed over half of the games.
This was Crosby's 11th season and what's the argument? That Crosby should get credit for more due to time missed from injuries?

Just one simple question...in the actual 7 FULL seasons that Crosby has played, how many Art Ross does he have to show for it?
The answer is 2!
That's it!

So the argument is that he should be penciled in for what? 2, 3 or even 4 more in his partial seasons yet he only has 2 in his 7 FULL seasons?
Not a chance folks, no way.
Lindros doesn't get credit for his missed games nor does Forsberg and nor should Crosby.

Benchbrawl: People scoff at arguments like that all the time, yet no one ever points out how stupid it is to essentially consider a player who scored 80 points in 60 games to be merely equal to one who scored 80 in 80.

That's not the argument at all though. Of course 80 points in 60 games is better than 80 in 80.
However, specifically in regards to Jagr and Lafleur, we're being asked to treat 80 in 60 on the same level as 110 or 120 in 80 and they most certainly are NOT!

Player A with 1060 points in 800 games >>> Player B with 800 points in 600 games.
You can argue that "on a per game basis" player B was just as good as player A till you're blue in the face but the reality is that player A did it for 200 games/33% more/longer and is the better player, period.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I haven't said any of those things.

Admittedly my "if you ignore his injuries" could be interpreted as that, but that's not what I meant.I meant in the actual games Crosby played in his prime, he dominated on a Lafleur and Jagr level in their prime.There's no projection in that.He played those games.Hope that put to bed any confusion.

I'm not sure what's your problem about a per-game argument anyway.

I understand dominance over one's peers is one way to compare players, but one should at least take into consideration the competition. Crosby's post-lockout competition at the top end of the scoring race has been very deep, but the very top end has basically been:

* 34 y/o Jagr in 2006, who then threw out his shoulder in playoffs
* Thornton in 2006 & 2007, then started declining (his 4th place finish, 3 points behind Crosby this year, is a sign of the lacking top end competition IMO)
* Ovechkin from 2008-2010... then dropped off as a point producer
* Malkin 2008, 2009, and 2012... injured the other years
* Henrik Sedin in 2010
* Kane this year

Those are the 11 player-seasons that really stand out, apart from Crosby's own great seasons (2007, 2009, 2010, and 2014). So 15 great offensive seasons have been produced in 11 seasons, 11 from other players. Of those other 11 great player-seasons, Crosby outscored only 2007 Thornton. Two were during his rookie season, two were during 2008 when Crosby had a second half injury. What happened the other years (6 player-seasons)? During Crosby's aforementioned 4 great seasons, he encountered 5 of those other great player-seasons and only outscored Thornton in 2007. That dominance doesn't compare to that of Jagr, Esposito, Lafleur, etc.

Leaders in points over period of (top 2 in parentheses):

3 Seasons
Gretzky 12(13)
Howe 8(11)
Jagr 7(9)
Esposito 7(8)
Mikita 5(7)
Lafleur 4
Ovechkin 3(4)
Thornton, Oates 3(3)
Bathgate 2(6)
Beliveau 2(3)
Crosby 2(2)
Lindsay 1(5)
Dionne 1(4)
Hull 1(3)
Orr 0(5)
Selanne, Bossy 0(3)
Malkin, Lemieux, Sakic, Trottier 0(2)

5 Seasons
Gretzky 13(14)
Howe 9(13)
Jagr 8(10)
Esposito 7(8)
Mikita 5(7)
Ovechkin 4(6)
Thornton 3(5)
Beliveau, Lafleur, Bathgate 3(4)
Dionne 2(5)
Giroux 2(2)
Oates 1(3)
St. Louis 1(1)
Lemieux 0(6)
Hull 0(5)
Orr 0(4)
Sakic, Selanne, Lindsay 0(3)
Crosby, H. Sedin, Kurri 0(2)

7 Seasons
Gretzky 14(14)
Jagr 9(10)
Howe 8(12)
Esposito 8(9)
Ovechkin 5(6)
Thornton, Mikita 4(5)
Lafleur 3(5)
Dionne, Bathgate 2(4)
Hull 1(6)
Beliveau 1(3)
Lemieux 0(5)
Orr, Selanne 0(4)
Bossy, Sakic, Oates 0(3)
Crosby, St. Louis 0(2)

If Crosby's production is so dominant, even with some missed games from injuries, he should be one of the more dominant players on those lists, and he's not.

I think the best comparisons for him at center would be to Mikita, Esposito, and Sakic.

Peak scoring: Esposito, Mikita > Crosby, Sakic
Prime scoring: Espo, Mikita > Crosby, Sakic
Playoffs: Sakic > Espo, Crosby, Mikita

Crosby's on the wrong end of the "greater than" sign in each case, although only substantially to Sakic in playoffs.

 

[MXD]

Benchbrawl: People scoff at arguments like that all the time, yet no one ever points out how stupid it is to essentially consider a player who scored 80 points in 60 games to be merely equal to one who scored 80 in 80.

It depends on the scoring environment.

 

[MXD]

On a per-game basis, Crosby is about at the level of Jaromir Jagr and Guy Lafleur in prime offensive domination over his peers.I'm too lazy to check year by year, but intuitively I doubt Sakic is just a case of a Crosby buried under outliers.But maybe he is.

I'm open to change my mind but from what I remember when I actually digged into it, the more you digged, the more Crosby looked good on a per-game basis.He's have been incredibly dominant offensively if you ignore his injuries.

Lafleur and Jagr are also superior to Crosby's competition...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Benchbrawl: People scoff at arguments like that all the time, yet no one ever points out how stupid it is to essentially consider a player who scored 80 points in 60 games to be merely equal to one who scored 80 in 80.

Almost perfectly on the nose...

1999-2000

1st: Steve Yzerman - 78 GP, 35-44-79, +28
2nd: Mike Modano - 77 GP, 38-43-81, +0
3rd: Joe Sakic - 60 GP, 28-53-81, +30

I think prior to his Hart Trophy season, Sakic had to fight more for All-Star selections than he maybe should have had to. The season prior was another where he had the highest points-per-game at his position among a tight group of raw points leaders and didn't walk away with anything:

1998-99
1st: Peter Forsberg - 78 GP, 30-67-97, +27
2nd: Alexei Yashin - 82 GP, 44-50-94, +16
3rd: Eric Lindros - 71 GP, 40-53-93, +35
4th: Joe Sakic - 73 GP, 41-55-96, +23

 

[Czech Your Math]

On a per-game basis, Crosby is about at the level of Jaromir Jagr and Guy Lafleur in prime offensive domination over his peers.I'm too lazy to check year by year, but intuitively I doubt Sakic is just a case of a Crosby buried under outliers.But maybe he is.

I'm open to change my mind but from what I remember when I actually digged into it, the more you digged, the more Crosby looked good on a per-game basis.He's have been incredibly dominant offensively if you ignore his injuries.

Removing Jagr from 3 year periods, Sakic & Crosby each led 2 such periods:

Sakic
'99-'01: +12% vs. Selanne in points, +13% vs. Bure in PPG
'00-'02: +9% vs. Bure in points, +8% vs. Forsberg in PPG

Crosby
'13-'15: +13% vs. Ovechkin in points, +15% vs. Malkin in PPG
'14-'16: +7% vs. Benn in points, +2% vs. Kane in PPG

Another problem with the per-game argument, aside from the actual lack of total production, is his playoff performance. Among players with at least 90 playoff points:

'07-16 Crosby 124-49-88-137 (1.10), +11
'07-16 Malkin 124-48-81-129 (1.04), +8
'06-12 Briere 102-48-58-106 (1.04), -5
'07-16 Getzlaf 88-26-66-92 (1.05), +12
'06-14 Zetterberg 109-52-57-109 (1.00), +46
'09-16 Kane 123-49-72-121 (0.98), +7

'92-08 Jagr 145-74-94-168 (1.16), +36
'95-08 Forsberg 151-64-107-171 (1.13), +54
'96-04 Sakic 141-71-87-158 (1.12), +13
'91-02 Fedorov 158-49-111-160 (1.01), +39
'88-02 Hull 180-98-83-181 (1.01), +13

 

[daver]

Almost perfectly on the nose...

1999-2000

1st: Steve Yzerman - 78 GP, 35-44-79, +28
2nd: Mike Modano - 77 GP, 38-43-81, +0
3rd: Joe Sakic - 60 GP, 28-53-81, +30

I think prior to his Hart Trophy season, Sakic had to fight more for All-Star selections than he maybe should have had to. The season prior was another where he had the highest points-per-game at his position among a tight group of raw points leaders and didn't walk away with anything:

1998-99
1st: Peter Forsberg - 78 GP, 30-67-97, +27
2nd: Alexei Yashin - 82 GP, 44-50-94, +16
3rd: Eric Lindros - 71 GP, 40-53-93, +35
4th: Joe Sakic - 73 GP, 41-55-96, +23

Which is why something like a look at career PPG vs. their peers,or over a specific amount of seasons, is one way to evaluate and compare players. But then anything to do with PPG is immediately shouted down.

Crosby has more Top Ten Art Ross finishes and higher Art Ross finishes than Sakic does for his career. This includes removing Wayne and Mario from consideration and pacing out partial seasons like the ones listed above for Sakic.

 

[daver]

Benchbrawl: People scoff at arguments like that all the time, yet no one ever points out how stupid it is to essentially consider a player who scored 80 points in 60 games to be merely equal to one who scored 80 in 80.

Or how injuries to Crosby's peers like Malkin are a relevant consideration when evaluating his Art Ross finishes but Crosby's injuries are ignored.

 

[ImporterExporter]

CYM,

Aside from +/- being largely irrelevant to anyone that knows hockey, what does the playoff numbers prove? That per game, Crosby is the best of his era and better than most from the dead puck era as well?

"Lack of total production"? Well of course he's short of the overall raw numbers compared to Jagr or Sakic who played entire careers that spanned 2 decades plus. Jagr for instance hasn't done anything significant in the postseason since 1992 (maybe you can argue 96, but the team lost in the Conference finals to Florida)

He's 28. The fact he already has 137 points by now is quite impressive to say the least, especially considering the per game rate compared to his peers. And there is little reason to believe he can't add significantly to the overall depth of those raw totals given how good he was offensively once Sullivan took over.

And this whole "competition is inferior" stinks to high heaven of revisionist thinking. Teams are deeper, goalies bigger, better and more equipped then ever before. Hockey has evolved to where the league isn't so top heavy. There are reasons why you don't see the 80's Oilers/Islanders or 70's Habs, so on and so forth.....It's called the salary cap.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lafleur and Jagr are also superior to Crosby's competition...

I don't see your point.Might be a slow morning.

 

[MXD]

CYM,

Aside from +/- being largely irrelevant to anyone that knows hockey, what does the playoff numbers prove? That per game, Crosby is the best of his era and better than most from the dead puck era as well?

They also prove that one group is definitely better than the other. And it isn't Crosby's.

 

[MXD]

And this whole "competition is inferior" stinks to high heaven of revisionist thinking. Teams are deeper, goalies bigger, better and more equipped then ever before. Hockey has evolved to where the league isn't so top heavy. There are reasons why you don't see the 80's Oilers/Islanders or 70's Habs, so on and so forth.....It's called the salary cap.

Competition is inferior amongst forwards, and that conclusion doesn't stink.

It is however stronger amongst D-Men. At least starting compared to the early '00.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Competition is inferior amongst forwards, and that conclusion doesn't stink.

It is however stronger amongst D-Men. At least starting compared to the early '00.

And again, the league is FAR deeper than it used to be, because there is a salary cap and the evolution of the game makes it harder to dominate for long periods. At least on a singular, individual basis. And while post lockout, there were a few years where overall scoring was up, the league has been near dead puck era scoring levels for a while now.

And comparing F's is not as good as comparing who players are going up against from the Dman ranks and in net. How many times were Jagr and Sakic going head to head, line for line? It didn't or rarely happened. And the past 10 years has seen 2 of the most dominant defensive, 2 way forwards of all time, in Bergeron and Datsyuk. Plus you have the Kopitar's and Toews of the world. I think, top to bottom defending has become so much better than it did 20+ years ago. You don't get to expose 2nd and 3rd pairings as much as you used to. And while top end goalies were absolutely better in the 90's the league again, is deeper there, top to bottom.

 

[daver]

Nothing new to see here:

Raw point totals and Art Ross finishes with no context? Check

Statistical gymanistics and double standards about missed time due to injury? Check

Play the "inferior competition" card when the first two get called out? Check

Crosby is absolutely in the class of the 2nd tier players. Where he ends up in that group will likely be determined in the next 3-5 seasons.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

I'm not sure inferior competition can be used against Crosby and for Jagr.

 

[Czech Your Math]

And again, the league is FAR deeper than it used to be, because there is a salary cap and the evolution of the game makes it harder to dominate for long periods. At least on a singular, individual basis. And while post lockout, there were a few years where overall scoring was up, the league has been near dead puck era scoring levels for a while now.

I think it's mostly been difficult to dominate for long periods since the late 70s. Even going as far back as 1991, there were as many playoff seasons > 5.4 GPG post-lockout as there were pre-lockout (in 11 seasons post vs. 15 pre). 1994 was 5.72 and 1996 was 5.88, then it wasn't above 5.35 again until after the lockout. Meanwhile, 8 of the first 10 lockout seasons were above 5.45 (including 5.98 in 2010), so it was actually tougher during the time that Jagr, Sakic, and Forsberg put up the vast majority of their prime playoff points.

And comparing F's is not as good as comparing who players are going up against from the Dman ranks and in net. How many times were Jagr and Sakic going head to head, line for line? It didn't or rarely happened. And the past 10 years has seen 2 of the most dominant defensive, 2 way forwards of all time, in Bergeron and Datsyuk. Plus you have the Kopitar's and Toews of the world. I think, top to bottom defending has become so much better than it did 20+ years ago. You don't get to expose 2nd and 3rd pairings as much as you used to. And while top end goalies were absolutely better in the 90's the league again, is deeper there, top to bottom.

But again and again we saw pre-lockout stars perform well post-lockout at the end of their primes. Now we are seeing Thornton at 36 three points behind Crosby. I think if Crosby played in the mid-late 90s, he would have been one of those players you talk about after Lemieux and Jagr: Lindros, Sakic, Forsberg, Selanne, Kariya, Bure, Fedorov, etc. I mean, I don't think he stands out among that group over a several year period. More likely it's a continuation of that era: Each of these players had flashes of brilliance that lasted a few years, although they all had impressive peaks, in some cases primes (Sakic, Forsberg, etc.) and most had impressive playoffs (Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov, Lindros, Bure). In comparison to the DPE centers:

Peak- It seems to hinge on just how long is peak (the longer the better for Crosby, but Sakic would at least still be strong competition for first) and how much one values total vs. per-game production (Lindros and Forsberg are stronger competition on per-game basis, while Sakic again is stronger competition on total basis). An argument for first, probably no worse than third, but I'm not sure I take Crosby's best season over any of these players' best.

Prime- Same factors, but at this point the depth of Crosby's seasons give him an argument for first and no worse than second behind Sakic.

Playoffs- I think he would be in a battle with Fedorov for third, behind Sakic & Forsberg. Crosby's career PO PPG is 1.10 and Fedorov maintained > PPG in POs for significantly longer than Crosby has played. Would Fedorov's defense and big series capabilities be worth at least .10 PPG over Crosby?

For a player that is supposed to stand out when it matters most and be so dominating on a per-game level, he has 7 healthy seasons of 77+ games and yet when I think of best seasons and prime time playoff performance, it's not Crosby that occurs to me first or even second compared to those DPE centers.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just to be absolutely clear since I was the one who brought in Jagr and Lafleur in the conversation; I'm not saying Crosby should be ranked at Lafleur's or Jagr's level if we were to make a complete all-time list.

But his domination, when on the ice, was very similar to both of these players, which are widely known as the ''next tier'' in prime offense after the Big 4.So what I'm saying is Sidney Crosby is among the very best non-Big 4 player of all-time for per-game offensive production (in his prime).

Lafleur and Jagr are still ahead of Crosby because they managed to stay healthy in their best seasons and thus collect more awards (and while I'm not big on trophy counting, I still put some weight into it).Lafleur is also a better playoff performer and Jagr has more longevity as of now.But in prime per-game production, they're all the same.Crosby is a more complete player than both, so it wouldn't surprised me in the slightest if he passes both of them within 5 years.

 

[MXD]

And again, the league is FAR deeper than it used to be, because there is a salary cap and the evolution of the game makes it harder to dominate for long periods. At least on a singular, individual basis. And while post lockout, there were a few years where overall scoring was up, the league has been near dead puck era scoring levels for a while now.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[MXD]

Just to be absolutely clear since I was the one who brought in Jagr and Lafleur in the conversation; I'm not saying Crosby should be ranked at Lafleur's or Jagr's level if we were to make a complete all-time list.

But his domination, when on the ice, was very similar to both of these players, which are widely known as the ''next tier'' in prime offense after the Big 4.So what I'm saying is Sidney Crosby is among the very best non-Big 4 player of all-time for per-game offensive production (in his prime).

Lafleur and Jagr are still ahead of Crosby because they managed to stay healthy in their best seasons and thus collect more awards (and while I'm not big on trophy counting, I still put some weight into it).Lafleur is also a better playoff performer and Jagr has more longevity as of now.But in prime per-game production, they're all the same.Crosby is a more complete player than both, so it wouldn't surprised me in the slightest if he passes both of them within 5 years.

Actually, Crosby should be SLIGHTLY ahead of Lafleur at this point.

And this is where the argument about the "stronger" league makes sense. Not when comparing '90ies/early '00 to Post-'05 (that amounts to saying whatever pseudo-contextual drivel-based argument who exists mainly for pimping a very particular player).

This said, if I need to pick one of Crosby or Lafleur for the playoffs... Lafleur. 1000 times out of 1000.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Just to be absolutely clear since I was the one who brought in Jagr and Lafleur in the conversation; I'm not saying Crosby should be ranked at Lafleur's or Jagr's level if we were to make a complete all-time list.

But his domination, when on the ice, was very similar to both of these players, which are widely known as the ''next tier'' in prime offense after the Big 4.So what I'm saying is Sidney Crosby is among the very best non-Big 4 player of all-time for per-game offensive production (in his prime).

Lafleur and Jagr are still ahead of Crosby because they managed to stay healthy in their best seasons and thus collect more awards (and while I'm not big on trophy counting, I still put some weight into it).Lafleur is also a better playoff performer and Jagr has more longevity as of now.But in prime per-game production, they're all the same.Crosby is a more complete player than both, so it wouldn't surprised me in the slightest if he passes both of them within 5 years.

Crosby hasn't done anything since 2014 to help him pass Jagr or Lafleur. Crosby's in the range of someone like Lafleur in offensive production (peak, short prime, per-game), but not Jagr and players like Sakic, Forsberg, and Lindros are in Crosby's range by most/all of those same measures. Of those 5, based on peak, per-game and playoffs, I'm not liking Crosby's chances of finishing better than third or fourth... ever. Jagr has substantial edges over Crosby in peak, prime, domination of peers over multiple seasons, much better half seasons and an edge in playoffs as well. Lafleur's main weakness against Crosby is that anything more than a short prime is a period that helps Crosby.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

CYM,

Aside from +/- being largely irrelevant to anyone that knows hockey, what does the playoff numbers prove? That per game, Crosby is the best of his era and better than most from the dead puck era as well?

"Lack of total production"? Well of course he's short of the overall raw numbers compared to Jagr or Sakic who played entire careers that spanned 2 decades plus. Jagr for instance hasn't done anything significant in the postseason since 1992 (maybe you can argue 96, but the team lost in the Conference finals to Florida)

He's 28. The fact he already has 137 points by now is quite impressive to say the least, especially considering the per game rate compared to his peers. And there is little reason to believe he can't add significantly to the overall depth of those raw totals given how good he was offensively once Sullivan took over.

And this whole "competition is inferior" stinks to high heaven of revisionist thinking. Teams are deeper, goalies bigger, better and more equipped then ever before. Hockey has evolved to where the league isn't so top heavy. There are reasons why you don't see the 80's Oilers/Islanders or 70's Habs, so on and so forth.....It's called the salary cap.

The problem here is that, as is often the case, conference disparity and strength of playoff opponents is being ignored. Crosby's PpG advantage over the other stars that he is usually being compared to (Toews, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Thornton) is bolstered significantly by a few thrashings of lousy Eastern Conference playoff opponents. At some point people need to accept that the post-2006 Western Conference was a much tougher scoring environment than the Eastern Conference and stop comparing point totals without this context being taken into consideration.

 

[Czech Your Math]

CYM,

Aside from +/- being largely irrelevant to anyone that knows hockey, what does the playoff numbers prove? That per game, Crosby is the best of his era and better than most from the dead puck era as well?

"Lack of total production"? Well of course he's short of the overall raw numbers compared to Jagr or Sakic who played entire careers that spanned 2 decades plus. Jagr for instance hasn't done anything significant in the postseason since 1992 (maybe you can argue 96, but the team lost in the Conference finals to Florida)

So when you put up < PPG at age 28 (actually has 77 points and is -8 in 82 PO games starting with 2009 SCF), that matters, but when you have 129 points and are +32 in 106 PO games from 1995 to 2008, it isn't significant?

Lack of total production is meant in terms of over similar number of seasons during peak and prime, where Crosby doesn't appear to be able to make up much more ground.

He's 28. The fact he already has 137 points by now is quite impressive to say the least, especially considering the per game rate compared to his peers. And there is little reason to believe he can't add significantly to the overall depth of those raw totals given how good he was offensively once Sullivan took over.

And this whole "competition is inferior" stinks to high heaven of revisionist thinking. Teams are deeper, goalies bigger, better and more equipped then ever before. Hockey has evolved to where the league isn't so top heavy. There are reasons why you don't see the 80's Oilers/Islanders or 70's Habs, so on and so forth.....It's called the salary cap.

So his playoff prime edges out Getzlaf and Briere? He's a very good playoff player, but he mainly has a short playoff peak that was built mostly against mediocre/weak defensive teams (by playoff standards), questionable performances in many tough series, etc. He is given credit for anything and everything (including not melting down and possibly being a liability and for "looking good" in some games in the playoffs), but it's always next year with him and the goal posts are constantly being moved depending on which narrative can be spun about his "pace" for "domination" and "heroics." After 11 years, one doesn't expect potential ATGs to primarily be clinging to "what ifs," "coulda/woulda," and "wait until next year!" and occasional victory over a depleted peer class that has been mostly MIA after 2010. We're not discussing whether it's more difficult to sustain a dynasty now, we're talking about evaluating individual performance by various methods over various intervals and how Crosby's matches up to some other great centers and forwards. Here's a couple of playoff metrics I've developed:

Playoff vs. Regular Season PPG
* adjusted for playoff season scoring level (actual vs. expected based on regular season)
* adjusted for RS defensive strength of opponent vs. other playoff teams
* each adjustment, as well as the metric itself are weighted by playoff GP each season

Crosby 81%
Malkin 85%
Ovechkin 87%
Thornton 80%
Lindros 79%
Selanne 80%
Kariya 85%
Dionne 69%

Playoffs vs. RS % of Offense (points as % of team's goals)

Crosby 85%
Malkin 86%
Ovechkin 104%
Thornton 91%
Lindros 77%
Selanne 80%
Kariya 93%
Dionne 82%

I included his peers (best offensive peaks post-lockout) and some post-expansion forwards that have gotten some criticism for playoff performance. As one can see, Crosby is (at best) in the middle of this pack that he should be dominating.