HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[bobholly39]

I now see Sidney Crosby as competing in the 6-10 range.

Joe Thornton should rise, but I don't know how much and in front of who.Do we rank him above Gilmour? Cowley?

Same thing with Malkin.His last few seasons weren't good on a VsX 7 year level because of his injuries, but he's still among the top per-game producers.This playoff run wasn't spectacular but it was good enough.

I think Joe Thornton's regular season was very impressive (top 4 in points at age 36). Not as high on his actual playoff, and actually disappointed by SJ's performance in the final, so not sure that helps him a lot crack the "playoff choker" label.

Malkin confuses the hell out of me. He seems like a better player than Sakic/Yzerman at first glance but then i think there's also no way he tops them, let alone other guys.

For Crosby - i think he's "pacing" very high on this list. Not really sure where to rank him right now with only half his career played, and im probably more interested in terms of where he's "pacing" towards. I think Crosby finishing #3 is still somewhat plausible, though it will take a helluva back half to his career to reach Beliveau. I think top 10 is almost a 100% certainty short of some catastrophic end to his career/drop off - and top 5 should also be very reachable with only a strong (yet not extraordinary) 2nd half to his career. Anything above that he'll have to seriously work for.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think Joe Thornton's regular season was very impressive (top 4 in points at age 36). Not as high on his actual playoff, and actually disappointed by SJ's performance in the final, so not sure that helps him a lot crack the "playoff choker" label.

Let's say the ''playoff choker'' label lost some weight on Thornton's shoulders.

Malkin confuses the hell out of me. He seems like a better player than Sakic/Yzerman at first glance but then i think there's also no way he tops them, let alone other guys.

Malkin is probably a better player than Sakic and Yzerman in a vaccuum.His resume suffered too much from inconsistencies and injuries.But his playoff resume is very good.

Question for the crowd: Can we still rank Gilmour ahead of Malkin?

For Crosby - i think he's "pacing" very high on this list. Not really sure where to rank him right now with only half his career played, and im probably more interested in terms of where he's "pacing" towards. I think Crosby finishing #3 is still somewhat plausible, though it will take a helluva back half to his career to reach Beliveau. I think top 10 is almost a 100% certainty short of some catastrophic end to his career/drop off - and top 5 should also be very reachable with only a strong (yet not extraordinary) 2nd half to his career. Anything above that he'll have to seriously work for.

If Crosby is to reach Béliveau he needs to do so by getting more meat on his offensive peak.The next three years should prove crucial in that regard, and another cup would be awesome.

If he wins two Art Ross say, and another cup, he is very close to Béliveau territory if not better by then.

 

[bobholly39]

Let's say the ''playoff choker'' label lost some weight on Thornton's shoulders.



Malkin is probably a better player than Sakic and Yzerman in a vaccuum.His resume suffered too much from inconsistencies and injuries.But his playoff resume is very good.

Question for the crowd: Can we still rank Gilmour ahead of Malkin?



If Crosby is to reach Béliveau he needs to do so by getting more meat on his offensive peak.The next three years should prove crucial in that regard, and another cup would be awesome.

If he wins two Art Ross say, and another cup, he is very close to Béliveau territory if not better by then.

Agree 100%. He's still only 28 and i think is the favorite for the Art Ross next year - so it's not like his window at regular season offensive dominance is closed. It is likely not going to last much longer though.

You could technically say the same about Malkin too. Whose to say he can't go on to win another 2-3 Art Ross'es himself, if things go his way? I don't think anyone here will deny he's talented enough to do so. Hence why ranking him is so difficult - i think if he plays at the top of his potential the next few years he can go up in rank by a lot, but if he suffers more injuries/consistency issues, he won't move as much as he could, or even should.

 

[daver]

For Crosby - i think he's "pacing" very high on this list. Not really sure where to rank him right now with only half his career played, and im probably more interested in terms of where he's "pacing" towards. I think Crosby finishing #3 is still somewhat plausible, though it will take a helluva back half to his career to reach Beliveau. I think top 10 is almost a 100% certainty short of some catastrophic end to his career/drop off - and top 5 should also be very reachable with only a strong (yet not extraordinary) 2nd half to his career. Anything above that he'll have to seriously work for.

Interested to have a definitive discussion on Crosby vs. his peers through age 28. Are Wayne and Mario the only two that would be inarguably ahead at age 28?

If that is appropriate for the HOH, perhaps a separate thread could be started.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Interested to have a definitive discussion on Crosby vs. his peers through age 28. Are Wayne and Mario the only two that would be inarguably ahead at age 28?

If that is appropriate for the HOH, perhaps a separate thread could be started.

Possibly Béliveau, mainly because of playoffs, leadership and all-around play.

 

[bobholly39]

"Inarguably" is a very strong term and yes - likely only Gretzky and Lemieux.


"Arguably" can be more though - would have to take a closer look. Arguably Crosby could be #3 but he could probably be quite a bit lower too.

 

[feffan]

Interested to have a definitive discussion on Crosby vs. his peers through age 28. Are Wayne and Mario the only two that would be inarguably ahead at age 28?

If that is appropriate for the HOH, perhaps a separate thread could be started.

I would say at least Mikita and Béliveau are quite the bit ahead of him at age 28. None other inarguably ahead at age 28 at first tought. But then I´m not that knowledagable at pre 50-hockey as many others in here. And as others said, "inarguably" may be to strong off a word. But to me those 2 are clearly ahead at 28.

Crosby to me is around Trottier and Clarke terroitory at 28. Probably a cluster off 10 centers in there, with Crosby with one of the strongest arguments. Even with Espositos slow career start he for example may belong there at 28 as well with the 4 seasons he at that point to start his time as an Bruin. The argument for Phil grows in strenght for every passing year from now on.

 

[BayStreetBully]

For Crosby - i think he's "pacing" very high on this list. Not really sure where to rank him right now with only half his career played, and im probably more interested in terms of where he's "pacing" towards. I think Crosby finishing #3 is still somewhat plausible, though it will take a helluva back half to his career to reach Beliveau. I think top 10 is almost a 100% certainty short of some catastrophic end to his career/drop off - and top 5 should also be very reachable with only a strong (yet not extraordinary) 2nd half to his career. Anything above that he'll have to seriously work for.

That's how I see it. I couldn't say where he is right now, and I don't really want to put him ahead of anyone else if it's a close call because it's unfair to those who had a full career, but I think he's pacing toward a top 5 finish. If he keeps on trucking, I don't see how he will end up below Messier or Clarke or Sakic.

 

[daver]

Possibly Béliveau, mainly because of playoffs, leadership and all-around play.

Belliveau is very interesting as I think Crosby statistically looks better than Belliveau after their age 28 season. Playoffs always need some context, and all-around play and leadership are pretty subjective.

A cursory look at their regular season resumes shows Crosby with a clearly superior resume. Belliveau led his team and the league in playoff scoring once, Crosby has lead his team in playoff scoring four times and the league once. IMO, arguments that is was harder for Belliveau to lead his team in scoring given who was on their team would tend to lower the impact of Belliveau's superior playoff success. It also tends to favour Crosby as it emphazises his ability to produce with inferior linemates.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Belliveau is very interesting as I think Crosby statistically looks better than Belliveau after their age 28 season. Playoffs always need some context, and all-around play and leadership are pretty subjective.

A cursory look at their regular season resumes shows Crosby with a clearly superior resume. Belliveau led his team and the league in playoff scoring once, Crosby has lead his team in playoff scoring four times and the league once. IMO, arguments that is was harder for Belliveau to lead his team in scoring given who was on their team would tend to lower the impact of Belliveau's superior playoff success. It also tends to favour Crosby as it emphazises his ability to produce with inferior linemates.

I agree Crosby might look slightly better, but Béliveau had a very above-average second half career.So it's far from done for Crosby.Another dynasty was at the horizon for Béliveau along with a lot of individual success and elite level seasons.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I now see Sidney Crosby as competing in the 6-10 range.

I've got him in the top 10 area now too.

I think he beats out Trottier now because Trottier doesn't have a lot of longevity (although a superior peak imo) but it is really tough to say how Crosby stacks up to the full careers of guys like Sakic or Messier.

He is on track to pass them over a full career.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Game Maturation

I think Joe Thornton's regular season was very impressive (top 4 in points at age 36). Not as high on his actual playoff, and actually disappointed by SJ's performance in the final, so not sure that helps him a lot crack the "playoff choker" label.

Malkin confuses the hell out of me. He seems like a better player than Sakic/Yzerman at first glance but then i think there's also no way he tops them, let alone other guys.

For Crosby - i think he's "pacing" very high on this list. Not really sure where to rank him right now with only half his career played, and im probably more interested in terms of where he's "pacing" towards. I think Crosby finishing #3 is still somewhat plausible, though it will take a helluva back half to his career to reach Beliveau. I think top 10 is almost a 100% certainty short of some catastrophic end to his career/drop off - and top 5 should also be very reachable with only a strong (yet not extraordinary) 2nd half to his career. Anything above that he'll have to seriously work for.

Issue with Malkin and Thornton is showing when and how their game matured as their career progressed. Malkin is still the same player that he was when he entered the league.

Thornton finally is show some maturation. More complete game, better decision making, does not play himself out of position.

Crosby showed a very mature game in the playoffs, this season. Set the limit for all the Pittsburgh lines offensively and defensively. Getting into the Trottier,Sakic, Yzerman range.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Issue with Malkin and Thornton is showing when and how their game matured as their career progressed. Malkin is still the same player that he was when he entered the league.

Thornton finally is show some maturation. More complete game, better decision making, does not play himself out of position.

Crosby showed a very mature game in the playoffs, this season. Set the limit for all the Pittsburgh lines offensively and defensively. Getting into the Trottier,Sakic, Yzerman range.

Fair point, but in his defense he was a damn good player from the get go.Also, while I totally see what you mean by maturation even if I couldn't precisely describe it in words, Malkin had great success in the playoffs, so ''maturation'' was perhaps not that useful in his case until his body slows down.

 

[daver]

I agree Crosby might look slightly better, but Béliveau had a very above-average second half career.So it's far from done for Crosby.Another dynasty was at the horizon for Béliveau along with a lot of individual success and elite level seasons.

No argument on this point, but I am finding the declarations that Belliveau was clearly ahead at age 28 very arguable, and frankly not a great one to be made for Belliveau.

I think Crosby has a heck of case to be #3 at age 28.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

The more I think about it, the more Crosby's career is starting to resemble Mikita's: solid all-around play, consistently high scoring finishes over a long period of time, always effective, not necessarily always the flashiest.

I think Mikita's spot (fifth for me) is where Crosby seems most likely to end up, as well.

 

[BenchBrawl]

No argument on this point, but I am finding the declarations that Belliveau was clearly ahead at age 28 very arguable, and frankly not a great one to be made for Belliveau.

I think Crosby has a heck of case to be #3 at age 28.

Now that I think about it, I think Mikita had a better career by 28.

 

[BraveCanadian]

God I hate these up to whatever age Crosby is now tangents.

 

[daver]

The more I think about it, the more Crosby's career is starting to resemble Mikita's: solid all-around play, consistently high scoring finishes over a long period of time, always effective, not necessarily always the flashiest.

I think Mikita's spot (fifth for me) is where Crosby seems most likely to end up, as well.

His legacy vs. his all-time peers is starting to resemble his career vs. his peers in his era. His on-ice performance matches up well against anyone not named Wayne or Mario. That he wasn't able to put up more Art Ross wins, one or two of which likely would have been in a dominating fashion if not for injuries holds him back a bit. Two Cups is great, others have more. His all-around play is solid, if not very good, but others are recognized as better. The same can be said about his leadership.

It is a bit of a question mark whether he has another Art Ross in him or not but another Cup win like this one could be even more meaningful.

 

[BayStreetBully]

God I hate these up to whatever age Crosby is now tangents.

It's a fact of sports fandom. Baseball fans are currently comparing Mike Trout to Mickey Mantle up to age 24.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i think if we are comparing crosby to date to mikita, i think we shouldn't go by age but by years in the league.

so up to year eleven, mikita played 768 games, crosby played 707. mikita had missed 20 games over those years (shorter seasons), crosby has missed 195. so that's a big difference.

at the same time, crosby has been the better offensive player, by at least a hair, relative to his peers. crosby is second in points, 28 behind ovechkin who has played 132 more games; and is miles ahead of his nearest competitors, ovechkin and malkin, in PPG. meanwhile, mikita is second in PPG, behind his teammate hull, and tied for second in points with howe, behind hull again.

playoff records: mikita made it to three finals, winning one cup, while leading the playoffs in scoring once in a losing cause. crosby has three finals, two cups, led the playoffs once in a losing cause but his second and third best playoffs are far better than mikita's, winning the smythe this year (albeit a weaker one) and he could have won it the other time too.

in the regular season: from years 3 to 11, mikita had an amazing run of nine straight top four scoring finishes, all but one of them top three, peaking with four art rosses in five seasons. crosby has nine top fours in PPG, with his own peak of four 1st places in five seasons, and if you count the '12 season where he didn't qualify, he that would actually top mikita, giving him five straight 1st places in addition to his earlier 1st place, and a ten year run of top fours, and a career-long eleven year run of top sixes.

but that said, mikita has twice as many art rosses, and in terms of actual, non-prorated production crosby's 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 is solidly behind mikita's 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4.

hart records are almost identical, with crosby slightly ahead with his 1, 1, 2, 3, 5 to mikita's 1, 1, 2, 5. both have a generational player on their own team to split voting, though crosby has had the "advantage" of malkin being injury prone and also quite a bit more inconsistent than hull, freeing crosby to be "the man" a bit more often.

so yeah, crosby and mikita are very close up to his point, with crosby making up mikita's edge in durability and actual production with slightly higher dominance relative to peers and a better playoff record. after year eleven, mikita never finished top ten in points again, though he did crack the top ten in PPG once. but he still had a very very good back half of his career, and i think it's that back half, where he was still over a PPG over nine post-peak years that vaults him over guys who had similar peaks (your espo, clarke, trots, mess, yzerman, sakic cluster). can crosby do that? can crosby top that? neither would surprise me-- i mean, surely crosby can put up a couple more top five finishes after the age of 28, right? but still, nine more mostly healthy seasons of PPG production is a tall order.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Maturation

Fair point, but in his defense he was a damn good player from the get go.Also, while I totally see what you mean by maturation even if I couldn't precisely describe it in words, Malkin had great success in the playoffs, so ''maturation'' was perhaps not that useful in his case until his body slows down.

Every player entering the NHL has a level of skill that qualifies them to play in the league. Maturation comes with polishing the skills and improving their utilisation continuously via acquired knowledge.

Malkin contributed counting success as did Kessel. Crosby and Bonino contributed competitive success. Point is that there are many NHL players who can contribute counting success, few that contribute competitive success - dictating how the game is played. Thornton, Pavelski, Couture all contributed counting success but in the SC finals they were not able to dictate how the games were played.

 

[bobholly39]

i think if we are comparing crosby to date to mikita, i think we shouldn't go by age but by years in the league.

so up to year eleven, mikita played 768 games, crosby played 707. mikita had missed 20 games over those years (shorter seasons), crosby has missed 195. so that's a big difference.

at the same time, crosby has been the better offensive player, by at least a hair, relative to his peers. crosby is second in points, 28 behind ovechkin who has played 132 more games; and is miles ahead of his nearest competitors, ovechkin and malkin, in PPG. meanwhile, mikita is second in PPG, behind his teammate hull, and tied for second in points with howe, behind hull again.

playoff records: mikita made it to three finals, winning one cup, while leading the playoffs in scoring once in a losing cause. crosby has three finals, two cups, led the playoffs once in a losing cause but his second and third best playoffs are far better than mikita's, winning the smythe this year (albeit a weaker one) and he could have won it the other time too.

in the regular season: from years 3 to 11, mikita had an amazing run of nine straight top four scoring finishes, all but one of them top three, peaking with four art rosses in five seasons. crosby has nine top fours in PPG, with his own peak of four 1st places in five seasons, and if you count the '12 season where he didn't qualify, he that would actually top mikita, giving him five straight 1st places in addition to his earlier 1st place, and a ten year run of top fours, and a career-long eleven year run of top sixes.

but that said, mikita has twice as many art rosses, and in terms of actual, non-prorated production crosby's 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 is solidly behind mikita's 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4.

hart records are almost identical, with crosby slightly ahead with his 1, 1, 2, 3, 5 to mikita's 1, 1, 2, 5. both have a generational player on their own team to split voting, though crosby has had the "advantage" of malkin being injury prone and also quite a bit more inconsistent than hull, freeing crosby to be "the man" a bit more often.

so yeah, crosby and mikita are very close up to his point, with crosby making up mikita's edge in durability and actual production with slightly higher dominance relative to peers and a better playoff record. after year eleven, mikita never finished top ten in points again, though he did crack the top ten in PPG once. but he still had a very very good back half of his career, and i think it's that back half, where he was still over a PPG over nine post-peak years that vaults him over guys who had similar peaks (your espo, clarke, trots, mess, yzerman, sakic cluster). can crosby do that? can crosby top that? neither would surprise me-- i mean, surely crosby can put up a couple more top five finishes after the age of 28, right? but still, nine more mostly healthy seasons of PPG production is a tall order.

I actually disagree entirely with the bolded. Different players start in the NHL at different ages due to a variety of factors. But all that matters at the end is total number of years played.

If you assume both players retire at the same age (safe assumption without being able to predict the future of an active player) - than if one player started his career at an earlier age it's a "net advantage" when their careers are over.

Or - if both Mikita and Crosby retire at age 39. But Crosby starts 1 or 2 years early. That's 2 extra seasons Crosby has to bulk up his resume vs Mikita, and is fair game and counts for Crosby.

Thats why i like comparing at a similar age vs years in the league when doing these types of comparison.

The rest of your analysis makes sense though, and it does seem close.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I actually disagree entirely with the bolded. Different players start in the NHL at different ages due to a variety of factors. But all that matters at the end is total number of years played.

If you assume both players retire at the same age (safe assumption without being able to predict the future of an active player) - than if one player started his career at an earlier age it's a "net advantage" when their careers are over.

Or - if both Mikita and Crosby retire at age 39. But Crosby starts 1 or 2 years early. That's 2 extra seasons Crosby has to bulk up his resume vs Mikita, and is fair game and counts for Crosby.

Thats why i like comparing at a similar age vs years in the league when doing these types of comparison.

The rest of your analysis makes sense though, and it does seem close.

unless i am misunderstanding you, i think we are agreeing exactly on methodology. as in, it makes more sense to say "up to the end of year 11" than "up to age 28."

 

[daver]

unless i am misunderstanding you, i think we are agreeing exactly on methodology. as in, it makes more sense to say "up to the end of year 11" than "up to age 28."

Not that there needs to be an official methodology and this is not intended to try to paint Crosby a better light vs. his peers but Crosby could very well have 2 or 3 more years of peak/prime after age 28 while Mikita did not after his Year 11 because he started his career when he was 20.

 

[bobholly39]

unless i am misunderstanding you, i think we are agreeing exactly on methodology. as in, it makes more sense to say "up to the end of year 11" than "up to age 28."

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).