HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[seventieslord]

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.

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.

 

[feffan]

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.

Crosby obviously has years 18-20 on Mikita, but to me Mikitas 4 Art Rosses, 6 First All Star Teams, 1 Second All Star Team (7 years in a row All Star...) and 2 Harts (and an 2nd and 5th place...) from age 21-28 trumphs Sids whole RS career so far. And when taking era in to the equation playoffs are just about equal as I see it. For example 11Tp in 12GP like in 61 doesn´t seem like much, but that´s good for 4th place. And 9TP in 7GP in are good for 2nd in PPG (most played games was 14... Howe had 0.07PPG more...) and 61-62 is one of the most dominat PO-perfomances by an skater ever and in the "Retroactive Conn Smythe"-project he was given the Smythe that year.

Belliveau is not as clear at 28 (his behind Mikita at that moment, even if I put him clearly ahead of Mikita in the end...), but I´d still pick him ahead of Crosby at 28. That 22-28 year Beliveau is to me one of the greatest peaks in hockey. 5 First All Star Teams, 1 Second All Star Team during those six years. And even if he only played 5 games in the leauge before that, it ain´t as he didn´t show that he was one of the greatest in the world even before that. Even his rookie season is underrated. As PPG will be one of Crosbys arguments going against this great players, Beliveaus 0.77PPG as an rookie was actually good for 7th place behind Howe, Geoffrion, McBurney, Richard, Lindsay and Kelly. And that 10TP in the PO:s was good for 3rd place. As Crosby, Believau has an PPG-argument that his peak was greater than the awards tell. Finishing 3 times with the best PPG, and 1 time 2nd behind peak Howe. That Belliveau went head to head with one of the big 4 during his peak and was better some years to me is also an achievement that numbers can´t show. And Beliveau was just great in the PO:s threw age 22-28. For that mather, during his Aces days as well. An more reliable PO-perfomer than Crosby has been, and with the same peaks. And his 56 PO:s is also one of the most dominant perfomances by an skater. Also an "Retroactive Conn Smythe".

In the end I also put emphasis (maybe too much...) that Mikita and Beliveau had there dominant peaks before 28 in 6-7 years straight. That´s in my opinion much harder than to have those awards spread out with a few dips. As Crobys injurie riddled years has shown.

There certainly is an case to be made, but what would you say is the reason to pick Crosby ahead of Mikita and Beliveau at age 28?

 

[BenchBrawl]

To answer markrander87's question in his closed thread as to where Crosby ranks all-time, I did a 5 minutes analysis:

Crosby is about the 10th greatest center.So that's hypothetically 9 players ahead of him.I'm certain to rank at least Roy and Hasek ahead of him, possibly Plante and more.Let's say 3.We're at 12 players ahead of him.Crosby > Ovechkin by now in my opinion.Since Ovechkin is 6th max (see Top Wingers thread), then that's 5 extra players ahead of him max (Howe, Richard, Hull, Jagr, Lafleur).We're now at 17 players ahead of him.

Defensemen are harder to compare to Crosby.At the very strict minimum Orr, Harvey and Bourque are higher.Lidstrom is probably higher too.But again, Crosby reached a level Lidstrom couldn't touch in league domination, and for quite some time.It's hard.Shore is hard to compare too.Even Potvin.I think it's safe to say Crosby > Kelly? Right? So say +6 players so 23 players in total ahead of him.

That would put Crosby at 24th greatest player of all-time.

So anywhere from 20-30 seems like a good bet.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Gretzky (C)
Orr
Howe
Lemieux (C)
Béliveau (C)
Harvey
Richard
Roy
Hull
Hasek
Morenz (C)
Bourque
Shore
Jagr
Lafleur
Mikita (C)
Messier (C)
Lidstrom
Potvin
Plante
Clarke (C)
Nighbor (C)
Esposito (C)
Crosby (C)

Something like that.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Has crosby at least passed Sakic by now?

2 harts
3 Lindsay's
2 art ross
1 Smythe
1 Richard
4 First team AS

 

[Lebowski]

Has crosby at least passed Sakic by now?

2 harts
3 Lindsay's
2 art ross
1 Smythe
1 Richard
4 First team AS

I don't like trophy counting.

Everyone knows Crosby's trophy case would literally be twice that size if it were not for injuries. I don't think stacking up trophies up against trophies really provides all the context one would need to declare whether a player had a better career than another.

 

[feffan]

Defensemen are harder to compare to Crosby.At the very strict minimum Orr, Harvey and Bourque are higher.Lidstrom is probably higher too.But again, Crosby reached a level Lidstrom couldn't touch in league domination, and for quite some time.

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?

I have slowly gotten the feeling that Lidstroms dominance in his peak (roughly 25-37) has been downgraded a few steps around the History board in general the last year or two.

This is one of the greatest defensive players of all time, that also finished top 3 in defencemen scoring every year but 4 times between 95/96-10/11. An 16 year 15 seasons period. And outside that strange down year in 03/04 (where the talks about his days as an elite player was over, much like Crosby got during the end of last season and start of this... and much like Lidstrom, Crosby is showing people wrong...) Lidstrom placed 5th, 7th and 9th amongst D-scoring. 3/4 of those times out of the top 3 scoring still being top 10. And that´s only the peak 15 seasons, 4 more than Crosbys yet to play. Lidstroms 5 other seasons ain´t bad as well, and put against Crosbys weakest seasons some of them might come out on top. Because of Crosby injuries of course, but that´s part of the game.

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.

To translate him to forward during his prime would be like an Bergeron of the last 5-7 years challenging for the Art Ross. Lidstroms peak dominance is getting really underrated quick.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't like trophy counting.

Everyone knows Crosby's trophy case would literally be twice that size if it were not for injuries. I don't think stacking up trophies up against trophies really provides all the context one would need to declare whether a player had a better career than another.

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

Hypotheticals work both ways eh

 

[Rhiessan71]

I have slowly gotten the feeling that Lidstroms dominance in his peak (roughly 25-37) has been downgraded a few steps around the History board in general the last year or two.

Simply not being willing to place Lidstrom ahead of Bourque and especially Harvey is NOT Lidstrom being "downgraded".

 

[bobholly39]

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

Hypotheticals work both ways eh

As far as I can tell people never really look at things this way around here.

How many trophies would someone as great as Howe have if he started the year Gretzky did?

It may also not be the right way to look at it.

Crosby has dominated the NHL in an extremely obvious way his whole career

Not sure if trying to say the current nhl competition is weak is that strong an argument. Maybe when considering the height of his peak - but not so much for career achievement.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

So was it Lidstrom or was it Zetterberg who shut Crosby down? Or can we admit that neither did it alone? Or maybe we can just put the whole tired trope to bed?

 

[feffan]

Simply not being willing to place Lidstrom ahead of Bourque and especially Harvey is NOT Lidstrom being "downgraded".

And I never said that. It was the notion that Crosby could/should be ranked ahead of Lidstrom I was against.

I have both Bourque and Harvey ahead of Lidstrom, as well flirt with the tought of Potvin ahead. But then Potvin is an personal favourite.

 

[feffan]

So was it Lidstrom or was it Zetterberg who shut Crosby down? Or can we admit that neither did it alone? Or maybe we can just put the whole tired trope to bed?

Of course no hockey skater (or even a goalie like Hasek...) ever did enough to get all the credit. That´s why the sports all time great ain´t an freak of nature athlete, but instead the one that mastered to fully use every teammate.

As Crosby didn´t play 1 on 1 with either Zetterberg or Lidstrom, of course we are to give credit to both in different mathers. In the end their unite outplayed Crosbys units of Dupuis, Hossa, Gonchar, Orpik in 08 and Guerin, Kunitz, Gonchar, Orpik in 09.

The fact that Lidstrom was the biggest pawn and the player that all those great circa 1994-2010 Detroit teams built their foundation on, and that he was probably the no1 reason for shutting down Crosby, doesn´t change the fact that Zetterberg in the center duels of the 1st lines in those two finals outplayed Crosby quite a bit.

 

[daver]

Crosby obviously has years 18-20 on Mikita, but to me Mikitas 4 Art Rosses, 6 First All Star Teams, 1 Second All Star Team (7 years in a row All Star...) and 2 Harts (and an 2nd and 5th place...) from age 21-28 trumphs Sids whole RS career so far.

The raw numbers show Makita with eight Top Ten Art Ross placings: 1,1,1,1,2,3,3,4,

Crosby has eight Top Ten Art Ross placings: 1,1,2,3,3,3,3,6


During his career up to age 28, Makita was 3rd in points and 3rd in PPG:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Crosby is 2nd in points and 1st in PPG (by a significant margin over Malkin and a more significant margin than Makita was over the pack).

From a raw points perspective, Mikita has the better Art Ross finishes but Crosby has, IMO, a more superior career points advantage when looking at how far ahead of the pack they are.

So even without any consideration for injuries, a good argument can be made for Crosby.

 

[daver]

And when taking era in to the equation playoffs are just about equal as I see it. For example 11Tp in 12GP like in 61 doesn´t seem like much, but that´s good for 4th place. And 9TP in 7GP in are good for 2nd in PPG (most played games was 14... Howe had 0.07PPG more...) and 61-62 is one of the most dominat PO-perfomances by an skater ever and in the "Retroactive Conn Smythe"-project he was given the Smythe that year.

Thru age 28 Mikita was 3rd in points and 4th in PPG:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Crosby is number one in points and PPG:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points


Mikita's 61/62 is the best run of the two on a relative basis although Crosby's line of 21 points thru 13 games of the 2009 playoffs should, IMO, lessen that perceived gap.

I think there is more of a case to be made for Crosby having the better playoff resume thru age 28 especially with an extra Cup being won.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

The only thing that was missing from crosbys resume was the Smythe. He now has one. However you want to think of it as not a strong one or what. A Smythe is a Smythe.

Crosby has at the age of 28 literally done it all

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The only thing that was missing from crosbys resume was the Smythe. He now has one. However you want to think of it as not a strong one or what. A Smythe is a Smythe.

Crosby has at the age of 28 literally done it all

More like not the right one.

How can a player end up with a -2 and be considered the MVP of the playoffs?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And I never said that. It was the notion that Crosby could/should be ranked ahead of Lidstrom I was against.
I have both Bourque and Harvey ahead of Lidstrom, as well flirt with the tought of Potvin ahead. But then Potvin is an personal favourite.

Not sure anyone made that argument.

BenchBrawl did have Lidstrom on his list of players ranked ahead of Crosby.

 

[Canadiens1958]

2016 Conn Smythe.

More like not the right one.

How can a player end up with a -2 and be considered the MVP of the playoffs?

San Jose going into the SC Final had scored 63 goals in 18 games. Finals scored 12 goals in 6 games. A change from 3.5 goals per game to 2.00 goals per game.

Crosby was instrumental, especially during faceoffs - remember Couture's comments, in moving the play out of the Penguins zone and up ice.

Also consideration has to be given to the quality of Crosby's linemates, offensively very average.

 

[daver]

More like not the right one.

How can a player end up with a -2 and be considered the MVP of the playoffs?

This has been covered ad nauseam in the Playoffs forum. Why don't you comment on it in that thread.

 

[feffan]

Not sure anyone made that argument.

BenchBrawl did have Lidstrom on his list of players ranked ahead of Crosby.

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.

 

[ImporterExporter]

More like not the right one.

How can a player end up with a -2 and be considered the MVP of the playoffs?

Because +/- is a worthless stat that no sensible hockey fan uses to judge a players performance.

You do realize that Crosby went power on power the entire series and Thornton/Pavelski combined for one, I repeat ONE goal over 6 games. And it was an empty netter, by Pavelski. Crosby was very instrumental in helping shut those 2 down.

Crosby was a beast on face offs, he was a beast up and down the ice for the vast majority of the series. So his raw point total is a bit underwhelming. It's why you have to look beyond the box score and actually WATCH the game to appreciate how good he played, again for the vast majority of the series.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Because +/- is a worthless stat that no sensible hockey fan uses to judge a players performance.

You do realize that Crosby went power on power the entire series and Thornton/Pavelski combined for one, I repeat ONE goal over 6 games. And it was an empty netter, by Pavelski. Crosby was very instrumental in helping shut those 2 down.

Crosby was a beast on face offs, he was a beast up and down the ice for the vast majority of the series. So his raw point total is a bit underwhelming. It's why you have to look beyond the box score and actually WATCH the game to appreciate how good he played, again for the vast majority of the series.

Thornton/Pavelski did just as good a job of shutting down Crosby who had 0 I repeat 0 goals in the Finals.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

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.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Thornton/Pavelski did just as good a job of shutting down Crosby who had 0 I repeat 0 goals in the Finals.

By Thornton/Pavelski you mean Martin Jones, right?