How close is Crosby to top 5 status now?

[psycat]

Crosbys only path at the big 4 is conn Smythes imo. And that's only because he has 2 back to back - and is the favorite for the Smythe heading into next season. If he wasn't in this current positions for Smythes I'd say he has 0 shot.

But if he somehow pulls 4 back to back Smythes - how can you not consider this a possibility? He wouldn't even need to necessarily match Howe's longevity into his 30s in that situation.

Doesn't matter about Orr Howe or lemieux. Whoever you have at 4th spot - 4 back to back Smythes along with the rest of Crosbys resume starts to make things interesting.

Gretzky being undisputed best playoff performer of all time puts him out of reach in this exercise.

But Crosbys Smythes are arguable to begin with, there is nothing arguable about Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux or Orr.

Ive said it before Crosby wont ever make it a "big 5" let alone push somebody in the big 4 down(He simply doesnt have the peak or domination maybe he would have without injurys, then again Lemieux without injurys would be even further ahead of him). He is, and will forever be, a 5-15 player. I dont know if I would rank him above Lidström, Hull, Bourque, Hasek etc. I could but then again it's perfectly fine to not do it.

 

[daver]

Best case scenario would be that Crosby matches or beats Howe's 14 seasons of being best/co-best (in the process matching the Next One), and has a playoff resume that's better than Howe's and Mario's. This would perhaps lead to a Big 5.

But first Crosby needs to move up the ladder to join Hull and Beliveau as the #5 player candidates, then become the consensus #5. Then he has to have a clear argument as to why he is greater than Mario and/or Howe to make it a Big 5.

I guess the question is could he pass any of the Big 4 if he has another back half of his career like his first one however unlikely that may be? Would a lack of a peak season that matches any of the Big Four's always hold him back?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Best case scenario would be that Crosby matches or beats Howe's 14 seasons of being best/co-best (in the process matching the Next One), and has a playoff resume that's better than Howe's and Mario's. This would perhaps lead to a Big 5.

But first Crosby needs to move up the ladder to join Hull and Beliveau as the #5 player candidates, then become the consensus #5. Then he has to have a clear argument as to why he is greater than Mario and/or Howe to make it a Big 5.

I guess the question is could he pass any of the Big 4 if he has another back half of his career like his first one however unlikely that may be? Would a lack of a peak season that matches any of the Big Four's always hold him back?

The thing is were using art ross % to assume howe peaked as high as the other big 4. Stastically speaking crosbys 13-14 is the most dominant art ross win since gretzky 90-91 and is a bigger % wise than lemieux ever had. So he does have that peak season technically... But 13-14 is probably the most criminally underated 17+ point art ross win in history

 

[Big Phil]

Not just next season but the next two seasons!!!. Such nonsense. It has been a long time since a team has even won a cup 3 years in a row. They also say he has had the best 12 years in the history of the game and is expected to have another great 8 to 10 years. We shall see. If he has a so so year next season watch everyone jump off the Crosby bandwagon just like they did for Ovechkin.

The best first 12 seasons in NHL history is obviously not true, a hockey historian like many of us on here know this. That's main board material. The first two seasons in the NHL are the only time he was parallel to Mario. I don't think he ever was to Gretzky. Orr and Howe also hit the ground running pretty fast. Howe's rookie year was so-so, but I don't think Crosby has a better 12 years than Howe from 1946-'58 anyway.

That being said who is left? Beliveau, Hull, Rocket. I'm not so sure about Harvey either. Esposito started off too "slow" as did Lafleur. And Lafleur by season 12 was not an elite player anymore. Trottier, Sakic, Yzerman not even close. Bossy only had 10 years. Ovechkin has declined too much, Malkin has missed a few too many years. We'll see about McDavid.

Honestly, who else? Bourque? Potvin? They'd be close. Roy perhaps? Jagr started a little too slow and had that lull in his career after 2001.

It isn't as if Crosby's start to his career is unprecedented but I dare anyone to find 10 players who did it better. I can only find 4 for sure with maybe 3-5 more similar. That's under 10.

 

[daver]

I think the Pens were somewhat lucky to win this year. Weren't they outplayed and outshot in the first 4 games but still came out even.

Resilient is the better word given all their injuries. Think they also played a bit of rope-a-dope too. Can't argue with the results.

 

[daver]

Not that this means anything other than curiosity of your opinions but in a vacuum who is better?

Crosby or Howe from 54/55 onwards?

 

[Regal]

The thing is were using art ross % to assume howe peaked as high as the other big 4. Stastically speaking crosbys 13-14 is the most dominant art ross win since gretzky 90-91 and is a bigger % wise than lemieux ever had. So he does have that peak season technically... But 13-14 is probably the most criminally underated 17+ point art ross win in history

Except we know that Sid's year featured mediocre competition at the top once we start looking at his dominance over players after the 2nd place finisher. And in the subsequent years, we've seen Kane and McDavid have similar seasons. In the context of the era, it doesn't stand out like Howe's, which were also more dominant than Sid's. Sid led 2nd place by 19.5%, and Howe led by 30.3%, 24.6%, 33.8% and 20.8%. Four consecutive seasons also points to it being less of an aberration, and the fact that he did it for four years is a large part of him being considered a part of the big 4. If it was a single season, his reputation wouldn't be the same.

 

[bobholly39]

The thing is were using art ross % to assume howe peaked as high as the other big 4. Stastically speaking crosbys 13-14 is the most dominant art ross win since gretzky 90-91 and is a bigger % wise than lemieux ever had. So he does have that peak season technically... But 13-14 is probably the most criminally underated 17+ point art ross win in history

13-14 isn't that great. Crosby slowed down a lot in the 2nd half which was underwhelming. His 2 biggest threats to scoring championship (malkin and Stamkos) were both injured.

Crosby was better in 11, 12 , 13, 17. He was also better a few years before 11 likely. It's still a very strong season but not his best. Which is why % art Ross wins needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Rhiessan71]

My god...

As good as Howe in his first 12 seasons while missing the better part of 4 seasons and being no where near Howe's peak?
4 Conn Smythes??
Challenging the big-4???

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let's make sure that in the course of addressing arguments on the history board, we both keep an historical focus (things that have happened, not things that one day may happen) and reply to each other in a non-confrontational manner.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

13-14 isn't that great. Crosby slowed down a lot in the 2nd half which was underwhelming. His 2 biggest threats to scoring championship (malkin and Stamkos) were both injured.

Crosby was better in 11, 12 , 13, 17. He was also better a few years before 11 likely. It's still a very strong season but not his best. Which is why % art Ross wins needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

It's funny 16-17 is probably crosbys best full season and he was 29. However a 10-11 crosby was insanely good. Easily the best player to hit the ice since lemieux on a per game basis that season.

 

[pappyline]

Resilient is the better word given all their injuries. Think they also played a bit of rope-a-dope too. Can't argue with the results.

Well you can call it resilient if you want but to me it was luck. But "rope-a-dope" lets get serious.

 

[daver]

Well you can call it resilient if you want but to me it was luck. But "rope-a-dope" lets get serious.

Doesn't really matter what you call it they won. [Mod]

 

[Theokritos]

Mod Note: Enough with the talk about the upcoming season and the 2018 playoffs. The history board is the wrong place for that.

This demand wasn't just an optional one:

Let's make sure that in the course of addressing arguments on the history board, we both keep an historical focus (things that have happened, not things that one day may happen) and reply to each other in a non-confrontational manner.

 

[Big Phil]

Well you can call it resilient if you want but to me it was luck. But "rope-a-dope" lets get serious.

Let's get real, how many teams look their best with a Norris caliber defenseman missing all playoffs? The thing with the Pens in 2017 was that the longer the playoffs wore on the more drained their defense got. This is why they had an awful first couple of games in their final two series (Game 2 in the final was decent though). They were coming off two straight 7 game series. You need your 30 minute defenseman for that. We can give their unheralded defense core credit, and we should, but so much of this success was because of Crosby/Malkin/Fleury/Murray. I can't see how this doesn't play into Crosby's favour here.

 

[pappyline]

Let's get real, how many teams look their best with a Norris caliber defenseman missing all playoffs? The thing with the Pens in 2017 was that the longer the playoffs wore on the more drained their defense got. This is why they had an awful first couple of games in their final two series (Game 2 in the final was decent though). They were coming off two straight 7 game series. You need your 30 minute defenseman for that. We can give their unheralded defense core credit, and we should, but so much of this success was because of Crosby/Malkin/Fleury/Murray. I can't see how this doesn't play into Crosby's favour here.

Getting a little over defensive EH. I didn't even mention Crosby's name.

 

[daver]

Getting a little over defensive EH. I didn't even mention Crosby's name.

What's the point of your comment? You don't think this Pens core or Crosby/Malkin specifically should not be given the credit they deserve for their Cups?

The Caps and Sens series probably don't go 7 games if Crosby doesn't get crosschecked and they likely breeze through Nashville quicker or least they outplay them more than they did.

 

[pappyline]

What's the point of your comment? You don't think this Pens core or Crosby/Malkin specifically should not be given the credit they deserve for their Cups?

The Caps and Sens series probably don't go 7 games if Crosby doesn't get crosschecked and they likely breeze through Nashville quicker or least they outplay them more than they did.

All I did was point out that the Pens were outplayed in the first 4 games in the final and were still lucky enough to come out even. That's all I said. I will leave it to you & BP to come up with excuses.

 

[daver]

All I did was point out that the Pens were outplayed in the first 4 games in the final and were still lucky enough to come out even. That's all I said. I will leave it to you & BP to come up with excuses.

Have to be good to be lucky. Have to be good to put yourself in a position to be lucky in the finals.

 

[Big Phil]

All I did was point out that the Pens were outplayed in the first 4 games in the final and were still lucky enough to come out even. That's all I said. I will leave it to you & BP to come up with excuses.

You specifically said: "Call is resilient all you want, but I call it luck."

Every single Stanley Cup winner had to have a bounce or two go their way to win. But how can two Cups in a row be attributed to luck? Since this is a Crosby thread, I think we can assume it is a bit of a shot at him. That's fine, you make your opinion on Sid clear and that's why we talk hockey on this board but I did see what you did there.

Look Pappy, I asked a while back and maybe you've got a better answer here but other than the big 4 who else clearly had a better first 12 years of their career than Crosby? In my opinion he is in the running with guys like Beliveau, Richard, Hull, maybe Harvey, Potvin, Bourque, Roy, etc. But that's about it and I don't even think anymore than 2-3 of those names are running equal with him.

 

[pappyline]

You specifically said: "Call is resilient all you want, but I call it luck."

Every single Stanley Cup winner had to have a bounce or two go their way to win. But how can two Cups in a row be attributed to luck? Since this is a Crosby thread, I think we can assume it is a bit of a shot at him. That's fine, you make your opinion on Sid clear and that's why we talk hockey on this board but I did see what you did there.

Look Pappy, I asked a while back and maybe you've got a better answer here but other than the big 4 who else clearly had a better first 12 years of their career than Crosby? In my opinion he is in the running with guys like Beliveau, Richard, Hull, maybe Harvey, Potvin, Bourque, Roy, etc. But that's about it and I don't even think anymore than 2-3 of those names are running equal with him.

Gee BP. I know you have a love affair going with Crosby but stop reading things into my post that I never said. All I was referring to was the first 4 games of this years final where the Pens didn't look very good but were still lucky enough to come out with a tie. If they had lost all four then this thread would probably not exist.

I agree that Crosby had a great first 12 years but I prefer to wait and judge after a full career has been digested for a while. If you want to say Crosby is already a top 5 guy be my guest but don't expect me to agree with you.

We can check back in a few years.

 

[MadLuke]

other than the big 4 who else clearly had a better first 12 years of their career than Crosby? In my opinion he is in the running with guys like Beliveau, Richard, Hull, maybe Harvey, Potvin, Bourque, Roy, etc. But that's about it and I don't even think anymore than 2-3 of those names are running equal with him.

What about Jagr 12 first season ?

68: 5 Art Ross
87: 2 Art Ross

Top 10 pts finish:
68: 9-1-2-6-1-1-1-1-5
87: 6-1-3-2-3-1-3-3-2-7

Hart top 10 seasons:
68: 2-4-2-1-2-3
87: 1-6-3-1-5-2-2

Regular season
68: 875 game, 470 goal, 688 assist, 1158 pts
87: 782 game, 382 goal, 645 assist, 1027 pts

68: 0.537 gpg, 0.786 apg, 1.323 ppg
87: 0.489 gpg, 0.824 apg, 1.313 ppg

Playoff:
68: 140 game, 65 goal, 82 assist, 147 point
87: 148 game, 57 goal,107 assist, 164 point

68: 1.05 ppg
87: 1.11 ppg

During those 12 first year's in term of league average goal by game

During the games Jagr played the league average goal by games: 6.06
During the games Crosby played the league average goal by games: 5.53

Crosby seem ahead in both RS and playoff (it was almost neck to neck until I realized at the very end that most of Jagr game were not in the DPE for is 12 season, but in an average 10% higher scoring league than Crosby first 12 year's)

Considering that Jagr, 13-14-15 year's were arguably Jagr worst for is legacy (subpar regular season, only 6 playoff game with Washington) and that he went to the KHL, the fact that Crosby is already a little bit ahead put him in really good position to finish with a better overall career.

 

[The Panther]

Crosby is probably in the top 10-20 range now, inching his way up. He certainly has a chance to be in the top-10 all time players if he continues his current direction for a few more years.

I just can't see him anywhere near the top-5, however. How can we be putting him ahead of Bobby Hull or Jagr or Hasek? I just cannot see that.

The sad thing is that Cros didn't play more than 41 games a season for three seasons in a row, right smack in the onset of his prime years. That is terrible. This happened due to concussions and work-stoppages. The NHLPA and the owners should collectively punch themselves for their endless stupidity.

 

[daver]

Crosby is probably in the top 10-20 range now, inching his way up. He certainly has a chance to be in the top-10 all time players if he continues his current direction for a few more years.

I just can't see him anywhere near the top-5, however. How can we be putting him ahead of Bobby Hull or Jagr or Hasek? I just cannot see that.

Because the consensus seems to be he right there with Hull up to age 29/their first 12 seasons and has him beat already in playoff performances.

 

[Beau Knows]

Crosby is probably in the top 10-20 range now, inching his way up. He certainly has a chance to be in the top-10 all time players if he continues his current direction for a few more years.

I just can't see him anywhere near the top-5, however. How can we be putting him ahead of Bobby Hull or Jagr or Hasek? I just cannot see that.

The sad thing is that Cros didn't play more than 41 games a season for three seasons in a row, right smack in the onset of his prime years. That is terrible. This happened due to concussions and work-stoppages. The NHLPA and the owners should collectively punch themselves for their endless stupidity.

The lawsuit from former players will hopefully result in a huge payout from the NHL like the NFL lawsuit did. I can't see any other way that the NHL starts taking this seriously.