How close is Crosby to top 5 status now?

[Hockey Outsider]

I think there has to be some kind of terminology effort here.

The Art Ross is a "numerical" award. You score the most points, you win. The choice of the winner can absolutely not be questionned. Of course, there are Art Rosses that are weaker and stronger than others due to a myriad of reasons, and MSL's 2013 might be a slightly "weak" one, partly because of Crosby. It's also very impressive since he was about 82 years old by then. Patrick Kane's recent Art Ross was certainly strong. I can't see how there can be an undeserved Art Ross since Max Bentley (who didn't even get an actual Art Ross, he just led the NHL in points) or Roy Conacher (and even then it's debateable, considering his teammate was 2nd and everyone else was so much behind them there's no way of telling if Lindsay had a shot).

Back to Crosby... If one uses "undeserving", it probably implies that somebody else should've won, and that Crosby was a bad choice. I think myself that he was absolutely not undeserving. I would've given it to Letang after the 3rd round, but the trophy is awarded after the Finals.

I'd say, however, that it was a "weak" Conn Smythe award. Conn Smythe winners usually have better playoffs than the ones Crosby had in '16. If you only consider the 4 playoffs during which Crosby got to the finals, 2016 was almost certainly his weakest. But the Conn Smythe is awarded to one player, every year. Not two. Not zero. Not three. One. Someone had to win it in 2016, and only one player could win it in 2009.

And it's not a Crosby-special. The same thing applies for other awards. The 2015 Vezina (Price) was a strong Vezina. The 2016 Vezina (Holtby) was a weak Vezina, probably the weakest DESERVED Vezina since, I don't know.... Kolzig? But it was a totally deserved Vezina. Same thing for the Calder : Matthews is a rather strong Calder, and I can't think of a weak one on top of my head (Drury?), but it doesn't mean their respective Calders were not deserved.

I agree, this is a great response. An award can simultaneously be deserved and weak (two separate concepts), as was the case with Crosby's 2016 Conn Smythe.

 

[Plural]

I echo MXD too. Nicely put.

 

[pappyline]

MXD lost me with the Max Bentley and Roy Conacher comment. I don't see any reason for saying these AR's were undeserved. Btw, I think he meant to say Doug Bentley not Lindsay.

 

[MXD]

MXD lost me with the Max Bentley and Roy Conacher comment. I don't see any reason for saying these AR's were undeserved. Btw, I think he meant to say Doug Bentley not Lindsay.

I was litterally scratching to find a possibly "undeserved" Art Ross. There were some anomalies in assists-counting in Chicago in the late '40ies, though I don't remember the exact years during which this happened; but I'm quite-certain 48-49 was a shenanigans season (it's 46-47 I'm not quite sure about, but there's amply enough of anecdotal evidence of Maurice Richard being screwed out of assists to cast at least a possible reasonable doubt that probably doesn't exist anymore in today's hockey). I was mostly trying to establish terminology, because, from my perspective, it seems that "Undeserved" was used in a meaning that was more akin to "Weak".

Bentley led the NHL in scoring by two points over a non-teammate... who happened to be Maurice Richard. I do admit I should've used some Conditionnal Tense marker and will edit my post.

Conacher co-led the league in scoring (with Doug Bentley) in 48-49, but their lead over Ted Lindsay was quite significant; in other words, we can wonder if Conacher really deserved his Art Ross, but since the runner-up was his teammate and Lindsay was really quite far behind anyways, it's probably better to let this one rest.

 

[Voight]

And it's not a Crosby-special. The same thing applies for other awards. The 2015 Vezina (Price) was a strong Vezina. The 2016 Vezina (Holtby) was a weak Vezina, probably the weakest DESERVED Vezina since, I don't know.... Kolzig? But it was a totally deserved Vezina. Same thing for the Calder : Matthews is a rather strong Calder, and I can't think of a weak one on top of my head (Drury?), but it doesn't mean their respective Calders were not deserved.

Do you mean weak in terms of competition?

he just won his 8th ESPY for best hockey player, easily the most all time

how much longer are some of you going to pretend he isn't the best ever?

..... who takes the ESPY's seriously?

 

[BraveCanadian]

..... who takes the ESPY's seriously?

No one.

 

[daver]

The more I think about it the more I feel as though Crosby has a claim at #5 spot of all-time right now.

If Sidney Crosby retired tomorrow, and if we had to fully analyze his resume and take everything into account and compare it to the full career of anyone else - I think it holds up rather well.

I don't think he would be a consensus #5 obviously, but i think he definitely has an argument as of right now, and not even a weak one.

Some people argue Hasek at #5. And I can make the case for Crosby > Hasek as of today. Some people argue Jagr at#5, and I can make the case for Crosby > Jagr right now.

I even think there's a case to be made for Crosby > Beliveau (full career) right now.

He stacks up really well. His consistency at the top as being one of the best players in the league every year without fail is nearly unmatched in the history of hockey. Does anyone outside of Gretzky top him in that regards? Bourque did great as a defenseman, but as an overall player i don't think he was as close to the top of the league than Crosby has been through 12 years.

So yeah - if Crosby retires tomorrow, I think a very serious case can be made for him at #5. He has virtually no weaknesses in his resume. Maybe full top-end peak seasons aren't his strongest asset - but "peak level of play" is pretty damn strong, so i think that serves to counter it to some effect.

I think the same can be said of Howe from 50/51 (1st AR win) to 63/64 (3rd in AR, 1st in playoffs). After that, Hull/Mikita took over at the top. That's 14 seasons.

 

[Plural]

I think the same can be said of Howe from 50/51 (1st AR win) to 63/64 (3rd in AR, 1st in playoffs). After that, Hull/Mikita took over at the top. That's 14 seasons.

I'd say 65/65 season Howe was still pretty widely considered as one of the top players in the league. Maybe even longer. Some of the older fellas here could chime in?

 

[daver]

I'd say 65/65 season Howe was still pretty widely considered as one of the top players in the league. Maybe even longer. Some of the older fellas here could chime in?

I think there needs to be a line drawn between the "best/co-best" vs. "one of the top players" especially in a conversation about the #5 player all-time.

The former means a player has separated themselves from everyone else or shares that mantle with another player who has similarly separated themselves from the pack. Wayne and Mario would be the obvious clear example of a shared best player title. Crosby and OV for a few years (and I would add Malkin in for a short time too) is another.

Howe won the AR 62/63 then was 5th in 63/64, well behind the leaders, but had a great playoff run to keep him at the "best/co-best" level. In 64/65 he was 3rd in points and 4th in PPG which again put him clearly behind Hull and Mikita. I think that was when he moved to being among the top players.

Of course it really doesn't matter how things are labeled as long as the same metrics are applied to Crosby. At this point, going toe to toe with Wayne and Howe in terms of elite longevity is likely Crosby's best chance to move up the GOAT ladder along with adding to his playoff legacy.

 

[Plural]

I think there needs to be a line drawn between the "best/co-best" vs. "one of the top players" especially in a conversation about the #5 player all-time.

The former means a player has separated themselves from everyone else or shares that mantle with another player who has similarly separated themselves from the pack. Wayne and Mario would be the obvious clear example of a shared best player title. Crosby and OV for a few years (and I would add Malkin in for a short time too) is another.

Howe won the AR 62/63 then was 5th in 63/64, well behind the leaders, but had a great playoff run to keep him at the "best/co-best" level. In 64/65 he was 3rd in points and 4th in PPG which again put him clearly behind Hull and Mikita. I think that was when he moved to being among the top players.

Of course it really doesn't matter how things are labeled as long as the same metrics are applied to Crosby. At this point, going toe to toe with Wayne and Howe in terms of elite longevity is likely Crosby's best chance to move up the GOAT ladder along with adding to his playoff legacy.

Being 3rd in points and 4th in PPG 3rd in goals and 2nd in assists, 3rd in Hart voting and 1st Team All-Star doesn't constitute as co-best player in your mind with a track record like Howe had? I mean, how's that exactly different from Crosby's 14-15 season? I don't want to toot the same horn cause you probably hear it enough already, but there seems to be a double standard at play here.

For the bolded, I agree. But you just have to remember your own advice.

 

[daver]

Being 3rd in points and 4th in PPG 3rd in goals and 2nd in assists, 3rd in Hart voting and 1st Team All-Star doesn't constitute as co-best player in your mind with a track record like Howe had? I mean, how's that exactly different from Crosby's 14-15 season? I don't want to toot the same horn cause you probably hear it enough already, but there seems to be a double standard at play here.

For the bolded, I agree. But you just have to remember your own advice.

Because Crosby was the dominant player just the year before and the year before that, after being best/co-best since 2007. And, unlike Howe in 63/64, there wasn't another player or players (among the forwards anyways) who was that much better than Crosby in 14/15 (Crosby, OV, Tavares and Benn were all close that year). I was fully prepared for Tavares, or Benn or OV to join or surpass Crosby if they clearly beat him in 15/16, and similarly would have treated Kane the same way if he repeated his 15/16 year again this year.

Like Howe, Crosby has earned some leeway based on his track record and needs to be clearly beaten to lose his spot at the top completely.

Let's put it this way, Crosby is at the top right now in the same way I would have put Howe at the top after his 62/63 season.

 

[Plural]

Because Crosby was the dominant player just the year before and the year before that, after being best/co-best since 2007. And, unlike Howe in 63/64, there wasn't another player or players (among the forwards anyways) who was that much better than Crosby in 14/15 (Crosby, OV, Tavares and Benn were all close that year). I was fully prepared for Tavares, or Benn or OV to join or surpass Crosby if they clearly beat him in 15/16, and similarly would have treated Kane the same way if he repeated his 15/16 year again this year.

Like Howe, Crosby has earned some leeway based on his track record and needs to be clearly beaten to lose his spot at the top completely.

Let's put it this way, Crosby is at the top right now in the same way I would have put Howe at the top after his 62/63 season.

This whole co-best player thing is largely subjective anyways, but I still don't quite understand your reasoning. Because Crosby was able to "bounce back" or whatever we call it, his lower quality season doesn't effect this co-best ranking.

You also seem to lower the co-best player standard because Crosby didn't face as tough competition as Howe did. I get the reasoning but what value does the co-best title have then? This seems more like a semantic play attempt to paint Crosby in better light than he actually was. I guess I just don't see the value in it.

Compared to his peers, Howe was every bit as good and probably better in 64/65 than Crosby was in 14/15 but the conclusion that we draw from it is that Howe lost his "co-best" title that year while Crosby gained his back by having a strong year after that. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds, well stupid and pointless jargon?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gordie Howe

I think there needs to be a line drawn between the "best/co-best" vs. "one of the top players" especially in a conversation about the #5 player all-time.

The former means a player has separated themselves from everyone else or shares that mantle with another player who has similarly separated themselves from the pack. Wayne and Mario would be the obvious clear example of a shared best player title. Crosby and OV for a few years (and I would add Malkin in for a short time too) is another.

Howe won the AR 62/63 then was 5th in 63/64, well behind the leaders, but had a great playoff run to keep him at the "best/co-best" level. In 64/65 he was 3rd in points and 4th in PPG which again put him clearly behind Hull and Mikita. I think that was when he moved to being among the top players.

Of course it really doesn't matter how things are labeled as long as the same metrics are applied to Crosby. At this point, going toe to toe with Wayne and Howe in terms of elite longevity is likely Crosby's best chance to move up the GOAT ladder along with adding to his playoff legacy.

We went thru this before. You misrepresent Howe's career at every opportunity.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1963.html

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1964.html

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1965.html

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1966.html

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1967.html

Basically if you look at the Red Wings RS team scoring in during the 1962-63 season, it is obvious that Gordie Howe was the only scoring RW on the team. !963-64 thrus 1966-67 as the other RWs matured and new ones were added, Howe had his extra shifting opportunities reduced so his total points returned to the mid seventies range, similar to his 1958 to 1962 efforts.

Hull and Mikita enjoyed the benefit of playing on a three line team most of the sixties during the O6 era.

Mikita 1965-66 with four viable center options saw his number drop to 78 points. Conversely Bobby Hull with only Doug Mohns as a solid second LW saw his points skyrocket to 97 due to extra shifting.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1966.html

Likewise Bobby Hull, His point totals varied according to the performance of the 3rd and 4th LWs on the Hawks during the 1960s.
Seasonak LW point production form the other LWs Hull won the Ross due to extra ice time.

This phenomena is there for other superstar players in other eras and other teams. Just a question of recognizing it and treating all players accordingly.

 

[Plural]

I'm still trying to figure out the value in this "best or co-best" comparison. Correct me if I'm wrong here, daver.

We're judging wether or not player gets the nod for "best or co-best" player in specific season based on how they fare against their peers, right? That means the basic voting record, statistical accomplishments and such. Some kind of "leeway" is given if players miss time or have some short lull periods. But for all intents and purposes this is a direct peer vs. peer comparison.

The fundamental flaw we run in to now is that Howe had a season where he fared better against his peers than Crosby did but Crosby has "best or co-best" nod for that season and Howe doesn't. So, in a direct peer vs. peer comparison, one player gets the "nod" with a season that's objectively worse (or at best equal) than the other guy had where he doesn't get the "nod". This is based on "leeway". In other words, in a tangible measurement intangible feelings are used not only as a tie breaker but a clear advantage for one and disadvantage for other.

I don't think this "best co-best" nonsense we're now talking about has any merit.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm still trying to figure out the value in this "best or co-best" comparison. Correct me if I'm wrong here, daver.

We're judging wether or not player gets the nod for "best or co-best" player in specific season based on how they fare against their peers, right? That means the basic voting record, statistical accomplishments and such. Some kind of "leeway" is given if players miss time or have some short lull periods. But for all intents and purposes this is a direct peer vs. peer comparison.

The fundamental flaw we run in to now is that Howe had a season where he fared better against his peers than Crosby did but Crosby has "best or co-best" nod for that season and Howe doesn't. So, in a direct peer vs. peer comparison, one player gets the "nod" with a season that's objectively worse (or at best equal) than the other guy had where he doesn't get the "nod". This is based on "leeway". In other words, in a tangible measurement intangible feelings are used not only as a tie breaker but a clear advantage for one and disadvantage for other.

I don't think this "best co-best" nonsense we're now talking about has any merit.

Best/co-best has a ton of merit.

The best a player can be at any given point is best in the league. That's it. Maybe you can be best in the league by a lot (see Gretzky/Lemieux) - but it's still best.

And Crosby has been the best in the league every year since year 2 of his career (19 years old). And yes - I am using a certain "leeway" in that determination. So it includes 2015 (highest ppg + track record), 2011/12 ("best" player despite injuries), 2016 (top 3 scoring/hart + smythe).

Even using similar "leeway" - does any player in history of the sport look as good as him? Gretzky of course...maybe Howe? But let's ignore the big 4 - for now those are way beyond Crosby's reach anyway. But no other top 5 candidates come close to matching his consistency at the top.

Does this have any merit? Yes. I think it's almost Crosby's calling card, his consistency at the top of league. In an earlier post i showed that Beliveau and Hull have seasons in their prime significantly worst than anything Crosby has ever done. So I think this counts a lot in Crosby's favor. He may not have the highest peak - but he certainly has the highest and least "valleys" vs other top 5 candidates.

It's not the only metric of course - you can't just say "Crosby has been best player for longest so he is #5". Other factors matter. Such as Goal-scoring, where Hull is way better. But Crosby is still a GREAT goal-scorer, with 2 rockets. or Playoffs - where Beliveau is still better. But Crosby is still GREAT in playoffs, with 2 smythes, 3 cups, and 4 smythe-worthy runs.

So I think that by virtue of Crosby's domination at the top every season since year 2 of his career, combined with the fact that his resume doesn't have any real weaknesses - he is definitely in play even as of today for #5th spot of all time. If he retired tomorrow, I think a serious look at his career compared to others should be done to determine if he slots #5 or not.

He's still only at the halfway point, so has a lot left to add likely.

 

[Plural]

Of course consistency has merit and it definitely is Crosby's strengths. I'm talking about daver's method that doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. If we're listing seasons where said players were "best or co-best" and Crosby gets the nod for his 14/15 season and Howe doesn't for his 64/65, when compared against peers he was every bit as good, probably even better than Crosby then the method has no value. After all, we're talking about very simplistic yearly peer comparisons and simply adding them up.

Sorry, but any leeway that gives Crosby the title for his 14/15 but not Howe in 64/65 doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[bobholly39]

Of course consistency has merit and it definitely is Crosby's strengths. I'm talking about daver's method that doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. If we're listing seasons where said players were "best or co-best" and Crosby gets the nod for his 14/15 season and Howe doesn't for his 64/65, when compared against peers he was every bit as good, probably even better than Crosby then the method has no value. After all, we're talking about very simplistic yearly peer comparisons and simply adding them up.

Sorry, but any leeway that gives Crosby the title for his 14/15 but not Howe in 64/65 doesn't pass the smell test.

63-64. Howe. He got outscored very handily in the scoring race. 73 points, 5th place, art ross won at 89 points. He's again 5th in PPG, far from 1st place. Very strong playofs though.

64-65. Again, Mikita easily outscores him. Howe is 3rd in points (pretty far from #1) and 4th in ppg. Playoffs are nothing special.

I feel very strongly about calling Crosby the best player in the world in 14-15. He had just dominated the previous year, was favorite for the art ross all year (and leading most year), finished 1st in ppg, but 3rd in scoring (by 3 points - and i know this only happened on the last day of the season).

2016? Again - Crosby entered the year with the title from previous year. Horrible start - but turned it on big time down the stretch. Top 2 for Hart, top 3 ross, Conn Smythe. And no one able to take away the title of best in the world from him (Kane? That was his 1 strong year, no track record of being so far at the top - he showed it the next year when he came back down to earth).
2017. Same idea - Crosby still enters the league best in the world. Dominates all year (and yes McDavid distances him in the scoring race down the stretch). Wins a smythe. Still call him best in the world (maybe co-best with McDavid, because people fully expect McDavid to repeat/maintain that domination next year).

I don't know enough about Howe's 63-65 seasons but to me looking at records and stats, I would guess he didn't enter those seasons as the best player in the league anymore. Mikita/Hull seemed to have topped him. They easily beat him in the scoring race, and were expected to (right?).

So yeah. Crosby gets the nod in 14-15, but Howe doesn't in 64-65.

14-15. Crosby benefits from his track record, as does Howe in 63-64. but Crosby is right there at top of league in 14-15 barely beaten, Howe is pretty far back.
2016 - again Crosby is right near the top, and again Howe is not. Track record matters less by the 2nd year in a row you are far from the top, so by 64-65 Howe definitely does not appear to be best/co-best in the world anymore.

 

[quoipourquoi]

2016? Again - Crosby entered the year with the title from previous year. Horrible start - but turned it on big time down the stretch. Top 2 for Hart, top 3 ross, Conn Smythe. And no one able to take away the title of best in the world from him (Kane? That was his 1 strong year, no track record of being so far at the top - he showed it the next year when he came back down to earth).

You're selling Patrick Kane short. One strong year? He was the leading scorer in 2014-15 when he got injured, and then returned to lead the playoffs in scoring. Wins the next Art Ross. And him coming back down to Earth is what? Finishing tied for 2nd in scoring? He's had as good of a three-year stretch as anybody. Why are you diminishing what he's done?

 

[Plural]

Would be good to hear some older posters here on how Howe was viewed back then. Or maybe get some polling/written pieces from that time. I can't seem to find any.

Here's the main qualm I have. Compared to their peers, Howe had arguably stronger campaign in 64/65 than Crosby had 14/15. I get that context is needed and track record matters. But considering the track record Howe had at that point, I'm sure he was widely considered as one of the best players in the world. Right up there with Mikita and Hull. This needs some confirmation though.

I don't really see all that good value in ranking that specifies years when player was the best or co-best (or one of the best three, etc.) but ends up crediting weaker year over stronger one due to "I feel that he was still best but I don't know how others felt about the stronger year".

It's essentially claiming that our subjective idea of Crosby's greatness precedes the tangible greatness of Howe. If we're going by subjective leeway we need to have the same info about how Howe was viewed. Otherwise the comparison is tilted and invalid. This might sound like overly zealous bickering, but in a comparison that focuses on yearly data that's easily available (voting, statistics, etc.) for both but "I still feel he was the best" is only available for one the method is broken.

 

[bobholly39]

You're selling Patrick Kane short. One strong year? He was the leading scorer in 2014-15 when he got injured, and then returned to lead the playoffs in scoring. Wins the next Art Ross. And him coming back down to Earth is what? Finishing tied for 2nd in scoring? He's had as good of a three-year stretch as anybody. Why are you diminishing what he's done?

What I mean by that is. If that had been Kane's 2nd back to back Ross/Hart/domination season - I would have said in 2015-2016 "hrmm yeah - I think Kane is the sole best player in the world now, he's above Crosby". But he only had that one strong year, which wasn't enough to take the title away from Crosby.

For Kane to take sole possession of best player in the world, he'd have had this past season to repeat his year from 1 season ago. At that point I would have said Kane > Crosby (let's ignore McDavid for now). But he didn't. Hence Crosby still passes as the best or co-best player in the world in 2014, in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Crosby again gets the benefit of the doubt going into 2017-2018, even though McDavid swept the awards. Why? Because of his Smythe, and because he was right there with McDavid most of the year in the reg season. If McDavid easily dominates Crosby this coming regular season, and if Crosby doesn't have another stellar playoff performance to counter any potential regular season shortcomings - I would be ready to anoint McDavid as sole best player in the world. Kane didn't do that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sure........

Would be good to hear some older posters here on how Howe was viewed back then. Or maybe get some polling/written pieces from that time. I can't seem to find any.

Here's the main qualm I have. Compared to their peers, Howe had arguably stronger campaign in 64/65 than Crosby had 14/15. I get that context is needed and track record matters. But considering the track record Howe had at that point, I'm sure he was widely considered as one of the best players in the world. Right up there with Mikita and Hull. This needs some confirmation though.

I don't really see all that good value in ranking that specifies years when player was the best or co-best (or one of the best three, etc.) but ends up crediting weaker year over stronger one due to "I feel that he was still best but I don't know how others felt about the stronger year".

It's essentially claiming that our subjective idea of Crosby's greatness precedes the tangible greatness of Howe. If we're going by subjective leeway we need to have the same info about how Howe was viewed. Otherwise the comparison is tilted and invalid. This might sound like overly zealous bickering, but in a comparison that focuses on yearly data that's easily available (voting, statistics, etc.) for both but "I still feel he was the best" is only available for one the method is broken.

The request was acknowledged up thread but it did not fit the younger narrative,so it was ignored.

Best/co-best recent jibber-jabber with absolutely zero merit. Just illustrates an ability to count points while ignoring a players benefits from extra shifting and deployment. Learn to read an individual team's RS scoring totals to figure out an approximation of TOI and deployment.

 

[daver]

You're selling Patrick Kane short. One strong year? He was the leading scorer in 2014-15 when he got injured, and then returned to lead the playoffs in scoring. Wins the next Art Ross. And him coming back down to Earth is what? Finishing tied for 2nd in scoring? He's had as good of a three-year stretch as anybody. Why are you diminishing what he's done?

For the record, I am happy with the majority consensus that Crosby has a done enough to warrant comparisons to the usual #5 picks with the caveat that he needs to get more seasons under his belt to draw even or surpass them.

That being said, if we are considering partial seasons, then Crosby is coming off a 4 year stretch from 09/10 to 13/14 that's as good as anybody's besides the Big Four. There would have been a chasm between Crosby every other player except maybe Malkin coming into the 14/15 season. Kane keeping up with Crosby in 14/15, having a great season in 15/16 then having not as good as season as Crosby last year would not have gotten him close to the "best player" mantle.

 

[daver]

What I mean by that is. If that had been Kane's 2nd back to back Ross/Hart/domination season - I would have said in 2015-2016 "hrmm yeah - I think Kane is the sole best player in the world now, he's above Crosby". But he only had that one strong year, which wasn't enough to take the title away from Crosby.

For Kane to take sole possession of best player in the world, he'd have had this past season to repeat his year from 1 season ago. At that point I would have said Kane > Crosby (let's ignore McDavid for now). But he didn't. Hence Crosby still passes as the best or co-best player in the world in 2014, in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Crosby again gets the benefit of the doubt going into 2017-2018, even though McDavid swept the awards. Why? Because of his Smythe, and because he was right there with McDavid most of the year in the reg season. If McDavid easily dominates Crosby this coming regular season, and if Crosby doesn't have another stellar playoff performance to counter any potential regular season shortcomings - I would be ready to anoint McDavid as sole best player in the world. Kane didn't do that.

Given their respective roles on their teams, Kane would also have had to outscore Crosby not just produce as much as him to counter Crosby's 2-way play and role.

 

[daver]

Would be good to hear some older posters here on how Howe was viewed back then. Or maybe get some polling/written pieces from that time. I can't seem to find any.

Here's the main qualm I have. Compared to their peers, Howe had arguably stronger campaign in 64/65 than Crosby had 14/15. I get that context is needed and track record matters. But considering the track record Howe had at that point, I'm sure he was widely considered as one of the best players in the world. Right up there with Mikita and Hull. This needs some confirmation though.

I don't really see all that good value in ranking that specifies years when player was the best or co-best (or one of the best three, etc.) but ends up crediting weaker year over stronger one due to "I feel that he was still best but I don't know how others felt about the stronger year".

It's essentially claiming that our subjective idea of Crosby's greatness precedes the tangible greatness of Howe. If we're going by subjective leeway we need to have the same info about how Howe was viewed. Otherwise the comparison is tilted and invalid. This might sound like overly zealous bickering, but in a comparison that focuses on yearly data that's easily available (voting, statistics, etc.) for both but "I still feel he was the best" is only available for one the method is broken.

Would this thread be useful to reference:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=973915&highlight=best+player+world

Howe is the best/co-best for 13 years, Crosby is for 11 years. I think Howe's '64 playoffs plus his track record give him another year at the top with Hull, or even on his own.

 

[MXD]

Do you mean weak in terms of competition?

Not necessarily.
To take Crosby's 2016 : I'd have a hard-time describing his competition (in a macro-sense) as bad : after all, he does have Evgeni Malkin as his teammate, who is/was a historically very good playoff performer, and only one player can win the Conn Smythe.

However, his 2016 Smythe is definitely weak though : it just happened that nobody had an absolutely huge year, and the Conn Smythe had to be given to somebody, preferably the best player of the playoffs (which, I think, Crosby was). No one pulled a '93 Roy or a '56 Beliveau or a '85 Gretzky.

In the same wake, even if you disregard the longevity, I don't think anyone ever opined that Crosby is an equal playoff performer to Gretzky, due to both having two Conn Smythes, and hopefully no one would ever do so until the next great playoff performance from Crosby (and even then, let's just say that Crosby needs more than one great playoff performance to jump to Gretzky's level). Even if you disregard Gretzky's longevity advantage, he'd still be a signficantly better playoff performer than Crosby, even if they have the same amount of Conn Smythes. Part of that is because his Conn Smythes years were quite a bit more impressive.

As for the part you quoted... Well, Price 2015 season was a very strong season. Holtby 2016... well, it wasn't as good as Price 2015. There's no trifecta of Roy/Hasek/Brodeur in the league, which makes their competition a little weaker by comparison, but it's a bit aside the mark, because Roy didn't have many seasons where he was better than Price '15, and with regards, I don't think Brodeur even had one. Holtby's competition was technically weaker (because, well, Price...) but I don't see that as being particularily relevant.

Matthews had good, albeit very young, competition AND a very good season too.