How High can Crosby reach in all-time Centers Ranking?

[bobholly39]

So i'm looking at the all-time rankings for centers (Gretzky 1, Lemieux 2, Beliveau 3) as voted on by HF last year.

Obviously - no one known to mankind as of today will ever surpass Lemieux/Gretzky for top 2 spots. I'm sure at some point in the future, some young prodigy may come into the NHL and have a career worth comparing to Gretzky/Lemieux, but Crosby isn't it, so let's not discuss that.

But is #3 slot for Centers All-Time a reachable objective for Crosby? Obviously - he's not there yet, and I don't pretend that he is. He also has had bad luck with injuries since entering the NHL so whose to say how long he can keep playing - although he does seem to be healthy now.

No question that as of 2014 - his playoff record isn't nearly as prestigious as some of the other top centers of all-time (Beliveau, Messier, etc), but it's also not too bad per se - and he still has ample time left to improve it. He also does have 2 gold medals at the Olympics where - even though he may not have completely dominated - he was certainly extremely "clutch".


So my question to you all is this:


- If Sidney Crosby avoids anymore major injuries, and manages to play a long and healthy career in the NHL, and if he manages to play to his full potential (ie - no fluke drastic bad seasons, but maintains the pace people generally expect him to play at) - how high can he reach on the all-time Centers Ranking list when it's all said and done? Is #3 behind only Gretzky and Lemieux a possibility?

Click to read more...

 

[Pominville Knows]

I think he can touch 120 points this season if all goes well, and he is only in the beginning of his prime. Stamkos in second can probably do 100 this year with lots of goals.

 

[Plural]

Third seems like a stretch. He would need uncanny longevity on top level to achieve than and he would also need to add to his playoff resume.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Morenz is a pretty solid 4 and in that order. I think he has an outside shot for 5th, edging out Mikita. But if I would have to throw a guess, I'd say he is going to end up ranked mostly somewhere between Sakic and Messier. Beating Joe but not quite beating Mark.

This is a total crapshoot tough.

 

[MXD]

I think he can touch 120 points this season if all goes well, and he is only in the beginning of his prime. Stamkos in second can probably do 100 this year with lots of goals.

A bit skeptical on the "beginning of the prime" theory. One would think he could actually be nearing the end of his prime.

Of course, this is mostly speculation.

He does have quite a uphill battle to pass Beliveau. Two decisive Harts would probably put him in serious contention with... Clarke ?

 

[Beau Knows]

I think somewhere between Sakic and Mikita (5th-10th on this board in the top centers project) is doable for him. Anything higher would probably take something special and lower would be a disappointment given what he has done so far.

 

[bobholly39]

Third seems like a stretch. He would need uncanny longevity on top level to achieve than and he would also need to add to his playoff resume.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Morenz is a pretty solid 4 and in that order. I think he has an outside shot for 5th, edging out Mikita. But if I would have to throw a guess, I'd say he is going to end up ranked mostly somewhere between Sakic and Messier. Beating Joe but not quite beating Mark.

This is a total crapshoot tough.

So im' looking at Crosby's numbers vs Beliveau's.

I don't know much about "adjusted stats" - certainly not an expert in them, but i went to look at "adjusted points per season" for Beliveau, and compared to Crosby. I'm using HockeyReference's tabulations of "adjusted points".

Crosby's current NHL totals "adjusted"

550 games 309 goals, 547 assists, 826 points

Beliveau adjusted through 1961-62 season:

549 games, 352 goals, 425 assists, 777 points.

Crosby is also only 26 - Beliveau was 30 when he reached those totals. So Crosby has a ton more "upside" left to his career than Beliveau maybe did after so many games. So i think it's quite reasonable to expect that baring injuries, Crosby's career post 2014 might be better than Beliveau's career post 1962.

So it's not that far fetched is it? I think Crosby needs to win another 2 cups, and at least 1 smythe (maybe 2) to add to his legacy. A Tall order for sure, but Pittsburgh is a contender every year so i don't think it's all that unrealistic either that if Crosby plays for 10-12 more years Pittsburgh might win at least 1 more cup, if not two or more.

 

[Pominville Knows]

A bit skeptical on the "beginning of the prime" theory. One would think he could actually be nearing the end of his prime.

Of course, this is mostly speculation.

He does have quite a uphill battle to pass Beliveau. Two decisive Harts would probably put him in serious contention with... Clarke ?

I guess it depends on the definition chosen. He was approaching his peak the year he got the neck injury and after that only fractions of games with real great PPG. I should have said peak though, which he has not yet shown for a full season, but will. His prime i guess started allready in 2006/07.

 

[bobholly39]

I guess it depends on the definition chosen. He was approaching his peak the year he got the neck injury and after that only fractions of games with real great PPG. I should have said peak though, which he has not yet shown for a full season, but will.

Somehow - if at the end of Sidney Crosby's career - his best point season ends up being 120 points, I would be extremely disappointed.

I think he definately needs to top 130, and maybe closer to 140-150 at least once. I think he has it in him, he just needs to be consistent the whole year.

 

[bobholly39]

I think somewhere between Sakic and Mikita (5th-10th on this board in the top centers project) is doable for him. Anything higher would probably take something special and lower would be a disappointment given what he has done so far.

I know Sakic and Crosby didn't play in the same era, so it's always hard to compare. But when I compare players, one thing I try to take into consideration is perceived trade value. If they both somehow played in the same year, do I trade Crosby for Sakic 1vs1, or vice versa?

To me - despite Sakic's amazing career and insane playoff resume - there's no question that I would trade a Joe Sakic for a Sidney Crosby, no?

So I agree with that - I think Sidney Crosby should be a shoe-in for top 10 of all time centers at the end of his career (barring injuries). Anything less would be a huge disappointment imo

 

[Beau Knows]

I think he definately needs to top 130, and maybe closer to 140-150 at least once. I think he has it in him, he just needs to be consistent the whole year.

140 is ridiculous in this era. Scoring 140 last year would have won him the Art Ross by 53 points (48%), not happening. That would beat Gretzky in largest % win ever.

 

[Sentinel]

If he keeps flopping in playoffs, he will be ranked below Mikita.

There's no way I trade Sakic for Crosby. Hell, I rank Crosby below Fedorov for both peak and playoff performance. And don't talk to me about points. In Bowman's system there were no Art Ross winners. But they kept winning.

 

[Beau Knows]

If he keeps flopping in playoffs, he will be ranked below Mikita.

There's no way I trade Sakic for Crosby. Hell, I rank Crosby below Fedorov for both peak and playoff performance. And don't talk to me about points. In Bowman's system there were no Art Ross winners. But they kept winning.

Does it really matter though, given that your top 60 center list would be so massively different than the HoHs one is? And I don't mean that as insult or anything, just that your list is so different than everyone else that saying he is below Mikita doesn't even tell us what stratosphere that puts him in.

 

[bobholly39]

140 is ridiculous in this era. Scoring 140 last year would have won him the Art Ross by 53 points (48%), not happening. That would beat Gretzky in largest % win ever.

Well

in 2011, 2012 and 2013 he was on pace for 130+ points all 3 years for a full 82 game season.

I guess devil's advocate might say - he can't maintain that pace over 82 games, and I suppose so far that statement would prove true. But I don't think it's that far fetched to think that he could play at that level consistently for a full season.

He was averaging 1.6PPG or more those 3 years. For 82 games that's 131 points.

And, if Stamkos isn't injured I see no reason why Stamkos can't get close to 100-110 points in a year. And I think Malkin is easily capable of 100-110 too. So It's not like 140 points to 110 would be a 48% margin of victory. 140 might be pushing it, but I do think 130 points is very attainable for Crosby

 

[Beau Knows]

Well

in 2011, 2012 and 2013 he was on pace for 130+ points all 3 years for a full 82 game season.

I guess devil's advocate might say - he can't maintain that pace over 82 games, and I suppose so far that statement would prove true. But I don't think it's that far fetched to think that he could play at that level consistently for a full season.

He was averaging 1.6PPG or more those 3 years. For 82 games that's 131 points.

Yeah I think he may have been able to hit 130. But the league was a bit higher scoring and that's still not 140 points, let alone 150.

 

[jkrx]

If he starts to decline now he wont break my top 10 list.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well he was ranked 22nd in the last top 60 centers project.

As his VsX score continues to climb and with a little more playoff success he could reach as high as #2 but he has to stay healthy to do that.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

If he doesn't win another Cup, I'm going to have a hard time equating him to Steve Yzerman.

 

[Beau Knows]

Well he was ranked 22nd in the last top 60 centers project.

As his VsX score continues to climb and with a little more playoff success he could reach as high as #2 but he has to stay healthy to do that.

#2 is not possible, Lemieux is kind of in the way there.

 

[bobholly39]

#2 is not possible, Lemieux is kind of in the way there.

I can only assume he meant #3

Because if he means #2 i'd love to hear the argument for it - even if only hypothetical

 

[Plural]

I can only assume he meant #3

Because if he means #2 i'd love to hear the argument for it - even if only hypothetical

Im pretty sure Hardy meant #2.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I can only assume he meant #3

Because if he means #2 i'd love to hear the argument for it - even if only hypothetical

I had Mario ranked 5th on my list of centers, go back to the project to see details.

If I have time alter I will dig them out.

It's kind of ironic as some here want to label me as a modern Guy But Beliveau I had 2nd and Mikita 3rd as I recall.

Basically in a nutshell, Mario scored lots of empty points, ie 3,4,5, 6 points in lopsided wins and his plus/minus or on ice off ice metric basically his total impact on the game was a lot less than his fantasy scoring totals would suggest.

Mario played in 915 regular season NHL games over a 21 year time period and I can't, and no one should really, give him any carryover credit for games he didn't play in.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

\
- If Sidney Crosby avoids anymore major injuries, and manages to play a long and healthy career in the NHL, and if he manages to play to his full potential (ie - no fluke drastic bad seasons, but maintains the pace people generally expect him to play at) - how high can he reach on the all-time Centers Ranking list when it's all said and done? Is #3 behind only Gretzky and Lemieux a possibility?

If he does everything you say, he competes with Morenz and Mikita for 4 and 5. I think he needs to do all that AND pick it up in the playoffs if he wants a chance at Beliveau for #3.

 

[seventieslord]

3rd is a reach. I've thought for a few seasons that Morenz/Mikita was his potential range.

 

[billybudd]

Big fan of Beliveau. I think it's realistic that Crosby can catch him, but by no means a given. 1 and 2 are insurmountable, and, having seen many games from all three, that's the way it should be. Those two were better.

I'll never understand the fascination with Morenz.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Big fan of Beliveau. I think it's realistic that Crosby can catch him, but by no means a given. 1 and 2 are insurmountable, and, having seen many games from all three, that's the way it should be. Those two were better.

I'll never understand the fascination with Morenz.

Best player to ever play the game prior to 1950. Kind of a big deal.

Can't speak about others, but for me, playoffs are the only think Beliveau has over Morenz