Sidney Crosby - best player ever?

[jigglysquishy]

I'm all ears for a reasonable argument for Morenz or Plante above Crosby.

McDavid will one day overtake Crosby. It may be as soon as 6 weeks from now. But he's not there yet.

If anyone wants to actually argue him at 11+ I'm ready to listen.

 

[Mike C]

Can you prove that?

Bobby Orr just saying "what's up"

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'm not making this post to pick on Crosby, more to point out how underrated Jagr is.

Jagr has
5 art rosses, 4 in a row, including one he won only playing 63 games
1921 points
201 playoff points
123 points at age 33/34, 66 points at age 43/44
3 pearsons, only 1 hart

2 Cups, although both being won right at the start of his career seems to be used against him.


What has Crosby done to be ranked above Jagr? I'm not saying they don't have comparable resumes, obviously Crosby has enjoyed a great career and longevity. That being said he never dominated the NHL like jagr did in the late 90s.

Jagr's era dominance in terms of scoring always get overlooked. There's usually a lot of bad faith arguments attached to the Anti-Jagr case. This particular 11 season point lead is unreal.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

 

[tinyzombies]

It really depends on what you consider an elite season.

If you measure between top 5 Hart finishes.

Ovechkin - 2008-2015 - 8 seasons
Richard - 1945-1955 - 11 seasons
Hull - 1960-1971 - 12 seasons
Jagr - 1995-2006 - 12 seasons
Beliveau- 1955-1969 - 15 seasons
Crosby- 2007 - 2021 - 15 seasons
Lemieux- 1986-2001 - 16 seasons
Gretzky - 1980 - 1998 - 19 seasons
Howe - 1951 - 1969 - 20 seasons

Top 5 in Hart is a very high bar, but Crosby does look fantastic in this metric. It's also very arbitrary. Like a 6th place finish isn't inherently worth less than a 5th place.

And we can go ahead and give him two more for those 2 prime years he missed (at least some are arguing that you can). That would make 17. Again, not my argument.

Some would measure the value of having Messier as a 2C way above Malkin. That could squeeze Crosby past everyone but Howe. And Crosby is about the same size as Howe … and in a literal sense far more skilled. Some are saying.

McDavid doesn’t have the bling yet to surpass Sid. He’s in the conversation tho, how could he not be some are saying.

 

[jigglysquishy]

And we can go ahead and give him two more for those 2 prime years he missed (at least some are arguing that you can). That would make 17. Again, not my argument.

It's a measure of start to finish. So anything he did in between 2007 and 2021 is irrelevant.

And it is your argument. You wouldn't have created the thread otherwise.

 

[tinyzombies]

It's a measure of start to finish. So anything he did in between 2007 and 2021 is irrelevant.

And it is your argument. You wouldn't have created the thread otherwise.

I’m just representing the argument others are making, at least some are saying others are making it.

 

[DRW895]

He is not best player in penguins frachise. Overhyped overrrated player.
Update: are you Tyler Kennedy? Tyler Kennedy On Sidney Crosby's Place Among All-Time Greats: 'I Have Him No. 1'

 

[Golden_Jet]

Now, he doesn’t have a case for best ever.

 

[MadLuke]

I think we play games and invent way to still have a conversation for fun, but it is Gretzky. He covered the anti-Gretzly argument too much he was maybe the best kids, junior, international player, rookie, playoff

Argument would be easier to make for an Orr, Hasek, etc... (some other position) and value or maybe those 10 time cup winner.

Crosby over Gretzky just does not work, imo, where do you start with it, at least with Orr, Howe, Beliveau, Hasek, some soviet player you can have some angle, but a nhler scoring forward over Gretzky ? Good luck making it.

 

[daver]

I’ve always wondered what those people think about players like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Dan Marino, Steve Young, and dozens of other sports players who didn’t “benefit” from playing today. Marino and Young would thrive in today’s NFL. No reason to think Babe Ruth or Pete Rose wouldn’t be good players. The all time greats transcend

You mean Pete "BET365" Rose. He would have been banned from the current league within two seasons.

 

[DitchMarner]

I’m just representing the argument others are making, at least some are saying others are making it.

The argument lacks the logical consistency to be taken seriously.

It is just a way of picking things that are in his favor against all other parties that have an argument. Granted, you can do the same with other players as well.

"He's better than Howe because he peaked in a time when players were better in general."

But then why is he better than McDavid?

"He has more Cups."

Then why is he better than Gretzky?

"We don't know if Gretzky would be that good today. Crosby has proven capable of playing at a very high level in a more recent time and has proven he can win it all as well."

Then why is he better than Kucherov and MacKinnon?


I mean, you can go on and on in circles... it's nonsense.

 

[Fatass]

99
4
66
9
Could argue for several other players at five and Crosby would be one of them.

 

[tinyzombies]

The argument lacks the logical consistency to be taken seriously.

It is just a way of picking things that are in his favor against all other parties that have an argument. Granted, you can do the same with other players as well.

"He's better than Howe because he peaked in a time when players were better in general."

But then why is he better than McDavid?

"He has more Cups."

Then why is he better than Gretzky?

"We don't know if Gretzky would be that good today. Crosby has proven capable of playing at a very high level in a more recent time and has proven he can win it all as well."

Then why is he better than Kucherov and MacKinnon?


I mean, you can go on and on in circles... it's nonsense.

I agree but I’m not piecing together a whole argument, I’m just presenting the arguments of others.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I’m just representing the argument others are making, at least some are saying others are making it.

Once again, it's damned convenient to be throwing out "others are saying" arguments without having to defend them personally.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If no one is personally willing to advocate for this stance, I don't see the point in having a thread where everyone participating agrees.

 

[MXD]

Non.

 

[BenchBrawl]

In terms of complete value to his original franchise Crosby has a case, but then he competes against Howe, Mario and Béliveau.

I think there's a case that Sid gave more to Pittsburgh than Mario since he played for so long and he adapted his game better in his 30's (if they had been contender, I would prefer an old Sid than an old Mario).

But the case is harder to make against Howe and Béliveau, though maybe not impossible.

 

[JackSlater]

Will any player ever have a case?

Is McDavid getting close or he is just having a more injury-free start to his career than Crosby did? Or did he just hit the ground running whereas Jagr, whose peak is similar to McDavid's, needed three more seasons to really hit his prime.

Are all three of these players on a Howe-like level of offensive dominance as a strict statistical assessment would show or are they closer to Hull/Beliveau/Richard; clear #2 in their era?

Sure, someone will have a case sometime. These things happen and sometimes in bunches, but we don't need to declare someone the best ever just due to time passing.

I don't think that McDavid is a realistic candidate to be best ever, peak just isn't high enough and I assume he won't have otherworldly longevity simply because almost no one does.

I do consider Jagr, Crosby, and McDavid peers in the all time sense. I even get the argument for Howe being one of those players, but he's very likely the best one because he could maintain that level for so long and was fairly well rounded as well.

I think that the best argument for Crosby all time is if someone were to focus exclusively on career value. You could argue that he passes or will pass Orr and Lemieux in that regard. But then he still isn't getting ahead of Gretzky or Howe, and Bourque might become a problem as well. I cannot see any way of viewing things where Crosby is higher than #3, and I can't imagine an argument that someone could engineer to put him ahead of Gretzky with his peak/longevity combination.

 

[buffalowing88]

Not even remotely close.

I think an argument could be made for him being the best two-way player, but you've gotta do some mental gymnastics.

If I were to say that his two-way play is better than that of, say, Lemieux, that would be true in the sense that he's better with defensive responsibilities. Lemieux may be better offensively by a sizable margin, but is that margin equal for Crosby's gap lead in defensive play?

That's just an example, but I think when people say Bergeron or Gainey or the Selke-type guys, they forget the significance of TWO, in two-way. When a guy can score at a high level and still play well in the defensive aspects for two decades, that's certainly something.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I’m just representing the argument others are making, at least some are saying others are making it.

Who’s making these arguments, you haven’t made a case for the arguments, or shown anyone that is, or for Crosby being first.
I haven’t read a post that’s agreeing with you yet.

 

[DitchMarner]

I think an argument could be made for him being the best two-way player, but you've gotta do some mental gymnastics.

If I were to say that his two-way play is better than that of, say, Lemieux, that would be true in the sense that he's better with defensive responsibilities. Lemieux may be better offensively by a sizable margin, but is that margin equal for Crosby's gap lead in defensive play?

That's just an example, but I think when people say Bergeron or Gainey or the Selke-type guys, they forget the significance of TWO, in two-way. When a guy can score at a high level and still play well in the defensive aspects for two decades, that's certainly something.

Is he better at impacting five on five or even strength goal differential than a guy like Bobby Clarke, though, if that's all one really wants to concern themselves with?

How about Gretzky? Plus/minus isn't the greatest stat, but his plus/minus numbers in certain prime seasons stand out to the extent that you can reasonably infer his overall net impact at even strength was very strong. In fact, I'm not sure Crosby comes much closer to it than he does to his scoring. Yes, he had guys like Kurri to insulate him defensively and his team let him play to his strengths, but is a guy like Kurri so hard to find that it would be impossible to re-create a similar ideal situation for a guy like Wayne? Look at what Hyman is doing in EDM.

 

[tinyzombies]

Sure, someone will have a case sometime. These things happen and sometimes in bunches, but we don't need to declare someone the best ever just due to time passing.

I don't think that McDavid is a realistic candidate to be best ever, peak just isn't high enough and I assume he won't have otherworldly longevity simply because almost no one does.

I do consider Jagr, Crosby, and McDavid peers in the all time sense. I even get the argument for Howe being one of those players, but he's very likely the best one because he could maintain that level for so long and was fairly well rounded as well.

I think that the best argument for Crosby all time is if someone were to focus exclusively on career value. You could argue that he passes or will pass Orr and Lemieux in that regard. But then he still isn't getting ahead of Gretzky or Howe, and Bourque might become a problem as well. I cannot see any way of viewing things where Crosby is higher than #3, and I can't imagine an argument that someone could engineer to put him ahead of Gretzky with his peak/longevity combination.

Some people are wondering:

Let’s say it’s Sept 1992 and you get to choose any player from history- as they are. You can reach into the future to present day.

Who do you take first overall?

 

[MadLuke]

I think an argument could be made for him being the best two-way player, but you've gotta do some mental gymnastics.

Over players like Bobby Orr that sound really joints bending mental gymnastics.

 

[JackSlater]

Some people are wondering:

Let’s say it’s Sept 1992 and you get to choose any player from history- as they are. You can reach into the future to present day.

Who do you take first overall?

As an 18 year old? Probably Orr. But there are only three other answers I can wrap my head around, and Crosby is not one of them.

I think an argument could be made for him being the best two-way player, but you've gotta do some mental gymnastics.

If I were to say that his two-way play is better than that of, say, Lemieux, that would be true in the sense that he's better with defensive responsibilities. Lemieux may be better offensively by a sizable margin, but is that margin equal for Crosby's gap lead in defensive play?

That's just an example, but I think when people say Bergeron or Gainey or the Selke-type guys, they forget the significance of TWO, in two-way. When a guy can score at a high level and still play well in the defensive aspects for two decades, that's certainly something.

I think that "two way play" is a bit of a cop out that people use, since Gretzky is a better two way player than almost anyone ever because his offensive edge is so large it mitigates whatever defence he didn't play. But even if we limit it to players who are good both ways and choose to accept Crosby in their ranks, Orr is obviously the best player who was elite offensively and defensively. If we loosen the definition then Howe by reputation has Crosby beaten as well. And that's being generous and including Crosby as a candidate.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Some people are wondering:

Let’s say it’s Sept 1992 and you get to choose any player from history- as they are. You can reach into the future to present day.

Who do you take first overall?

Probably one of Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, or Hasek.