Where would you rank Sidney Crosby All Time?

[Ezpz]

If you're looking for longevity he just tied the record for most consecutive ppg seasons lol(17). He's about to be 35 not 30. all of those players you listed are very close to crosby in age(2-3 years).

It's a cherrypicked stat though. Some players played through injury or only played a couple games in a season and had a single season under a point per game but still ended up with tons of points. You also have to consider there's absolutely no way Crosby can get ahead of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and possibly Howe. If he plays four more years does his stat line/impact match up and look better than the other 18 guys ahead of him on the all-time list(or even some below)? Then do you rank Crosby over every single goalie ever and every defenseman not named Orr? Personally I don't, so I don't see how Crosby ever gets top 5 for me unless he has five more PPG seasons and gets to at least 5th all time on the scoring list.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

That's because Mike Gartner was a great goal scorer of his era

Better than Bossy according to your logic.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I'd put him at 5 or 6, but the difference between #4 and #5/6 is as big as the difference between #5/6 and #30. I think McDavid is the only active player who can reasonably distinguish himself from the #5-#15 group of players, with the Crosby/Ovechkin/Jagr/ect group.

Also, am I missing something with Beliveau that makes people argue him for the #5 slot? He had a boatload of cups, but his individual awards are less than Crosby's (2 Harts, 1 Art Ross, 1 Smythe and 2 Richards if the award existed). He regularly played on a team with like 5-10 HOFers. Stan Mikita has as strong of a resume over Beliveau's career, so I'm confused for why he never gets mentioned for that spot.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Crosby has hart finishes of 1,1,2,2,2,2,3,4,5. I don't think we're realizing how hard that actually is to accomplish

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Better than Bossy according to your logic.

Utter nonsense. Don't put words in my mouth

It's a cherrypicked stat though. Some players played through injury or only played a couple games in a season and had a single season under a point per game but still ended up with tons of points. You also have to consider there's absolutely no way Crosby can get ahead of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and possibly Howe. If he plays four more years does his stat line/impact match up and look better than the other 18 guys ahead of him on the all-time list(or even some below)? Then do you rank Crosby over every single goalie ever and every defenseman not named Orr? Personally I don't, so I don't see how Crosby ever gets top 5 for me unless he has five more PPG seasons and gets to at least 5th all time on the scoring list.

Excellent point. Cheers

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'd put him at 5 or 6, but the difference between #4 and #5/6 is as big as the difference between #5/6 and #30. I think McDavid is the only active player who can reasonably distinguish himself from the #5-#15 group of players, with the Crosby/Ovechkin/Jagr/ect group.

Also, am I missing something with Beliveau that makes people argue him for the #5 slot? He had a boatload of cups, but his individual awards are less than Crosby's (2 Harts, 1 Art Ross, 1 Smythe and 2 Richards if the award existed). He regularly played on a team with like 5-10 HOFers. Stan Mikita has as strong of a resume over Beliveau's career, so I'm confused for why he never gets mentioned for that spot.

Beliveau "only" won 2 Harts and an Art Ross, but was a consistent contender for 15 years.

* Beliveau has 8x top 5 point finishes, 12x top 10 in points, 6x top 3 in Hart voting, 9x top 5 in Hart voting. It's an incredible run of longevity to basically be elite from 1954 to 1969 (16 seasons). Hell, he was still a point-per-game two years later in 1970-71, leading the Cup champion Habs in points as a 39 year old. Couple that with a monster peak season in 1955-56.

* He won 10 Cups with the Habs, and can be argued as a top 3 player for probably 5 or 6 of them, and a top 6 player for another 3 (he was hurt in one of the Cups). He would have certainly won another Smythe in 56 if the award existed.

Mikita was an incredibly elite player. He was voted in top 30 on the HoH list and is a consensus top 10 centre of all-time. Where he falters is really in three categories.

* Short prime. 1961-62 is his first elite season, finishing tied for 3rd in scoring. After 1969-70 (9 seasons), he was basically done as an elite player. Scoring skyrocketed in the early 70s, so his raw totals were still high, but he went from being a top 3 forward for 9 years, to being more in the 10-15 range. Besides a 57 game stretch in 1972-73, Mikita was done as an elite player at age 30.

* The Bobby Hull factor. They played on the same team, though mostly on different lines. For those who watched at the time, Bobby Hull was the consensus better player. Coaches matched their top lines against his line, leaving Mikita to feast on weaker rotations. The year of Bobby Hull's first elite/Hart season, Mikita put up 26 points. Hull stayed elite after Mikita began his decline. In 1971-72, Hull's last season before leaving to the WHA, Hull had 50 goals (2nd in NHL) and 93 points (7th in NHL). Mikita only put up 65 points, good for 27th in the league.

While Mikita won 4 Art Rosses to Hull's 3, the more detailed Hart records are much further apart.
Top 3 in Hart voting:
Mikita: 3
Hull: 8

Top 5 in Hart voting
Mikita: 5
Hull: 9

For example, in 1964-65, Mikita won the Art Ross. Bobby Hull won the Hart, and Mikita didn't finish top 5. It's not Mikita's fault, but when the people of the 1960s mostly viewed Hull as superior to Mikita, it's hard for us to rate Mikita over Hull. Especially with Hull's superior longevity.

* Playoffs. The 60s Hawks were stacked and only won 1 Cup. If you take a deeper dive, a lot of their seasons ended with Mikita having a weak playoffs. He was great 1961 and 1962, but was consistently outplayed by Hull afterwards.

1963
Hull: 8 goals, 10 points
Mikita: 3 goals, 5 point

1964
Hull: 2 goals, 7 points
Mikita: 3 goals, 9 points


1965
Hull: 10 goals, 17 points
Mikita: 3 goals, 10 points
Lost in Cup Final

1966
Hull: 2 goals, 4 points
Mikita: 1 goal, 3 points

1967
Hull: 4 goals, 6 points
Mikita: 2 goals, 4 points

1968
Hull: 4 goals, 10 points
Mikita: 5 goals, 12 points

1969 they missed the playoffs

Overall, from Mikita's first elite season to Hull leaving for WHA
Hull: 107 GP 60 G 66A 126P +33
Mikita: 108 GP 41G 66P 107P +6

All with Hull typically taking tougher matchups.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Utter nonsense. Don't put words in my mouth

Oh it is utter nonsense, no doubt.

It's also following your logic.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Beliveau "only" won 2 Harts and an Art Ross, but was a consistent contender for 15 years.

* Beliveau has 8x top 5 point finishes, 12x top 10 in points, 6x top 3 in Hart voting, 9x top 5 in Hart voting. It's an incredible run of longevity to basically be elite from 1954 to 1969 (16 seasons). Hell, he was still a point-per-game two years later in 1970-71, leading the Cup champion Habs in points as a 39 year old. Couple that with a monster peak season in 1955-56.

* He won 10 Cups with the Habs, and can be argued as a top 3 player for probably 5 or 6 of them, and a top 6 player for another 3 (he was hurt in one of the Cups). He would have certainly won another Smythe in 56 if the award existed.

Mikita was an incredibly elite player. He was voted in top 30 on the HoH list and is a consensus top 10 centre of all-time. Where he falters is really in three categories.

* Short prime. 1961-62 is his first elite season, finishing tied for 3rd in scoring. After 1969-70 (9 seasons), he was basically done as an elite player. Scoring skyrocketed in the early 70s, so his raw totals were still high, but he went from being a top 3 forward for 9 years, to being more in the 10-15 range. Besides a 57 game stretch in 1972-73, Mikita was done as an elite player at age 30.

* The Bobby Hull factor. They played on the same team, though mostly on different lines. For those who watched at the time, Bobby Hull was the consensus better player. Coaches matched their top lines against his line, leaving Mikita to feast on weaker rotations. The year of Bobby Hull's first elite/Hart season, Mikita put up 26 points. Hull stayed elite after Mikita began his decline. In 1971-72, Hull's last season before leaving to the WHA, Hull had 50 goals (2nd in NHL) and 93 points (7th in NHL). Mikita only put up 65 points, good for 27th in the league.

While Mikita won 4 Art Rosses to Hull's 3, the more detailed Hart records are much further apart.
Top 3 in Hart voting:
Mikita: 3
Hull: 8

Top 5 in Hart voting
Mikita: 5
Hull: 9

For example, in 1964-65, Mikita won the Art Ross. Bobby Hull won the Hart, and Mikita didn't finish top 5. It's not Mikita's fault, but when the people of the 1960s mostly viewed Hull as superior to Mikita, it's hard for us to rate Mikita over Hull. Especially with Hull's superior longevity.

* Playoffs. The 60s Hawks were stacked and only won 1 Cup. If you take a deeper dive, a lot of their seasons ended with Mikita having a weak playoffs. He was great 1961 and 1962, but was consistently outplayed by Hull afterwards.

1963
Hull: 8 goals, 10 points
Mikita: 3 goals, 5 point

1964
Hull: 2 goals, 7 points
Mikita: 3 goals, 9 points


1965
Hull: 10 goals, 17 points
Mikita: 3 goals, 10 points
Lost in Cup Final

1966
Hull: 2 goals, 4 points
Mikita: 1 goal, 3 points

1967
Hull: 4 goals, 6 points
Mikita: 2 goals, 4 points

1968
Hull: 4 goals, 10 points
Mikita: 5 goals, 12 points

1969 they missed the playoffs

Overall, from Mikita's first elite season to Hull leaving for WHA
Hull: 107 GP 60 G 66A 126P +33
Mikita: 108 GP 41G 66P 107P +6

All with Hull typically taking tougher matchups.

After looking over what you posted for Beliveau, there is really no reasoning to have him ahead of Crosby when you take into account the size of the league.

Crosby has 9 top-5 point finishes, and it is simply much more difficult to finish higher when there is a larger pool of players who can compete for the scoring title. At most there are 4 forwards per team who get #1 PP time * 6 teams = 24, but in practice this is significantly lower, due to linemates and the large gap in quality of teams (plus players on great teams never had to play against themselves, which makes a difference in a 6 team league). Just by being the 1C on the Canadiens, Beliveau was automatically a top 10 scorer as long as he was healthy, regardless of his individual performance.

Plus 3 Cups in a 30 team league is about as impressive as 10 in a 6 team league.

 

[nowhereman]

Plain and simple:

1. You're a Crosby fan

2. Crosby is overrated on the boards

Hey, here's some food for thought. Have you ever thought that, when the overwhelming majority of people disagree with you, it's not them that needs to rethink their bias?

You're about as biased against Sid as anyone I've seen on these boards and that's saying something, since there are posters whose entire brand revolves around tearing the guy down.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

2 harts(6 times top 2) 2 art ross (8 times top 3) 3 lindsays (6 time finalist) 2 richards.... 200 po points with 2 smythes..... throw in a golden goal....throw in a canada cup mvp and this guy is talking about Ron Francis?....... can't fathom it really

 

[wetcoast]

Plain and simple:

1. You're a Crosby fan

2. Crosby is overrated on the boards

How about you skip the personal attacks and try to stick to reality, I know it's hard for some but at least try eh?

I'm a hockey fan and don't like or dislike many players but I do appreciate greatness when I see it.

As for your second point perhaps that's true but it's still no excuse for lazy weak non arguments and personal attacks on those who disagree with your unreasoned and not very well thought out posts.

I'll let you in on a little secret of mine, if I think a player is elite I try to look at it from as many different angles as possible and when said players keeps excelling in metric after metric then yes I do come to the conclusion that he is elite.

When looking at any POV critically one can find that some views hold more weight than others, you should try it and perhaps you might learn something.

 

[wetcoast]

Oh it is utter nonsense, no doubt.

It's also following your logic.

What logic?

 

[NigerianNightmare]

How about you skip the personal attacks and try to stick to reality, I know it's hard for some but at least try eh?

I'm a hockey fan and don't like or dislike many players but I do appreciate greatness when I see it.

As for your second point perhaps that's true but it's still no excuse for lazy weak non arguments and personal attacks on those who disagree with your unreasoned and not very well thought out posts.

I'll let you in on a little secret of mine, if I think a player is elite I try to look at it from as many different angles as possible and when said players keeps excelling in metric after metric then yes I do come to the conclusion that he is elite.

When looking at any POV critically one can find that some views hold more weight than others, you should try it and perhaps you might learn something.

First, you don't have to turn this thread into a chat room and accuse someone you don't know of personal attacks while you yourself are trying to diminish other person's opinion.

I've watched Crosby live. He's one of the best players of this century. But he's not top 10 all-time in my books. You're welcome to rank him as high as you want if that makes you happy.

There are plenty of Crosby fans on the boards that you can share your thoughts with.

 

[wetcoast]

First, you don't have to turn this thread into a chat room and accuse someone you don't know of personal attacks while you yourself are trying to diminish other person's opinion.

I've watched Crosby live. He's one of the best players of this century. But he's not top 10 all-time in my books. You're welcome to rank him as high as you want if that makes you happy.

There are plenty of Crosby fans on the boards that you can share your thoughts with.

No you got it wrong which seems par for the course.

I make arguments on this thing that is a message board, you didn't make an argument you made a personal judgment call on me when you have not a clue.

I personally don't care it just is very weak and not persuasive to any 3rd party looking at the thread topic seriously.

Perhaps you might want to to stop and think about it?

 

[NigerianNightmare]

No you got it wrong which seems par for the course.

I make arguments on this thing that is a message board, you didn't make an argument you made a personal judgment call on me when you have not a clue.

I personally don't care it just is very weak and not persuasive to any 3rd party looking at the thread topic seriously.

Perhaps you might want to to stop and think about it?

Or perhaps you might stop saying things like Crosby is head and shoulders above Malkin as if Malkin is Teddy Blueger. Or that Crosby ranks above all goalies and defencemen except Orr.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Or perhaps you might stop saying things like Crosby is head and shoulders above Malkin as if Malkin is Teddy Blueger. Or that Crosby ranks above all goalies and defencemen except Orr.

That is not an unpopular opinion.

 

[wetcoast]

Or perhaps you might stop saying things like Crosby is head and shoulders above Malkin as if Malkin is Teddy Blueger. Or that Crosby ranks above all goalies and defencemen except Orr.

Well I backed up why Crosby is better offensively than Malkin over the same time period and in that large sample the gap between Crosby and Malkin in PPG was larger than the one between Malkin and the 3rd guy.

I have admitted in the past that goalies are hard to rank with position players and one can make an argument for Hasek there (as I have him #1) but he has some non positives in his resume as well like length of prime and some lack of being a full team player at other times.

But your ranking of Fetisov ahead of Crosby and Francis being close is something that you really didn't support with anything significant.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That's why I rank Crosby (a top 20 all time) ahead of Francis.

Francis faced a lot more competition in those days. Hence, no top 5 Hart finishes

Here's another way of looking at it. In how many seasons would you say Ron Francis was a top ten player in the NHL (excluding Gretzky and Lemieux)?

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Here's another way of looking at it. In how many seasons would you say Ron Francis was a top ten player in the NHL (excluding Gretzky and Lemieux)?

Six

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Six

I'd say Francis was definitely a top ten player in 2002. He probably gets in at the bottom end of the list in 1995 and 1996. Maybe 1990 or 1998 but those would be questionable.

But I think that's the issue. You're comparing someone who was a top ten player maybe five times (and he'd be borderline top ten all of those years except 2002) to someone who was a Hart trophy finalist eight times (and was a vastly better playoff performer). A gap of 25-40 spots isn't close to enough (the gap between Crosby and Sakic/Yzerman is something like 25-30 spots, and Sakic/Yzerman were both way better than Francis).

 

[NigerianNightmare]

I'd say Francis was definitely a top ten player in 2002. He probably gets in at the bottom end of the list in 1995 and 1996. Maybe 1990 or 1998 but those would be questionable.

But I think that's the issue. You're comparing someone who was a top ten player maybe five times (and he'd be borderline top ten all of those years except 2002) to someone who was a Hart trophy finalist eight times (and was a vastly better playoff performer). A gap of 25-40 spots isn't close to enough (the gap between Crosby and Sakic/Yzerman is something like 25-30 spots, and Sakic/Yzerman were both way better than Francis).

This is your opinion which I respect and disagree with.

In my humble opinion, Crosby is maximum 10-12 positions above Sakic and Yzerman who just like Francis played most of their careers in a more competitive version of NHL. They're all within top 35.

I wonder: How would you rate Bobby Clarke in comparison to Crosby?

 

[The Macho King]

Borderline top 10 player for me. I have him outside of it, but really from 5-~15 all time you can make a lot of sound arguments for a bunch of guys and I think he's reasonably in that group.

Crosby's playoffs I view as a positive but not transcendent (a la Beliveau or Roy). His regular season is great but injuries robbed him of some complete seasons at his peak which hurts his trophy case compared to a few of his contemporaries, but depending on how you weigh things, I think you can argue him anywhere from 5 to 15. I have him on the lower end of that, but I tend to value defensemen more than a lot of these lists so that elevates guys like Bourque and Harvey over him while others may come down differently.

 

[jigglysquishy]

This is your opinion which I respect and disagree with.

In my humble opinion, Crosby is maximum 10-12 positions above Sakic and Yzerman who just like Francis played most of their careers in a more competitive version of NHL. They're all within top 35.

I wonder: How would you rate Bobby Clarke in comparison to Crosby?

His voting record is public. His top 10 centres from the initial top 100 list. This is from 2018.

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Beliveau
4. Morenz
5. Crosby
6. Messier
7. Mikita
8. Clarke
9. Nighbor
10. Esposito

For complete transparency sake, my current top 10 centres.

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Beliveau
4. Crosby
5. Morenz
6. Esposito
7. Messier
8. Mikita
9. Clarke
10. Nighbor

 

[Stephen Gionta]

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Crosby
5. Jagr
6. Ovechkin
7. Howe
8. Brodeur
9. Lidstrom
10. Bossy

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This is your opinion which I respect and disagree with.

In my humble opinion, Crosby is maximum 10-12 positions above Sakic and Yzerman who just like Francis played most of their careers in a more competitive version of NHL. They're all within top 35.

I wonder: How would you rate Bobby Clarke in comparison to Crosby?

Yes, agreed - it's a matter of opinion (though some are easier to support than others).

For full transparency, from the list I submitted for the the HOH Top 200 project (in December 2020):

I had Crosby 10th (he would be higher today), Clarke 25th, Sakic 33rd, Yzerman 38th, and Francis 112th. (Not saying that these rankings are set in stone, if someone had Francis 95th or 120th I wouldn't think twice, but I don't see him anywhere close to Sakic/Yzerman, let alone Crosby).