Better career crosby vs ovechkin

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At age 20, Crosby was just as, if not more, accomplished than Wayne and Mario as a junior player and was the only one with an Art Ross and Hart. I would say that creates some doubt.

This is false.

In his age 19 season, Gretzky won the Hart and lost the Art Ross on a tiebreaker. In his age 20 season, Gretzky won the Art Ross and his second Hart.

I can't believe you made this mistake again, considering how often you compare Crosby to Greztky

 

[Plural]

Yet you added first team all-stars to your post, which Ovechkin only has so many of because he is a winger.

No matter what position he plays, he would have at least three 1st team All-Star selections and few more 2nd teams.

 

[daver]

This is false.

In his age 19 season, Gretzky won the Hart and lost the Art Ross on a tiebreaker. In his age 20 season, Gretzky won the Art Ross and his second Hart.

I can't believe you made this mistake again, considering how often you compare Crosby to Greztky

I meant when Wayne, Mario and Crosby each hit their 20th B-day, Crosby was more accomplished. The point still remains that I don't think you can say he was not at their level without a doubt until a couple years later.

 

[Plural]

I meant when Wayne, Mario and Crosby each hit their 20th B-day, Crosby was more accomplished. The point still remains that I don't think you can say he was not at their level without a doubt until a couple years later.

Exactly one year later it was very obvious that Crosby wasn't on Gretzky level. I think it was pretty obvious even in his rookie year. But his sophomore season was really great. I personally prefer to compare Crosby's sophomore season to Gretzky's. I think you are too hung up on months. If every player would have the same timeline and background, the keen interest on birthdays would be understandable. But that is not the case. Crosby was 19 in his sophomore season, Gretzky was 20. Is it really that big of a difference?

 

[Rhiessan71]

First you tell me what Crosby's totals would have been in his 3 injury shortened years. You are the one who brought it up.

No I didn't.
This all revolves back to your statement that Crosby's Art Ross win is the most dominant since Jagr.
So I ask again, why skip Malkin's 2012 Art Ross win with that statement?
Why is Crosby's win this season more dominant than Malkin's 2012 win?
Simple question.

I meant when Wayne, Mario and Crosby each hit their 20th B-day, Crosby was more accomplished. The point still remains that I don't think you can say he was not at their level without a doubt until a couple years later.

By Gretzky's actual 20th Bday, he was already 3/5's of the way through his 3rd professional season. He had lost the Art Ross and the Calder on technicalities the year before and was holding an 8 point lead in the Art Ross race with 83 points in 47 games. An Art Ross he would go on to win by a whopping 29 points, setting a new NHL single season points record and collecting the Hart.

Before Gretzky's 21rst Bday he had already won his second Art Ross sitting with 149 points (Bossy would end up second with 147), had already scored a record 50 goals in just 39 games and was about to shatter both Esposito's record for goals in a season of 76 by a ridiculous 16 goals. Shatter the single season points record he set the year previous by an incredible 48 points and become the first player in NHL history to break the 200 point plateau. He would win the Art Ross, Hart and Pearson with ease.

I most definitely think we could say that Gretzky by 20 was more accomplished than Crosby by 20, like not even close kinda think!

That should just about do it for that silly narrative heh

The Mario narrative I could give 2 ***** about.
He wasn't even allowed to play in the NHL until he was about to turn 19 and he was going up against Gretzky in his ultimate peak for any awards.

 

[87CROSBYBEST87]

Short and Simple; CROSBY- 100% of the time...

 

[Regal]

No matter what position he plays, he would have at least three 1st team All-Star selections and few more 2nd teams.

If he played center, there's a decent chance he would have been second team to Malkin in '09. It's just so tough to compare all stars at center to all stars at wing, they really should have just made it top three forwards.

 

[illpucks]

Ovechkin has had the better career. He has a clear edge in the individual trophy case, and early in his career was clearly the better player. Even though he is on a terrible team and having a terrible year, he is still winning trophies.

Crosby has 1 Stanley Cup, where he didn't win the Conn Smythe, and 2 Olympic Gold where he was not in the top 3 players on his team. Penguins>Capitals and Canada>>>Russia so you cannot fault Ovechkin in that area. Don Cherry of all people said that you put him on Team Canada and he would dominate. Put him on a better team and he wins the cup.

Also, despite all the talk about Crosby being one of the best teenage players ever on HFboards, Ovechkin won the Calder trophy!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If he played center, there's a decent chance he would have been second team to Malkin in '09. It's just so tough to compare all stars at center to all stars at wing, they really should have just made it top three forwards.

Given that Ovechkin won the Hart in an absolute landslide (along with the Pearson/Lindsay), I doubt it

 

[Regal]

Given that Ovechkin won the Hart in an absolute landslide (along with the Pearson/Lindsay), I doubt it

Hart doesn't say much when Crosby was on Malkin's team. They were definitely close as players that year.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Hart doesn't say much when Crosby was on Malkin's team. They were definitely close as players that year.

What does that even mean???

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ovechkin has had the better career. He has a clear edge in the individual trophy case, and early in his career was clearly the better player. Even though he is on a terrible team and having a terrible year, he is still winning trophies.

Clearly is a real problem word here and while the Caps weren't a great team when AO first played there, they were is way better shape than Sid's Pens right?

In each of the first 2 seaosn both guys are still really close, overall and it's not until the 3rd season and an injury were one can claim any real edge to AO between the 2 guys.

Crosby has 1 Stanley Cup, where he didn't win the Conn Smythe, and 2 Olympic Gold where he was not in the top 3 players on his team. Penguins>Capitals and Canada>>>Russia so you cannot fault Ovechkin in that area.

No Sid didn't win the Conn Smythe but he had a Conn Smythe worthy playoffs and when Dats came back in that final series it was Sid who was shadowed (and thus feared more, not Malkin the CS winner).

Also really not one of the top 3 players on each of those Olympic teams? yet another real stretch here as there really isn't any player who clearly was better than Sid in either Olympics.

And Yes Canada is better than Russia but AO simply went all Joe Thorton like (at least in the perception of many from another thread for Joe).

Go take a close look at both AO in the playoffs, international play and the Olympics and Sid is clearly the better player, and the separation is much more clear than your stated perception of AO and Sid in their early years, were only injuries separate them at all and in fact Sid is clearly better in the PPG pace over a huge number of games sample (over 500)

Don Cherry of all people said that you put him on Team Canada and he would dominate. Put him on a better team and he wins the cup.

Cherry says alot of things but I doubt he has ever said that AO has had the better overall career.

Also, despite all the talk about Crosby being one of the best teenage players ever on HFboards, Ovechkin won the Calder trophy!

Yes AO did but just like chicks dig the long ball in baseball (famous Atltana Braves SP commercial) some voters really liked goal scoring that year.

But really there is a strong case for AO and Sid being equals in their rookie years right?

Even with that only a guy named Wayne had a better overall (regular seasons, playoffs overall play ect...) first 2 seasons (teenage, or otherwise) in the history of NHL hockey.

 

[Rhiessan71]

But really there is a strong case for AO and Sid being equals in their rookie years right?

You mean besides Ov being a rookie 50 goal scorer

Even with that only a guy named Wayne had a better overall (regular seasons, playoffs overall play ect...) first 2 seasons (teenage, or otherwise) in the history of NHL hockey.

No no, not so fast.
The second you change the criteria from actual age to first 2 seasons things change DRASTICALLY!

Just off the top of my head...
Orr
Potvin
Selanne
Lemeiux
Bossy
Stastny
Bure
Forsberg
Lindros
Malkin

 

[daver]

You're right, Crosby has clearly been the better player over the last 4 seasons.
He's been the better player 63% of the time
And you know what I'm going to say when you or anyone else brings up Crosby's injuries and try to give him credit for that missed time...yep, you guessed it, "tough nuggets".

The same "tough nuggets" that's applied to Malkin, Tavares and Stamkos this year, right?

Or do you acknowledge Crosby's most dominant Art Ross win since Jagr?

No I didn't.
This all revolves back to your statement that Crosby's Art Ross win is the most dominant since Jagr.
So I ask again, why skip Malkin's 2012 Art Ross win with that statement?
Why is Crosby's win this season more dominant than Malkin's 2012 win?
Simple question.

Here's where you opened the door to counting only points that were earned, not paced out. Remember?

So using YOUR context of not giving credit for missed games, Crosby's win this year is the most dominant since Jagr.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You mean besides Ov being a rookie 50 goal scorer



No no, not so fast.
The second you change the criteria from actual age to first 2 seasons things change DRASTICALLY!

Just off the top of my head...
Orr
Potvin
Selanne
Lemeiux
Bossy
Stastny
Bure
Forsberg
Lindros
Malkin

Really as much as I like a lot of guys on that list, it's a weak argument that any of them had as much impact as Sid did in their first 2 years.

Mario has a case statistically but not in terms of overall play and terms of impact to his team as Sid's Penguins made the playoffs in year 2 and Mario's team didn't, despite having some decent talent and experience.

Maybe you need to go back and look at how dominant Sid was in his first 2 years in the league

06- 6th in NHL scoring and 54 points more than his next team mate (almost double 104-58)

07 1st in NHL scoring and 35 points more than his next best team mate.

Looking at that list above only Mario is in the same league and his 2 way game wasn't as good as Sid's was in their respective first 2 years in the league.

I'm not sure if you actually researched those names listed above but they simply don't stack up.

Heck it's funny you mention Orr when he played in only 71% of his teams games right?

 

[Regal]

What does that even mean???

The Hart isn't a best player trophy, even if it leans that way, so just looking at the Hart wouldn't tell us who would beat the other for an All Star spot. They were the two best players in the league that year, but the fact that Crosby was fully healthy and on Malkin's team, means Ovechkin made more sense for the Hart. Ovechkin did win the Lindsay, but we don't know how close that vote was, and the players don't always agree with the writers.

The whole point was just that comparing All Stars at wing to center doesn't really show us anything considering the talent disparity, and that there's no guarantee Ovechkin would even have three first teams at center.

 

[livewell68]

First you tell me what Crosby's totals would have been in his 3 injury shortened years. You are the one who brought it up.

We're not talking about Crosby's 3 injury seasons. We are talking about Malkin in 2010-11 vs. Crosby this season. Malkin missed 10 games and still won the Art Ross by 13 Pts. Malkin still won the Art Ross. Crosby didn't win any Art Ross trophies during his 3 injury seasons.

Malkin was a 50 goals scorer on top of that. Crosby's season is nowhere near as dominant as Malkin's season was. While we're at it, Ovechkin's 65 goals campaign is also more dominant. When Crosby doesn't have to directly compete against Malkin and Stamkos because of their significant missed then no it's not as dominant.

Malkin's 2010-11 season is the most dominant since Jagr's in 1998-99, period.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

We're not talking about Crosby's 3 injury seasons. We are talking about Malkin in 2010-11 vs. Crosby this season. Malkin missed 10 games and still won the Art Ross by 13 Pts. Malkin still won the Art Ross. Crosby didn't win any Art Ross trophies during his 3 injury seasons.

Malkin was a 50 goals scorer on top of that. Crosby's season is nowhere near as dominant as Malkin's season was. While we're at it, Ovechkin's 65 goals campaign is also more dominant. When Crosby doesn't have to directly compete against Malkin and Stamkos because of their significant missed then no it's not as dominant.

Malkin's 2010-11 season is the most dominant since Jagr's in 1998-99, period.

Malkins 2011-2012 season he didn't directly compete against a prime Crosby so thats a double standard. Crosby was first in ppg this season so either way he wins the art ross

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

You mean besides Ov being a rookie 50 goal scorer

A 20 year old 50 goal scorer; behind Simpson, Gretzky, and Larouche in those regards. Less impressive than being just 1 point behind Hawerchuk for the most points as an 18 year old ever - especially considering the gap (15 points) between Crosby and #3, Yzerman.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Here's where you opened the door to counting only points that were earned, not paced out. Remember?

Dude...you have been arguing for Crosby's place among and above the best based on pace long before I said anything.

So using YOUR context of not giving credit for missed games, Crosby's win this year is the most dominant since Jagr.

Again, it's not my criteria and I'm just looking for a simple answer to a simple question.
Why do you consider Malkin's '12 Art Ross below Crosby's from this season?
What makes it so much more dominant?

Malkin missed 7 games yet still beat out Stamkos by 12 points despite Stamkos playing all 82 games AND it being Steven's highest scoring season in the NHL ever.
Malkin produced 1.45 PpG to Stamkos' 1.18 and he did that without much help from Crosby who only played 22 games.

Vs

Crosby who played 80 games and beat Getzlaf who missed 5 games, by 17 points.
Getzlaf, who has never had more than 91 points in a season or finished higher than 6th previously.
Crosby produced 1.30 PpG to Getzlaf's 1.13
Crosby also had the help of Malkin for 3/4's of the season.


Summing up...Crosby played more games than second place while Malkin played less games than second place.

A 2014 Crosby would have beat a 2012 Stamkos by only 7 points while playing 80 games, yet Malkin beat that same 2012 Stamkos by 12 points while only playing 75 games.
Expanding this further, a 2012 Malkin beats a 2014 Crosby by 5 points despite Malkin playing 5 less games.
Hmmmmmmm

Sorry, I just can't view Crosby's Art Ross this year above Malkin's 2012 win in anything other than pure raw total difference devoid of any kind of context.

 

[Plural]

If he played center, there's a decent chance he would have been second team to Malkin in '09. It's just so tough to compare all stars at center to all stars at wing, they really should have just made it top three forwards.

TDMM said it already.

 

[Plural]

The Hart isn't a best player trophy, even if it leans that way, so just looking at the Hart wouldn't tell us who would beat the other for an All Star spot. They were the two best players in the league that year, but the fact that Crosby was fully healthy and on Malkin's team, means Ovechkin made more sense for the Hart. Ovechkin did win the Lindsay, but we don't know how close that vote was, and the players don't always agree with the writers.

The whole point was just that comparing All Stars at wing to center doesn't really show us anything considering the talent disparity, and that there's no guarantee Ovechkin would even have three first teams at center.

There might not be no guarantee, but it sure as hell is likely.

When a guy wins the Hart in a landslide and the Peasron you still wan't to second guess if he would be 1st team all-star?

If we are going to analyze the situation, there is only one plausible scenario. Ovechkin is 1st Team All-Star that year. Nothing else makes sense.

 

[Plural]

A 20 year old 50 goal scorer; behind Simpson, Gretzky, and Larouche in those regards. Less impressive than being just 1 point behind Hawerchuk for the most points as an 18 year old ever - especially considering the gap (15 points) between Crosby and #3, Yzerman.

Didn't realize it was Yzerman at third. I question the importance of these kind of accomplishments. It seems that scoring the most points as 18 year old is not that important thing. Not only does the player need to play in the NHL at the age of 18, he needs to be put in a team where that teenager is given free reigns. Not that common.

But nevertheless, it's always cool when someone can beat Yzerman in something. He was an all-time great.

 

[Pominville Knows]

But nevertheless, it's always cool when someone can beat Yzerman in something. He was an all-time great.

Not only that. Crosby will top Yzerman career-wise.

 

[Plural]

Not only that. Crosby will top Yzerman career-wise.

Barring career ending injury, that is a safe bet to make. He is better than Yzerman, outside of maybe one season.

I see Crosby closer to Trottier/Messier than Yzerman. Although the margins are small.