Better career crosby vs ovechkin

[daver]

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.

If you haven't put things into context, what do you call your short story here?

 

[daver]

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

If you consider his career PPG to be "pace" then I agree. Other than that, show me where I have used his pace other than in the same context you use.

 

[daver]

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.

Since you want to give Malkin and Stamkos credit for missed games, what credit do you give Crosby then in his 3 injury seasons?

It's not fair to selectively apply credit for missed games, right?

 

[Regal]

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.

I'm only highlighting the fact that the level of competition is so much higher at center that even his best seasons have competition. Hell, even the next year might have been a tight race between him, Sedin and Crosby depending on how the voters considered his missed games.

 

[Plural]

I'm only highlighting the fact that the level of competition is so much higher at center that even his best seasons have competition. Hell, even the next year might have been a tight race between him, Sedin and Crosby depending on how the voters considered his missed games.

Yeah, the competition is a lot tougher. Doesn't change the fact that Ovechkin would have three first team selections if his seasons would magically transfer to center. A lot closer than his RW/Lw selections, sure. But he would still get those three nods, no doubt.

 

[Fred Taylor]

Crosby is better than Malkin due to his consistency, however Malkins 11-12 season is better than any 70+ game season Crosby has had.

 

[Plural]

Crosby is better than Malkin due to his consistency, however Malkins 11-12 season is better than any 70+ game season Crosby has had.

My thoughts too.

People tend to forget that Crosby isn't miles ahead of everyone in the league. In terms of best ability. But he is easily the most consistent. There is a lot of players who can beat Crosby any given night. But nobody can hang with him all season long. Well, few players used to do that, but since Ovechkin has regressed and Malkin is injured all the time, Crosby is pretty much the only consistent superstar.

 

[Sypher04]

Crosby is better than Malkin due to his consistency, however Malkins 11-12 season is better than any 70+ game season Crosby has had.

Aside from the goal scoring prowess Malkin showed, I think it's pretty debatable that Malkin's 2011-12 season was better than Crosby's first Art Ross season.

 

[livewell68]

Aside from the goal scoring prowess Malkin showed, I think it's pretty debatable that Malkin's 2011-12 season was better than Crosby's first Art Ross season.

This is complete nonsense.

One has to look no further than the overall scoring and the scoring leaders in both seasons to see the big difference.

There were 7 100 + Pts scorers in 2006-07 when Crosby won his first Art Ross and he won it by just 6 Pts.

In 2011-12, Malkin was the only one who scored 100 Pts and he won the Art Ross by 13 Pts and we're not even talking about the fact he played 7 less games than Stamkos did.

Crosby scored 61 of his 120 Pts on the powerplay in 2006-07 (no surprise as he shared that PP time with Malkin).

In 2011-12, Malkin scored 34 Pts of his 109 Pts on the powerplay. Malkin was far and away more dominant.

 

[daver]

This is complete nonsense.

One has to look no further than the overall scoring and the scoring leaders in both seasons to see the big difference.

There were 7 100 + Pts scorers in 2006-07 when Crosby won his first Art Ross and he won it by just 6 Pts.

In 2011-12, Malkin was the only one who scored 100 Pts and he won the Art Ross by 13 Pts and we're not even talking about the fact he played 7 less games than Stamkos did.

Crosby scored 61 of his 120 Pts on the powerplay in 2006-07 (no surprise as he shared that PP time with Malkin).

In 2011-12, Malkin scored 34 Pts of his 109 Pts on the powerplay. Malkin was far and away more dominant.

Load of BS to fit your agenda.

It was a more impressive win aside from the fact that Crosby was 19 at the time. Far and away? Hardly

Crosby missed 3 games so his lead would have been more.

Who cares about PP points ratio. Everyone in 2007 had the same opportunity to score PP points.

Most importantly, let's not forget that if Crosby wasn't injured, Malkin may not even win the Art Ross especially when he would not have had the Pens two best wingers on his line.

 

[livewell68]

Load of BS to fit your agenda.

It was a more impressive win aside from the fact that Crosby was 19 at the time. Far and away? Hardly

Crosby missed 3 games so his lead would have been more.

Who cares about PP points ratio. Everyone in 2007 had the same opportunity to score PP points.

Most importantly, let's not forget that if Crosby wasn't injured, Malkin may not even win the Art Ross especially when he would not have had the Pens two best wingers on his line.

I wonder who is the one trying to push an agenda here?

Powerplay points should be something to look at. Crosby benefited from the crackdown on obstruction in 2007 and turned in his best season in the NHL. It's no wonder he was accused of being a "diver" at the time. Having Malkin and Gonchar on the powerplay might have surely helped don't you think? Crosby was far and away the NHL's powerplay points leader with 61 and the next best player being 54. On the flip side, Crosby was 10th in league scoring at evenstrength. Based on that criteria and the fact that Lecavalier who scored 50 + goals and Thornton both had more evenstrength points, it's safe to say that Crosby wasn't even the clear cut best player in 2006-07. If I remember correctly, a lot were calling Lecavalier the best player in the NHL circa 2007.

Malkin has proven that he is more than capable of leading the Penguins and dominating when he is healthy as indication of his 2 Art Ross trophies, his Hart and his Conn Smythe. As I stand, I will repeat my argument that Malkin was far more dominant in 2011-12 than Crosby was in 2006-07. In fact an old, run down and playing on a bum shoulder for most of the season Jagr wasn't even that far behind Crosby at evenstrength play in 2006-07. Back to Malkin's 2011-12 season, he was the NHL's leader in evenstrength scoring and was 2nd in powerplay points. You tell me who was a better player overall and not just from benefiting on penalty opportunities?

As for the games missed, you refuse to give Malkin credit in 2011-12 for the fact that he won the Art Ross by 12 Pts despite missing 7 games but then want to make this comment?

Crosby missed 3 games so his lead would have been more.

Again I ask you, who is the one trying to push an agenda?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Most importantly, let's not forget that if Crosby wasn't injured, Malkin may not even win the Art Ross especially when he would not have had the Pens two best wingers on his line.

And so there it is eh. Your hypocrisy and double standards are unending.
So Malkin's win isn't as dominant because Crosby was injured yet Crosby's win is dominant despite not only Malkin being injured but so was Stamkos and Tavares.
Yeah...that makes all the sense in the world heh.
Thanks for finally answering though.

Let's try something...
"Most importantly, let's not forget that if Malkin wasn't injured, Crosby may not even win the Art Ross especially when he would not have had the Pens two best wingers on his line."

See what I did there

Too funny!

 

[daver]

And so there it is eh. Your hypocrisy and double standards are unending.
So Malkin's win isn't as dominant because Crosby was injured yet Crosby's win is dominant despite not only Malkin being injured but so was Stamkos and Tavares.
Yeah...that makes all the sense in the world heh.
Thanks for finally answering though.

Let's try something...
"Most importantly, let's not forget that if Malkin wasn't injured, Crosby may not even win the Art Ross especially when he would not have had the Pens two best wingers on his line."

See what I did there

Too funny!

No, using your criteria of not giving credit for missed games, Crosby's win this year is more dominant because he won by a larger amount.

All things considered, IMO, I think Malkin's win in 2012 is more dominant but also believe Crosby would have had just as, if not more, dominant wins in 2011 and 2013.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Still waiting for your reply to how many points you would give Crosby for his missed games.

For what purpose?

 

[livewell68]

Still waiting for your reply to how many points you would give Crosby for his missed games.

It is much easier to project how many points a player can score when he misses 20 games than it is when he misses 40 + games.

This season with all the games Crosby played, he finished with a 1.30 PPG, below his career average that was inflated in those 3 injury riddled seasons and in fact below his then career average of 1.34.

It goes back to my theory that maintaining a high PPG throughout the entire 82 games season is far more difficult than having a high PPG in 20-30 and 40 games stretches.

Crosby started the season with 21 Pts in 13 games in October, and then his season PPG dropped every month.

In fact Crosby finished the season with 29 Pts in his last 26 games. Prior to this season, some claimed that Crosby can never have such a slump and yet he did.

What makes you think that Crosby would have faired any better down the stretch in 2010-11, 2011-12 or 2012-13?

I could easily extrapolate this current season's pace over the last 26 games to 2010-11.

66 Pts in his first 41 games and 46 Pts over his last 41 games = 112 Pts.

37 Pts in 22 games in 2011-12 and 67 Pts in the other 60 games = 104 Pts. Surely Malkin still wins the Art Ross.

56 Pts in 36 games in 2012-13 and 13 Pts in the last 12 games. He wins the Art Ross by 9 Pts over a 37 year old St.Louis.

His numbers don't look so dominating now to they?

 

[daver]

For what purpose?

To show you aren't a hypocrite?

 

[Rhiessan71]

The last time Malkin and Crosby played a full season at the same time...

Malkin had 113 points in 82 games, 1.38 PpG. Won the Art Ross.
Crosby had 103 points in 77 games, 1.34 PpG. Finished 3rd in the Art Ross race also behind second place OV who had 110 points in 79 games, 1.39 PpG



This past season, Crosby has 104 points in 80 games, 1.30 PpG. Malkin was injured for 1/4 of the season, Stamkos missed most of the season as did Tavares and Ov isn't the same player he used to be.
Yet somehow Crosby's Art Ross was the most dominant since Jagr.

Seriously?

 

[Rhiessan71]

To show you aren't a hypocrite?

Please!
I have maintained the same premise through and have applied the exact same criteria to Crosby as I have to Malkin and to Ov.

YOU are the only one that changes the criteria on a player by player basis.
YOU have one way of viewing what Crosby has done or COULD'VE done and a completely different way of viewing everyone else.

 

[Plural]

It wasn't the most dominant. In pure mathematical sense it might be. But in real world, Malkin's win was more impressive. But this was a great season by Crosby. The fact that the biggest offensive players had a lot of problems tarnishes it a bit.

 

[livewell68]

Please!
I have maintained the same premise through and have applied the exact same criteria to Crosby as I have to Malkin and to Ov.

YOU are the only one that changes the criteria on a player by player basis.
YOU have one way of viewing what Crosby has done or COULD'VE done and a completely different way of viewing everyone else.

Pretty much this, diminishing every player's accomplishments while propping up Crosby's.

Mathematically Crosby's gap over the second leading scoring is impressive but contextually, what Malkin did in 2011-12 or what Ovechkin did in 2007-08, 2009-10 or in fact what Henrik Sedin did in 2009-10 are all more impressive than Crosby's 2013-14 season.

As what Tannala mentioned, significant injuries to Tavares, Stamkos and Malkin will taint Crosby's current Art Ross win. He has just finished his 9th full season in the NHL and unfortunately did not reach Jagr's level. He had everything to take that leap and he didn't.

 

[Sypher04]

This is complete nonsense.

One has to look no further than the overall scoring and the scoring leaders in both seasons to see the big difference.

There were 7 100 + Pts scorers in 2006-07 when Crosby won his first Art Ross and he won it by just 6 Pts.

In 2011-12, Malkin was the only one who scored 100 Pts and he won the Art Ross by 13 Pts and we're not even talking about the fact he played 7 less games than Stamkos did.

Crosby scored 61 of his 120 Pts on the powerplay in 2006-07 (no surprise as he shared that PP time with Malkin).

In 2011-12, Malkin scored 34 Pts of his 109 Pts on the powerplay. Malkin was far and away more dominant.

Obviously if you're trying to compare level of dominance over the field, than yeah, how the rest of the players fared production wise is a big factor. Problem is, I didn't say that I thought Crosby's season was more dominant. I said, I thought he had a better season/more impressive.

They are not the same thing, though I can certainly see why you took my comments the way you did.

I also fully appreciate that my opinion may not be shared by others.

 

[livewell68]

Obviously if you're trying to compare level of dominance over the field, than yeah, how the rest of the players fared production wise is a big factor. Problem is, I didn't say that I thought Crosby's season was more dominant. I said, I thought he had a better season/more impressive.

They are not the same thing, though I can certainly see why you took my comments the way you did.

I also fully appreciate that my opinion may not be shared by others.

I will give Crosby credit though for being the last player to hit the 120 Pts. mark in a season. That coupled with the fact that he was a 19 year old sophomore makes it a very impressive feat but it's not more impressive nor a better season than Malkin's in 2011-12. Malkin still played at a 119 Pts pace in a far lower scoring season with far less help than Crosby had in 2006-07. Regardless if Malkin was a rookie in 2006-07, he still contributed a lot to Crosby's PP numbers and overall numbers. In fact Malkin played the first 20 games or so on Crosby's line.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Crosby is ten times the player Ovechkin is, and twice the player Jagr is. That is an undisputable fact gentlemen.

 

[livewell68]

Crosby is ten times the player Ovechkin is, and twice the player Jagr is. That is an undisputable fact gentlemen.

The Yoda has spoken folks. Lets call it a night.

Apparently a player who has only scored 120 Pts once in his career is twice the player who has scored 120 + Pts 4 times in his career is.

Apparently 2 Art Ross trophies is more impressive than 5.

 

[daver]

Please!
I have maintained the same premise through and have applied the exact same criteria to Crosby as I have to Malkin and to Ov.

YOU are the only one that changes the criteria on a player by player basis.
YOU have one way of viewing what Crosby has done or COULD'VE done and a completely different way of viewing everyone else.

By the same criteria you mean:

Crosby missed games? - "Tough Nuggets"

Malkin, Stamkos, Tavares missed games? - "They need to be paced out to show that Crosby's win this year wasn't as great as the difference in points would indicate."

Yeah, sounds about the same.