Better career crosby vs ovechkin

[Hardyvan123]

It took him 17 years, actually until 2012-13, he was well above PPG, of course playing in a deep playoff run at age 41 on a new team with no chemistry helped to lower his career playoff PPG to below PPG.

Jagr's PPG was not as high due to also being a 19 year old rookie playing on the 4th line in a long playoff run to start his career.

Take away his rookie season and his last season in the playoffs and his PPG is just as impressive. He played in 156 playoffs games outside of his first and last playoffs and registered 176 Pts. Of course I will be accused of cherry picking stats but you cannot compare a player playing 1st line minutes to a player playing 3rd and 4th line minutes.

Jagr's PPG in the playoffs never started to drop until he was past his 30's. Crosby is not near 30 years old and already his PPG is dropping while having played less games in the same timeframe.

Over the past 4 playoff runs when Crosby is supposed to be in his prime, he's scored 49 Pts in 42 games. I bet if we were to look at Jagr's PPG in the playoffs during his prime, things would look a lot more impressive for # 68.

Once again this is a bad stretch for him?

See how he stacks up maybe, his 1.17 PPG leads everyone who matters.

What 4 year consecutive period of AO, or heck even Jagr stacks up to that?

easy answer pretty much none.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

lmao this livewell68 guy is trying to discredit Crosbys art ross win from this season because Malkin stamkos and tavares were injured ignoring the fact that Crosby led the league in ppg so he would have won the Art ross regardless. Saying Malkins 2012 art ross win was more impressive and dominant while ignoring that a prime Crosby missed basically the entire season but still had 37 points in 22 games 1.68 ppg that alone gives Malkins art ross that year and asterisk. Then talking about Ovechkins art ross from 08. Thats the season where Crosby was the leagues leading scorer anda first in ppg before getting injured half way through the season right.... so add another asterisk to Ovechkins only Art ross win. Cmon now your posts are a joke. Crosby being injured is a lot more significant than tavares..lmao tavares and stamkos... who has never hit 100 points in his career being injured. As for Malkin this year he had a significant less ppg than Crosby 1.20 to 1.30 for Crosby.....

 

[livewell68]

lmao this livewell68 guy is trying to discredit Crosbys art ross win from this season because Malkin stamkos and tavares were injured ignoring the fact that Crosby led the league in ppg so he would have won the Art ross regardless. Saying Malkins 2012 art ross win was more impressive and dominant while ignoring that a prime Crosby missed basically the entire season but still had 37 points in 22 games 1.68 ppg that alone gives Malkins art ross that year and asterisk. Then talking about Ovechkins art ross from 08. Thats the season where Crosby was the leagues leading scorer anda first in ppg before getting injured half way through the season right.... so add another asterisk to Ovechkins only Art ross win. Cmon now your posts are a joke. Crosby being injured is a lot more significant than tavares..lmao tavares and stamkos... who has never hit 100 points in his career being injured. As for Malkin this year he had a significant less ppg than Crosby 1.20 to 1.30 for Crosby.....

I would learn to use proper spelling and grammar if I were you for starters. As for the whole "injury" card.

Crosby playing 22 games in 2011-12 after sitting a whole year to recover and rest (therefore meaning he played at or near 100%) is not the same thing as Malkin missing 20 games here and there during the season, having his PPG actually drop when coming back and playing hurt down the stretch. Malkin actually had a PPG of 1.28 before getting injured. At that pace, he was near Crosby and it's anyone's bet if Malkin would have actually played better down the stretch had he been close to or at 100% healthy. There is this thing called the quality of games you play. I would wager that a player would play better when 100% healthy or close to it as opposed to playing while hurt.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I would learn to use proper spelling and grammar if I were you for starters. As for the whole "injury" card.

Crosby playing 22 games in 2011-12 after sitting a whole year to recover and rest (therefore meaning he played at or near 100%) is not the same thing as Malkin missing 20 games here and there during the season, having his PPG actually drop when coming back and playing hurt down the stretch. Malkin actually had a PPG of 1.28 before getting injured. At that pace, he was near Crosby and it's anyone's bet if Malkin would have actually played better down the stretch had he been close to or at 100% healthy. There is this thing called the quality of games you play. I would wager that a player would play better when 100% healthy or close to it as opposed to playing while hurt.

All speculation. Both Ovechkin and Malkin have won Art rosses while Crosby was injured and had a higher or similar ppg average. Thats the ultimate asterisk this era. Crosby is a two time MVP respect him like you do your favourite player the 1 time MVP Jagr.

 

[livewell68]

Once again this is a bad stretch for him?

See how he stacks up maybe, his 1.17 PPG leads everyone who matters.

What 4 year consecutive period of AO, or heck even Jagr stacks up to that?

easy answer pretty much none.

Wrong and in fact it's 5 consecutive years and not just 4.

Between 1995-96 and 1999-00 (Jagr at his best basically) he had 68 Pts in 49 playoff games which is a PPG of 1.39. If you want to add his 1994-95 playoff run as well to give Jagr a similar amount of games played, he scored 83 Pts in 61 playoff games, still a PPG of 1.36 which still beats Crosby's best PPG for a 3 year stretch.

By that token, even during Crosby's 3 best consecutive playoff seasons (I won't even use 4 to penalize him) he was at best a 1.35 PPG player (77 Pts in 57 games).

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Crosby has 2 Lindsay awards, not 3.

He has 1 Hart trophy, not 2.

I'm reasonably certain that both are pretty much a "fait accomplit" this year, making it his 3rd and 2nd, respectively.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Did Crosby ever lose an Art Ross while scoring 149 Pts (20 more than the 3rd leading scorer) to a prime Lemieux?

Crosby has 2 Lindsay awards, not 3.

He has 1 Hart trophy, not 2. By that token then Malkin is a better player since he won a Conn Smythe to Crosby's 0 and has also won 2 Art Ross trophies to Crosby's 2.

Crosby 2 Art rosses... Malkin 2
Crosby Hart 2(you know its true) Malkin 1
Crosby Lindsays 3( you know its true) Malkin 1
Crosby Richards 1...Malkin 0
Smythes Malkin 1 Crosby 0

100 point seasons Crosby 5 Malkin 3

lmao cmon now

 

[Beau Knows]

What does Jagr have to do with this?

-Ovechkin has 3 Harts, Crosby will almost certainly have 2 in a few weeks.

-Ovechkin has 1 Art Ross, Crosby has 2.

-Ovechkin has 3 Lindsays and Crosby will likely be at 3 in a few weeks.

Crosby is 2 years younger and Ovechkin hasn't been nearly as good in recent years as was in his 100 points seasons.

 

[livewell68]

I'm reasonably certain that both are pretty much a "fait accomplit" this year, making it his 3rd and 2nd, respectively.

Which is great and all but the competition has to account for something right?

(Mod)

Back on topic. A peak Ovechkin and Malkin for that matter are ahead of a peak Crosby but because both Malkin and Ovechkin have struggled with injuries and slumps over the past 4 seasons, Crosby has taken the lead in terms of career value.

Even then, all 3 players' trophy count is very similar.

 

[Beau Knows]

Which is great and all but the competition has to account for something right?

Doesn't really matter much here since Ovechkin and Crosby have been in the league for the same seasons.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Which is great and all but the competition has to account for something right?

Many would agree that Jagr was robbed of a Hart in 1999-00 and 2005-06. So if you want to credit Crosby for an Art Ross and Hart in 2012-13 due to injuries then the same should be done for Jagr in 1999-00 right? After all, he still managed to win the Art Ross and Pearson in just 63 games.

As for 1995-96, take Lemieux out of the picture and Jagr wins the Art Ross every single season in the 90's.

Jagr also loses a potential Hart, Rocket Richard and Art Ross in 1996-97 due to injuries. After all, he was actually ahead of Lemieux in both goals and points before a groin injury forced him out of the lineup for 19 games and affected his play down the stretch when he did return. He still finished first in GPG (goals per game) that season and had the 3rd best PPG (Lindros was a 0.01 better while playing in 9 less games).

Back on topic. A peak Ovechkin and Malkin for that matter are ahead of a peak Crosby but because both Malkin and Ovechkin have struggled with injuries and slumps over the past 4 seasons, Crosby has taken the lead in terms of career value.

Even then, all 3 players' trophy count is very similar.

2 harts 2 art rosses 3 lindsays 1 Richard 3 first team all star teams. Assist title this with all his injuires is impressive for Crosby sorry.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Which is great and all but the competition has to account for something right?

Sure. But not so much if they weren't going to come close in a healthy parallel universe, either. What was Stamkos' pace again? 88 points? Malkin still <100, and would never find himself in a larger role than Crosby when healthy anyway?

Backing up, am I reading between the lines that we're supposed to consider prime and healthy Ovechkin/Giroux/Getzlaf as inferior scoring competition compared to years past (I believe Lindros and Sakic were brought up, for example)? They didn't even sniff Crosby's wake this year, ending up with totals right around Stamkos' projected numbers - and slightly behind Malkin's projected numbers.

 

[livewell68]

Sure. But not so much if they weren't going to come close in a healthy parallel universe, either. What was Stamkos' pace again? 88 points? Malkin still <100, and would never find himself in a larger role than Crosby when healthy anyway?

Backing up, am I reading between the lines that we're supposed to consider prime and healthy Ovechkin/Giroux/Getzlaf as inferior scoring competition compared to years past (I believe Lindros and Sakic were brought up, for example)? They didn't even sniff Crosby's wake this year, ending up with totals right around Stamkos' projected numbers - and slightly behind Malkin's projected numbers.

Sakic who had seasons of 120 Pts and 118 Pts? The very same Sakic who scored 100 Pts in 2006-07 at age 37?

How about Lindros who was a 4 time 1.50 PPG player? That very same Lindros?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Sakic who had seasons of 120 Pts and 118 Pts? The very same Sakic who scored 100 Pts in 2006-07 at age 37?

How about Lindros who was a 4 time 1.50 PPG player? That very same Lindros?

Yes. Those guys. They won theirs when they deserved it. How many times has an "also ran" won these trophies when either of those two guys "deserved it" instead? Should we be making a bigger deal about guys like Elias, Jason Allison, and Martin Straka as the main competition in scoring for Jagr/Sakic in '00/01 when Sakic won his Hart/Pearson? Or am I going to see those names start popping up above the Girouxs, Ovechkins, and Getzlafs in future "Top X Players in NHL History" thread?

 

[Beau Knows]

I have already touched upon this earlier this season. When I tried to demonstrate that Crosby tends to beat up on lesser opponents in the first rounds of the playoffs while usually disappearing and being underwhelming in the later rounds when playing tougher opponents, I was laughed at and called a Crosby hater but the stats are undeniable.

I checked to see if this is normal for a star player. Here is another great players numbers done in that same fashion:

Round 1: 113p in 94 games = 1.20ppg
Round 2: 59p in 66 games = 0.89ppg
Round 3: 17p in 26 games = 0.65ppg
Round 4: 10p in 16 games = 0.62 ppg

I think it's pretty tough to use Crosby's splits like that against him given that he is ppg+ player in every round except for the Finals. Meanwhile another future HHOFer has the same trend in his career, except even more extreme. I would like to see you be consistent with your evaluation of those numbers vs Crosby's, instead of making some excuses for why they mean something in Crosby's career, but not in this players career.

Meanwhile here are Ovechkin's stats:

Round 4: 0p in 0 games 0ppg
Round 3: 0p in 0 games = 0ppg
Round 2: 18p in 11 games = 1.63ppg
Round 1: 43p in 47 games = 0.91pgg

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I checked to see if this is normal for a star player. Here is another great players numbers done in that same fashion:

Round 1: 113p in 94 games = 1.20ppg
Round 2: 59p in 66 games = 0.89ppg
Round 3: 17p in 26 games = 0.65ppg
Round 4: 10p in 16 games = 0.62 ppg

I think it's pretty tough to use Crosby's splits like that against him given that he is ppg+ player in every round except for the Finals. Meanwhile another future HHOFer has the same trend in his career, except even more extreme. I would like to see you be consistent with your evaluation of those numbers vs Crosby's, instead of making some excuses for why they mean something in Crosby's career, but not in this players career.

How many examples even exist out there, of guys with enough playoff points to even consider, whose career production measurably ramps up in games 90-100+ of the season, against progessively tougher opponents?

 

[Beau Knows]

How many examples even exist out there, of guys with enough playoff points to even consider, whose career production measurably ramps up in games 90-100+ of the season, against progessively tougher opponents?

Yep, and if you do the sample sizes would be so small in most cases that it would be hard to take anything meaningful out of it.

Crosby has played only 13 games in 2 years in the Finals and against only 1 team, that's a pretty small sample size to use. And in rounds 1-3 he is a ppg+ in each of them, with better ppg in the rounds with more games played.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I checked to see if this is normal for a star player. Here is another great players numbers done in that same fashion:

Round 1: 113p in 94 games = 1.20ppg
Round 2: 59p in 66 games = 0.89ppg
Round 3: 17p in 26 games = 0.65ppg
Round 4: 10p in 16 games = 0.62 ppg

I think it's pretty tough to use Crosby's splits like that against him given that he is ppg+ player in every round except for the Finals. Meanwhile another future HHOFer has the same trend in his career, except even more extreme. I would like to see you be consistent with your evaluation of those numbers vs Crosby's, instead of making some excuses for why they mean something in Crosby's career, but not in this players career.

You mean besides the fact that all of his 16 games in the finals are covered by being his rookie year, his second year in the League and when he was 41 years old?

Like I realise this is going to come as a shock to everyone that Jagr at ages 40-41 was only able to produce 18 points in 33 PO games and that as a rookie was only able to produce 13 points in 24 games
How much does Jagr's rookie season + his 40 and 41 year old seasons skew those numbers of yours.
While at the same time, we're comparing them to Crosby's prime who didn't make the PO's in his rookie year and certain;y hasn't hit 40 years old yet.

 

[daver]

Wrong and in fact it's 5 consecutive years and not just 4.

Between 1995-96 and 1999-00 (Jagr at his best basically) he had 68 Pts in 49 playoff games which is a PPG of 1.39. If you want to add his 1994-95 playoff run as well to give Jagr a similar amount of games played, he scored 83 Pts in 61 playoff games, still a PPG of 1.36 which still beats Crosby's best PPG for a 3 year stretch.

By that token, even during Crosby's 3 best consecutive playoff seasons (I won't even use 4 to penalize him) he was at best a 1.35 PPG player (77 Pts in 57 games).

As it likes to be pointed out by another poster, Crosby scores more in earlier rounds. Jagr's stats are, save for one series, from the 1st and 2nd rounds. Also his season with Mario in a higher scoring period needs to be removed as an outlier. (I won't even call you out for not including 2000/01).

If you add in these dynamics, Crosby comes out on top.

 

[Beau Knows]

You mean besides the fact that all of his 16 games in the finals are covered by being his rookie year, his second year in the League and when he was 41 years old?

So then what's the excuse for the 2nd and 3rd rounds also being poor? In his prime he had a 0 point 3rd round, just like Crosby did. Jagr has the majority of his points in the 1st round. Shouldn't that make his playoff numbers highly questionable as well? Or do 1st round series only count against Crosby?

That was the first player I checked, because it had the most ironic results. But I'm sure you can find many great players with these same types of numbers.

 

[Beau Knows]

Yzerman:

4th round: 13 points in 17 games = 0.76ppg
3rd round: 21 points in 29 games = 0.72ppg
1st and 2nd rounds: 151 points in 150 games = 1.006ppg

"He's not the top playoff performer that his points totals make him out to be either. His point totals are padded by a lot of First round mismatches where he has run up his totals and then has dropped off substantially in the following rounds."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yzerman:

4th round: 13 points in 17 games = 0.76ppg
3rd round: 21 points in 29 games = 0.72ppg
1st and 2nd rounds: 151 points in 150 games = 1.006ppg

"He's not the top playoff performer that his points totals make him out to be either. His point totals are padded by a lot of First round mismatches where he has run up his totals and then has dropped off substantially in the following rounds."

Good point. It's easy to pull up stats to make a certain player look bad while ignoring that they show a trend common to many players.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Good point. It's easy to pull up stats to make a certain player look bad while ignoring that they show a trend common to many players.

Except of course to the player that was mentioned vs Crosby in the first place and the player that Crosby was getting accolades for passing, that being Zetterberg

 

[Beau Knows]

Except of course to the player that was mentioned vs Crosby in the first place and the player that Crosby was getting accolades for passing, that being Zetterberg

So we are in agreement that Zetterberg is a great post-season player, while Crosby, Jagr and Yzerman all padded their stats in the first round and thus aren't as good as Zetterberg in the playoffs? Or are great 1st round numbers only an issue with Crosby's career and everyone else gets a pass?

And how does this impact his match up with Ovechkin who has never even played a game in the 3rd or 4th round? Apparently the Crosby-Ovechkin playoff comparison is lopsided enough that we have to compare Crosby to Zetterberg instead of to Ovechkin.

Here are Crosby and Ovechkin's numbers in the 1st 2 rounds:

Crosby:
GP-65 P-83 ppg=1.27

Ovechkin:
GP-61 P-58 ppg=1.05

In only 4 more games Crosby has recorded 25 more points.

It's funny, the stats you posted for Zetterberg don't really say what you think they say anyways:

Round 1: 0.96ppg
Round 2: 1.10ppg(up)
Round 3: 1.05ppg(down)
Round 4: 0.923ppg(down again)
-------------------
Rounds 1-2: 1.01ppg
Rounds 3-4: 1.00ppg(down)

So really Zetterberg's numbers don't actually go up "the deeper he goes", they actually drop 0.01ppg after round 2. He peaks in round 2, not 4.

 

[daver]

Except of course to the player that was mentioned vs Crosby in the first place and the player that Crosby was getting accolades for passing, that being Zetterberg

I don't see where Zetterberg was brought up, and how his stats could be used to boost OV, but all you have showed is that Crosby is far superior in the first round. The rest of the rounds are a wash.

How exactly does that make Zetterberg superior?