Big 4: 2 Questions

[daver]

I don't know exactly, you're the one throwing that claim around. I do know that Crosby didn't reach Howe's peak and that Howe was in consideration for best player for as long as Crosby's career has been thus far, and Howe even played almost a full season every year over that span. There is no point comparing Crosby's first 13 years to Howe's first 13 years, and it is very unlikely that Crosby's next 7-8 will match Howe's. Comparing Crosby to Beliveau, Hull and Jagr is far more reasonable.

The link to the Best Player thread is above.

I wasn't comparing their first 13 seasons but here is the data on them:

Howe

1st in points with 904 (2nd - 757, 3rd - 744)
2nd in PPG among Top 10 scorers with 1.07 (1st - 1.16, 3rd - 0.97)
4th in playoff points and 4th in PPG among Top Ten scorers

Crosby

2nd in points with 1113 (1st - 1118, 3rd - 1006)
1st in PPG among Top Ten scorers with 1.29 (2nd - 1.19, 3rd - 1.12)
1st in playoff points and 1st in PPG

Obviously Howe has the raw point advantage in the regular season but Crosby is right there with him in per game performance. Playoffs goes to Crosby.

 

[JackSlater]

The link to the Best Player thread is above.

I wasn't comparing their first 13 seasons but here is the data on them:

Howe

1st in points with 904 (2nd - 757, 3rd - 744)
2nd in PPG among Top 10 scorers with 1.07 (1st - 1.16, 3rd - 0.97)
4th in playoff points and 4th in PPG among Top Ten scorers

Crosby

2nd in points with 1113 (1st - 1118, 3rd - 1006)
1st in PPG among Top Ten scorers with 1.29 (2nd - 1.19, 3rd - 1.12)
1st in playoff points and 1st in PPG

Obviously Howe has the raw point advantage in the regular season but Crosby is right there with him in per game performance. Playoffs goes to Crosby.

Again, there is no comparison between them. Howe's peak is a level above Crosby's and he still racked up Hart and Art Ross trophies even outside of that peak. Crosby would have more trophies if he had better health (an advantage for Howe) but even then you can easily argue that Howe was robbed of two Harts over that span. We're talking about a guy who should have four Hart trophies (if healthy) vs a guy who should probably have eight Hart trophies and was actually healthy in all of those years. Depending on when the period ends I'm not willing to say that Crosby takes the playoff comparison either considering he didn't have to compete against the greatest dynasty in NHL history and he never carried a team to the finals as Howe did. I will say with regard to that last point that it is quite a different animal to bring a team to the finals in a two round playoffs vs a four round playoffs, but by the same token that brevity makes it more difficult for the best players to stand out. Howe also has the best individual run between the two.

For what seems like the fourth or fifth time there is no point comparing Crosby to Howe/Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux. In fact, doing so reeks of desperation and makes those unfortunate people trying to defend Crosby in a reasonable manner look bad. The ship has sailed when it comes to comparing Crosby to the big four. Beliveau, Hull, Jagr (even Hasek, Bourque and Harvey) are the guys who should be focused on. Crosby has no case against Howe or the others in his tier.

 

[daver]

Depending on when the period ends I'm not willing to say that Crosby takes the playoff comparison either considering he didn't have to compete against the greatest dynasty in NHL history and he never carried a team to the finals as Howe did. I will say with regard to that last point that it is quite a different animal to bring a team to the finals in a two round playoffs vs a four round playoffs, but by the same token that brevity makes it more difficult for the best players to stand out. Howe also has the best individual run between the two.

A reasonable comparison of playoff runs is Crosby's 2nd and 3rd round in 2009 (10 goals, 20 points in 11 games) vs. Howe's (9 goals, 20 points in 11 games.

In their first 13 seasons, Crosby's best runs are 2nd, T9 and T9 in playoff points. Howe's best runs are 1st, T23, T31.

Not sure why you think Crosby doesn't take the playoff comparison. Narrative such as "dynasties" and "carrying a team" should not override statistical superiority. I can easily point out that Crosby "carried" his team in couple of series but only to the 2nd round so that apparently doesn't count.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

daver, I wouldn't just "give" the playoffs comparison to Crosby. It's pretty obvious that Crosby's advantage was his fast start to his career. Howe started off his post-season career with 2 points in 15 games. Looking at multi-round playoff runs, and adjusting for both opponent GA and percent of offense generated by first-liners (using methodology described here):

Sidney Crosby: 1.10 adj. points/game (best 5)

Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
2010	14	238	5	223		200		200	28.9%	11.3	4.3	0.0	0.0	13	16	1.20
2008	8	247	6	199	7	233	6	184	29.4%	6.1	5.7	5.7	6.1	20	24	1.18
2017	7	195	7	182	6	214	7	224	27.7%	7.2	7.7	5.6	6.3	24	27	1.11
2009	8	238	13	245	7	226	3	244	29.6%	6.3	9.9	5.8	2.3	24	24	1.01
2013	9	237	6	178	0	186		200	27.5%	7.6	6.8	0.0	0.0	14	14	1.03
2016	8	217	2	193	5	201	4	210	27.7%	7.4	2.1	5.0	3.8	24	18	0.76

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gordie Howe (first 13 seasons): 1.13 adj. points/game (best 5)

Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
1955		200		200	8	158	12	184	32.9%	0.0	0.0	8.5	11.0	11	19	1.77
1956		200		200	6	212	6	153	34.3%	0.0	0.0	4.6	6.3	10	11	1.09
1949		200		200	9	172	2	220	29.6%	0.0	0.0	9.8	1.7	11	11	1.04
1952		200		200	4	184	3	192	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.9	8	7	0.87
1954		200		200	6	153	3	165	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.7	3.1	12	10	0.82

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In terms of playoffs in their first 13 seasons, you can go either way depending on whether you want the best post-season (Howe) or if you would rather have more point-per-game post-seasons (5 for Crosby, 3 for Howe). The adj. points/game for the best five multi-round post-seasons in their first 13 years is 1.13 for Howe and 1.10 for Crosby, so slight edge to Howe thanks to that one huge playoff run.

What Howe would proceed to do is score 50 points in 36 post-season games in his age 32, 34, and 35 years, leading in points three more times and goals once more. What Crosby will do has yet to be written.

That being said, I am surprised by how well Crosby stacks up. I had low-key forgotten that three of Howe's best post-seasons came later in his career.

Also, for those curious:

Spoiler

Wayne Gretzky (first 13 seasons): 1.67 adj. points/game (best 5)

Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
1981	11	238	10	267		200		200	26.9%	9.5	7.7	0.0	0.0	9	17	1.92
1985	5	334	13	340	18	306	11	247	27.2%	3.0	7.8	12.0	9.1	18	32	1.77
1983	8	341	14	325	12	275	4	232	26.6%	4.9	9.0	9.1	3.6	16	27	1.66
1988	11	318	6	313	13	276	13	257	27.6%	6.9	3.8	9.5	10.1	19	30	1.60
1989	13	314	9	232		200		200	28.5%	8.1	7.6	0.0	0.0	11	16	1.42
1986	6	341	13	323		200		200	27.2%	3.6	8.2	0.0	0.0	10	12	1.18
1984	5	383	13	322	10	353	7	276	26.7%	2.7	8.4	5.9	5.3	19	22	1.17
1987	15	350	6	278	2	281	11	251	27.1%	8.8	4.4	1.5	9.0	21	24	1.12

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Mario Lemieux (first 13 seasons... technically): 1.37 adj. points/game (best 5)

Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
1992	17	268	2	240	8	268	7	230	28.3%	12.4	1.6	5.8	6.0	15	26	1.72
1991	8	271	9	264	15	271	12	273	28.0%	5.9	6.7	11.0	8.7	23	32	1.40
1996	10	204	10	237	7	234		200	28.1%	9.7	8.3	5.9	0.0	18	24	1.33
1989	5	315	14	292		200		200	28.5%	3.1	9.3	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.13
1993	9	292	9	290		200		200	27.7%	6.2	6.2	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.12
2001	7	211	7	184	3	195		200	28.6%	6.4	7.4	3.0	0.0	18	17	0.93

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

EDIT: Oh, and % of offense generated by 1st-liners is adjusted to 2016-17 levels, if anyone is wondering.

 

[Canadiens1958]

A reasonable comparison of playoff runs is Crosby's 2nd and 3rd round in 2009 (10 goals, 20 points in 11 games) vs. Howe's (9 goals, 20 points in 11 games.

In their first 13 seasons, Crosby's best runs are 2nd, T9 and T9 in playoff points. Howe's best runs are 1st, T23, T31.

Not sure why you think Crosby doesn't take the playoff comparison. Narrative such as "dynasties" and "carrying a team" should not override statistical superiority. I can easily point out that Crosby "carried" his team in couple of series but only to the 2nd round so that apparently doesn't count.

First 13 playoff runs,Howe led the NHL in playoff scoring three times not once.

Gordie Howe Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Staniowski]

Question for those of you who remember the 1950s:

Howe was clearly the NHL's best scorer when he was in his early 20s.

But when Beliveau (just 3 years younger than Howe) entered the NHL, he seemed to have surpassed Howe as the league's best scorer for many years. In the 7 years from '54-'55 to '60-'61, Beliveau outscored Howe by a significant margin overall, and individually in 5 of the 7 seasons. Howe was aged 26 to 33 during these years (and Beliveau 23 to 30), so both should have been in the primes of their careers.

I realize that Beliveau had great linemates (and other teammates) during these years. But was Beliveau generally considered as good as Howe during this period - or better?

 

[Killion]

I realize that Beliveau had great linemates (and other teammates) during these years. But was Beliveau generally considered as good as Howe during this period - or better?

Speaking for myself, not generalizing...... neither....... They were two entirely different types of players playing different positions, fulfilling different roles. They were both fantastic and I didnt "compare" one to to the other, in fact, the very thought of doing so wouldnt have even crossed my mind.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

In their first 13 seasons, Crosby's best runs are 2nd, T9 and T9 in playoff points. Howe's best runs are 1st, T23, T31.

Those numbers are incorrect. In his first twelve seasons Howe finished 1st (1949), 1st (1952), 1st (1955), 4th (1954), 5th (1956), 6th (1951), 8th (1957) and 9th (1953) in playoff scoring.

Of course, it was easier for Howe (or any player from that era on a good team) to consistently place in the top ten in playoff scoring. Still, Howe had three playoff scoring titles (including what was at the time the single-season record), and five top five finishes, by the time he was 27. Only a small handful of players have matched those accomplishments, and even though he's been at worst the 3rd best playoff performer of his generation (but probably 1st), I don't think Crosby is one of them.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Question for those of you who remember the 1950s:

Howe was clearly the NHL's best scorer in the first half of his 20s.

But when Beliveau (just 3 years younger than Howe) entered the NHL, he seemed to have surpassed Howe as the league's best scorer for many years. In the 7 years from '54-'55 to '60-'61, Beliveau outscored Howe by a significant margin overall, and individually in 5 of the 7 seasons. Howe was aged 26 to 33 during these years, so he should have been in the prime of his career.

I realize that Beliveau had great linemates (and other teammates) during these years. But was Beliveau generally considered as good as Howe during this period - or better?

Generally considered equals. Best at their respective positions. Counting stats were not a major criteria if at all, in the fifties, sixties.

 

[JackSlater]

A reasonable comparison of playoff runs is Crosby's 2nd and 3rd round in 2009 (10 goals, 20 points in 11 games) vs. Howe's (9 goals, 20 points in 11 games.

In their first 13 seasons, Crosby's best runs are 2nd, T9 and T9 in playoff points. Howe's best runs are 1st, T23, T31.

Not sure why you think Crosby doesn't take the playoff comparison. Narrative such as "dynasties" and "carrying a team" should not override statistical superiority. I can easily point out that Crosby "carried" his team in couple of series but only to the 2nd round so that apparently doesn't count.

Why would a reasonable comparison only feature Crosby's second and third round, but not the finals? Perhaps because that would be rather inconvenient for Crosby.

I understand your data (you are ranking point totals over that span, not finishes in a given year) but I don't see this edge for Crosby. In the first half of Howe's NHL career his team made the finals six times, and Howe was the leading scorer (tied or outright) every time. Howe also had four final runs after this period, three of which were very big.

What you derisively called "narratives" I would call "context". Running into the NHL's best every team, and a team loaded with offensive players who play on the same lines and share a powerplay, is obviously going to hurt Howe comparatively, particularly in the second half of the 1950s. That Crosby has been outscored in each of his Stanley Cup runs is also context that is worth acknowledging. There is also no need to ascribe positions to me (the end bit about things not counting) just because your position is untenable.

If you are going to insist on comparing Crosby to a player that is obviously well ahead of him then you can't expect to see a pro Crosby result.

 

[Staniowski]

Those numbers are incorrect. In his first twelve seasons Howe finished 1st (1949), 1st (1952), 1st (1955), 4th (1954), 5th (1956), 6th (1951), 8th (1957) and 9th (1953) in playoff scoring.

Of course, it was easier for Howe (or any player from that era on a good team) to consistently place in the top ten in playoff scoring. Still, Howe had three playoff scoring titles (including what was at the time the single-season record), and five top five finishes, by the time he was 27. Only a small handful of players have matched those accomplishments, and even though he's been at worst the 3rd best playoff performer of his generation (but probably 1st), I don't think Crosby is one of them.

Hockey Outsider, is there any particular reason why you've pointed out the errors in Howe's numbers, but you haven't done the same for Crosby's?

In his first 13 seasons (all in his first 10, actually) Howe went to the finals 7 times, finishing in the top 2 (or 3) in scoring only 3 of those 7 times.

In comparison, in his first 13 seasons, Crosby went to the finals 4 times, finishing in the top 2 in scoring 3 of those 4 times (1st; 2nd; 2nd). The time he didn't finish in the top 2, he won the Conn Smythe, so obviously played very well.

I think any non-biased person would say that they are roughly comparable in playoff production over their first 13 seasons, but Crosby would be somewhat ahead based on his strong performances in all 4 of his trips to the finals. Especially since, as you have stated, it was easier for Howe to place high in playoff scoring in his era.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Hockey Outsider, is there any particular reason why you've pointed out the errors in Howe's numbers, but you haven't done the same for Crosby's?

In his first 13 seasons (all in his first 10, actually) Howe went to the finals 7 times, finishing in the top 2 (or 3) in scoring only 3 of those 7 times.

In comparison, in his first 13 seasons, Crosby went to the finals 4 times, finishing in the top 2 in scoring 3 of those 4 times (1st; 2nd; 2nd). The time he didn't finish in the top 2, he won the Conn Smythe, so obviously played very well.

I think any non-biased person would say that they are roughly comparable in playoff production over their first 13 seasons, but Crosby would be somewhat ahead based on his strong performances in all 4 of his trips to the finals. Especially since, as you have stated, it was easier for Howe to place high in playoff scoring in his era.

This seems to imply that Howe wasn't strong in his. Which couldn't be further from the truth, lone exception being his second season before his rise to stardom.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Hockey Outsider, is there any particular reason why you've pointed out the errors in Howe's numbers, but you haven't done the same for Crosby's?

I'm familiar enough with Howe's career to know that he led the playoffs in scoring six times - three times in his twenties, three times in his thirties. Therefore I realized immediately that Daver's numbers were incorrect.

I didn't get to correcting the numbers he posted about Crosby because I was going to be late to a movie with my wife. (Besides, I figured that someone else would get it to it before I returned home - which I was right about).

In his first 13 seasons (all in his first 10, actually) Howe went to the finals 7 times, finishing in the top 2 (or 3) in scoring only 3 of those 7 times.

In comparison, in his first 13 seasons, Crosby went to the finals 4 times, finishing in the top 2 in scoring 3 of those 4 times (1st; 2nd; 2nd). The time he didn't finish in the top 2, he won the Conn Smythe, so obviously played very well.

One could just as easily show that Crosby has led his team in scoring just once in the five times the Penguins have gone to the conference finals or beyond. Howe led his team in scoring five of the seven times his team went to the SCF (one of which he didn't participate in due to fracturing his skull in the first round).

To be clear, I'm not making such a simplistic argument - just that it's easy to slightly alter the parameters of the data that being's presented to get a different conclusion.

I think any non-biased person would say that they are roughly comparable in playoff production over their first 13 seasons, but Crosby would be somewhat ahead based on his strong performances in all 4 of his trips to the finals. Especially since, as you have stated, it was easier for Howe to place high in playoff scoring in his era.

I'm not sure that I follow your comment about Crosby always playing well in the SCF. He only scored 20 points (and just 4 goals) in 25 SCF games. That's clearly the weakest spot on an otherwise very strong playoff resume.

 

[Staniowski]

I'm not sure that I follow your comment about Crosby always playing well in the SCF. He only scored 20 points (and just 4 goals) in 25 SCF games. That's clearly the weakest spot on an otherwise very strong playoff resume.

I wasn't referring to his point totals in the SCF; I was referring to his playoff points in the 4 seasons in which he went to the finals - where he finished in the top 2 in scoring 3 out of 4 times, and won the Conn Smythe in the only time he didn't finish in the top 2 in scoring. While Howe finished in the top 2 in playoff scoring only 3 times out of the 7 times he went to the finals. Overall, I think it's slight advantage to Crosby.

 

[Staniowski]

This seems to imply that Howe wasn't strong in his. Which couldn't be further from the truth, lone exception being his second season before his rise to stardom.

No, I didn't imply that. Howe certainly put in strong performances in the playoffs in the 7 years he went to the finals in his first 10 seasons.

I was just stating that Crosby's performances (in the playoffs in the 4 years he has gone to the finals) appear to be somewhat stronger.

Obviously it's more difficult to get to the finals in Crosby's era, so I don't think we can hold it against him that he's only gone to 4 versus 7 for Howe in their first 13 seasons.

I think it's a slight advantage to Crosby in these 13 seasons, for playoffs.

 

[Staniowski]

To be clear, I'm not making such a simplistic argument - just that it's easy to slightly alter the parameters of the data that being's presented to get a different conclusion.

I didn't alter the parameters, however. I was simply responding to what you said re: Howe's 5 top 5 playoff finishes and 3 playoff scoring leads. These all occurred in his playoff seasons in which the Red Wings went to the finals. I was responding apples to apples - i.e. seasons in which their teams went to the finals. And you were talking about leading the entire NHL in playoff scoring, not his own team. I did the same.

 

[daver]

Why would a reasonable comparison only feature Crosby's second and third round, but not the finals? Perhaps because that would be rather inconvenient for Crosby.

This was brought in a comparison between Mikita and Crosby and their best playoff runs.

Comparing a 2 round run vs. a 4 round run is not a fair comparison for starters. So looking at Crosby's best 2 round run makes it fair. Then which 2 rounds do you choose?

Howe was potentially facing teams (the #4 seed) in Round 1 that would not make the playoffs in today's game (they would be ranked in the 16 - 20 range, so that's an advantage to Howe. By the same token, Crosby would be facing teams in the 2nd round that would not be in the very upper tier of teams. So looking at Crosby's 2nd and 3rd is the best way to compare a playoff run from a league with 30 teams vs. a league with 6 teams.

 

[daver]

daver, I wouldn't just "give" the playoffs comparison to Crosby. It's pretty obvious that Crosby's advantage was his fast start to his career. Howe started off his post-season career with 2 points in 15 games. Looking at multi-round playoff runs, and adjusting for both opponent GA and percent of offense generated by first-liners (using methodology described here):

It was strictly in the context of looking at their first 13 seasons. However it's adjusted, and I really question the validity of using non-playoff stats to adjust playoff stats, I think it clearly shows that Crosby was in Howe's ballpark playoff-wise, and per game performance-wise. I realize that Howe had the clear advantage after 13 seasons and adds a lot more after 13 seasons but the point was the possibility of Crosby being closer to Howe's ballpark vs. the #5 players' ballpark should not be out of the realm of possibility.

 

[daver]

Why would a reasonable comparison only feature Crosby's second and third round, but not the finals? Perhaps because that would be rather inconvenient for Crosby.

I understand your data (you are ranking point totals over that span, not finishes in a given year) but I don't see this edge for Crosby. In the first half of Howe's NHL career his team made the finals six times, and Howe was the leading scorer (tied or outright) every time. Howe also had four final runs after this period, three of which were very big.

What you derisively called "narratives" I would call "context". Running into the NHL's best every team, and a team loaded with offensive players who play on the same lines and share a powerplay, is obviously going to hurt Howe comparatively, particularly in the second half of the 1950s. That Crosby has been outscored in each of his Stanley Cup runs is also context that is worth acknowledging. There is also no need to ascribe positions to me (the end bit about things not counting) just because your position is untenable.

This seems to be a moot point given he won the Conn Smythe twice despite him leading his team in scoring and his 3rd run was the 2nd best over the last 21 seasons and the best goal total. Most acknowledge he has four Smythe- worthy runs on his playoff resume, easily the best of his era.

 

[daver]

Question for those of you who remember the 1950s:

Howe was clearly the NHL's best scorer when he was in his early 20s.

But when Beliveau (just 3 years younger than Howe) entered the NHL, he seemed to have surpassed Howe as the league's best scorer for many years. In the 7 years from '54-'55 to '60-'61, Beliveau outscored Howe by a significant margin overall, and individually in 5 of the 7 seasons. Howe was aged 26 to 33 during these years (and Beliveau 23 to 30), so both should have been in the primes of their careers.

I realize that Beliveau had great linemates (and other teammates) during these years. But was Beliveau generally considered as good as Howe during this period - or better?

I think Howe inarguably has the 4th best peak behind the other 3. You can argue he statistically was very close to Mario and Wayne but, IMO, that should be reasonably tempered by what you are pointing out above. His prime and longevity are what pushed him to # 3, or more likely #2 or #1 in some people's minds.

Crosby's peak is weak even in comparison to many Top 20 players, let alone Howe's, but his prime is starting to rival only Howe and Wayne in terms of longevity and he is has a playoff and international resume befitting his status as the best player of his era since Mario. Given his age, he can possibly have more seasons where he considered the best in the world, or share that title, than Howe did, and have a better playoff resume than three of the Big 4.

That, IMO, would not move him past Howe or Mario, but could make a very good case that it should be the Big 5.

 

[JackSlater]

This was brought in a comparison between Mikita and Crosby and their best playoff runs.

Comparing a 2 round run vs. a 4 round run is not a fair comparison for starters. So looking at Crosby's best 2 round run makes it fair. Then which 2 rounds do you choose?

Howe was potentially facing teams (the #4 seed) in Round 1 that would not make the playoffs in today's game (they would be ranked in the 16 - 20 range, so that's an advantage to Howe. By the same token, Crosby would be facing teams in the 2nd round that would not be in the very upper tier of teams. So looking at Crosby's 2nd and 3rd is the best way to compare a playoff run from a league with 30 teams vs. a league with 6 teams.

I would compare it to Crosby's final two rounds where possible, or even better to Crosby's whole run in a given year.

This seems to be a moot point given he won the Conn Smythe twice despite him leading his team in scoring and his 3rd run was the 2nd best over the last 21 seasons and the best goal total. Most acknowledge he has four Smythe- worthy runs on his playoff resume, easily the best of his era.

I know that you would like it to me a moot point, but it isn't. Crosby does have four Conn Smythe type runs, and Howe has four and more. There is no point in ignoring that Crosby was outscored by teammates in each Stanley Cup run though, particularly in comparison to Howe who was frequently top scorer in finals runs. Crosby deserves credit of course for leading his team in scoring and having arguably his best run in a losing effort too.

Again though, Crosby has no place being compared to Howe in the first place.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Crosby vs Howe 1st 13 seasons

2x Hart...5x Hart
4x AS-1...7x AS-1
2x Ross...5x Ross
2x Rocket...4x Rocket
4x top 10 goals...13x top 10 goals
9x top 10 asst...13x top 10 asst
10x top 10 pts...13x top 10 pts

and overall

Crosby vs Howe

2x Hart...6x Hart
4x AS-1...12x AS-1
3x AS-2...9x AS-2
2x Ross...6x Ross
2x Rocket...5x Rocket
4x top 10 goals...19x top 10 goals
9x top 10 asst...22x top 10 asst
10x top 10 pts...21x top 10 pts

doesn't matter if you want to cut it to 13 years or not, Crosby is not close to Howe.

Even at the 13 year cut off, Howe has double the Hart, Ross, Rockets and AS-1. There is no "realm of possibility"

Crosby needs to worry about passing the likes of Harvey, Beliveau, Bourque, Hull, Mikita, Jagr first

 

[daver]

I would compare it to Crosby's final two rounds where possible, or even better to Crosby's whole run in a given year.

Crosby's last two rounds are against two of the Top four teams in a 30 team league. Howe's two rounds are against two of the top four teams in a six team league. That simply is not a fair comparison.

Crosby's 31 points is the 2nd best of era, Howe's is the best of that 13 season period by one point. I don't see how you can say that it was anything other than very close, the same with their overall playoff resumes.

 

[daver]

Crosby vs Howe 1st 13 seasons

2x Hart...5x Hart
4x AS-1...7x AS-1
2x Ross...5x Ross
2x Rocket...4x Rocket
4x top 10 goals...13x top 10 goals
9x top 10 asst...13x top 10 asst
10x top 10 pts...13x top 10 pts

and overall

Crosby vs Howe

2x Hart...6x Hart
4x AS-1...12x AS-1
3x AS-2...9x AS-2
2x Ross...6x Ross
2x Rocket...5x Rocket
4x top 10 goals...19x top 10 goals
9x top 10 asst...22x top 10 asst
10x top 10 pts...21x top 10 pts

doesn't matter if you want to cut it to 13 years or not, Crosby is not close to Howe.

Even at the 13 year cut off, Howe has double the Hart, Ross, Rockets and AS-1. There is no "realm of possibility"

This gives zero consideration to Crosby's partial seasons which seems intellectually dishonest to not even acknowledge. One deflected puck to the face has denied Crosby considerable leverage in these discussions. He plays 12 more games in 2013 and has another dominating Art Ross win, which confirms his peak and gives more weight to his 2010/11 season.

 

[jason1919spezza]

Crosby is not close AT ALL to Howe so stop arguing about it lol. The point has already been made in this thread with clear facts and evidence. Even if Crosby was healthy during those concussed years, he would still be well behind the big 4 (in this case Howe is apparently #4, which alone is questionable). The reality of Crosby is that he failed to stay healthy during his peak, which is huge in determining a player's overall career. He shouldn't be in this discussion, unless he somewhat makes up for his lost peak (he would need Hasek-like absurd peak in his late 30's-early 40's to make it a "big 5"). He could compile by staying near the top in a rather weak competition, but that's not going to put him in top 4 or 5). I personally put Crosby in the top 15-20 all time range, and if he continues to compile by staying "near the top" with playing well in the post season, he has the "potential" to crack top 10 all time. But thats about it for me. He missed to many games due to injuries, and lost some regular season scoring competition to a rather weak competitor (like Sedins and Benn). Being injured for a significant amount of time is one thing, but those were supposed to be his peak years. And he blew it.

Hasek should be #5, but that is because I value his career pre-NHL. In the case of Hasek, he had no choice due to politics to come to the NHL. It has been written several times in hfboards that he was one of the best (if not the BEST) goaltender outside of NHL in his early 20's. He was drafted in 1983 by the Hawks, and had he come over here earlier, I think his so-called peak/prime would have streched longer than the actual timeline. I'm not one of those people that suggests he would have "immediately" dominated the NHL, since it did took him few years to adjust to the life in North America, but even if you count the adjusting period, that would still make Hasek's career about 5-7 years longer. He usually gets negated for his "longevity" (which is absurd because this is complete BS), but Hasek's career is one of the longest in professional hockey (not saying the longest, but very very long). He played professionally from age 16 to late 40's. (he was attempting a comeback from Europe before the lockout began, and I believe he was 47 years old).

Hasek is one of those rare cases in which I would consider giving him extra credit for those missing years. It wasn't his fault that he missed those games, and he has proven in his professional career that he has absurd longevity, along with a prime/peak that dominated the league like no goaltenders have. His playoffs stats are usually underrated, mainly because he gets compared to Roy (who played for a great team, which is a fact), but it's not like he was terrible in the post season. As soon as he went to a championship caliber team in Detroit, he won the cup. He showed up big internationally, against a much superior teams.

This is different from say Crosby/Malkin fanatics giving them extra credit for those concussed/injury prone years. Injuries are part of who they are as a player, which is why I give no extra credit for not only Crosby but any player who missed games do to injuries. Hasek did miss games during his NHL career due to "questionable" injuries, and I give him zero extra credit for that as well, since it is his fault. Missing games because of politics/war/segregation are a different matter.

But with that being said, Hasek would still be a distant #5 for me, even with the extra credit. Maybe I could make a claim for Hasek over Orr/Lemieux giving that Hasek did had his absurd peak to go along with his insane longevity, which Lemieux did not have (same with Orr). Maybe even Howe, considering Hasek probably would have a better peak/prime than Howe compared to positional dominance. But that is probably giving too much extra credit, along with the "what if" game. As of now, he is easily in the top 10 for me, just by his NHL career alone. So giving extra credit for his missed years, and assuming that he would adjust to the NHL in about 3 years (like the actual time line), I would probably put him #5 comfortably, but still distant from the big 4 (It would be something like #1-#4: Big 4/#5: Hasek/#6~: Hull, Beliveau, Richard, ...etc.).