Big 4: 2 Questions

[Canadiens1958]

Should any of these be considered as “what the hell happened losses? Or more the product of a strong league?

Both and neither.

Seasons are designed to win a league, place in a conference, a division. Seasonal standings reflect this. Schedules are never balanced ideally. Teams can play for a tie or the "loser point".

Playoffs, in the NHL this usually has meant a 4 out of 7 format since the start of the O6 and a bit before. Each series schedule is balanced in terms of travel and off days. Same opponent, each team has to play for a win every game. Regular season weaknesses can no longer be hidden like they can by juggling line-ups and rotating players.

Major difference is that today a team does not get a 14 game RS preview of a potential playoff opponent. So your RS point differential reflects an ability to play within a league not your ability to play the opponent you may ace in each round of the playoffs.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

However it's adjusted, and I really question the validity of using non-playoff stats to adjust playoff stats...

Non-playoff stats are indicative of ability. Otherwise, why do we care about regular season stats at all? If I told you that one post-season the Oilers faced teams that in the regular season posted 374 GA, 344 GA, 314 GA, and 269 GA, could you guess which one was the Islanders and which one was the Jets?

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.

I agree that it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Again, looking at multi-round opponents (adjusting for opponent GA and percent offense generated by first-liners):

Sidney Crosby (up to age 29 season): 1.11 adj. points/game (best 4)

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]

Jean Beliveau (up to age 29 season): 1.07 adj. points/game (best 4)

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
1956		200		200	9	238	10	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	6.1	9.3	10	15	1.54
1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	3.8	8.6	12	12	1.03
1954		200		200	8	212	2	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.5	2.2	10	9	0.87
1958		200		200	6	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	4.1	4.4	10	8	0.85
1957		200		200	10	266	2	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	6.0	1.6	10	8	0.76
1960		200		200	3	211	4	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	2.4	2.9	8	5	0.67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Maurice Richard (up to age 29 season): 1.12 adj. points/game (only 4)

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
1951		200		200	6	163	7	162	29.1%	0.0	0.0	6.9	8.1	11	15	1.37
1944		200		200	10	285	7	307	28.4%	0.0	0.0	6.8	4.4	9	11	1.24
1947		200		200	8	239	3	235	27.0%	0.0	0.0	6.8	2.6	10	9	0.94
1946		200		200	6	292	5	256	27.9%	0.0	0.0	4.0	3.8	9	8	0.87

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Richard and Beliveau (and especially Howe) all added after age 29. Basically, it's up to Crosby to also do so.

And just for kicks:

Spoiler

Evgeni Malkin (up to age 29 season): 0.97 adj. points/game (best 4)

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
2009	9	238	10	245	9	226	8	244	29.6%	7.1	7.6	7.5	6.1	24	28	1.18
2013	11	237	5	178	0	186		200	27.5%	9.3	5.7	0.0	0.0	15	15	1.00
2008	7	247	7	199	5	233	3	184	29.4%	5.3	6.6	4.0	3.1	20	19	0.95
2016	7	217	2	193	6	201	3	210	27.7%	6.5	2.1	6.0	2.9	23	17	0.76
2010	8	238	3	223		200		200	28.9%	6.4	2.6	0.0	0.0	13	9	0.69

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Yes, I know Malkin is missing his awesome 2016-17 run, but that was his age 30 run, which Crosby has yet to play... a reminder that Crosby is still young and could still add like the O6 all-timers eventually did.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Where is the caveat that Crosby has multiple more Art Rosses and Harts if not for unlucky injuries? Either let the numbers speak for themselves or we apply reasonable context to everyone.

If Crosby had completed just the two seasons where he had significant leads (2011 and 2013) would we not be talking about him being pretty much assured #5 at this point by age 30? And would that not make a "What could he do to possibly join the Big 4?" conversation not that unpalatable?

Instead, we get a list of raw point finishes with no context and a condescending attitude of "don't even bother making a comparison".

Crosby's partial seasons are what they are. The list of players for whom you can play the "if not for injuries..." card is endless.

Perhaps some would talk about him being assured #5. Some already do anyway. I tend to be less of trophy/top 10 counter than most, so I don't believe my opinion of Crosby's legacy would change a great deal. I couldn't actually tell you how many Art Ross he has won off the top of my head to be perfectly honest. In my own mind, I think Crosby has put together a career with a lot of historical similarities to that Howie Morenz. So wherever I rank Morenz, that's where I'd be looking to slot in Crosby. The Big 4 are out of reach. It's possible that long-lasting/permanent effects from the 2011 injury are one of the reasons why Crosby didn't attain their level, but I don't believe that completing that one season in and of itself would change the narrative.

 

[daver]

Crosby's partial seasons are what they are. The list of players for whom you can play the "if not for injuries..." card is endless.

Perhaps some would talk about him being assured #5. Some already do anyway. I tend to be less of trophy/top 10 counter than most, so I don't believe my opinion of Crosby's legacy would change a great deal. I couldn't actually tell you how many Art Ross he has won off the top of my head to be perfectly honest. In my own mind, I think Crosby has put together a career with a lot of historical similarities to that Howie Morenz. So wherever I rank Morenz, that's where I'd be looking to slot in Crosby. The Big 4 are out of reach. It's possible that long-lasting/permanent effects from the 2011 injury are one of the reasons why Crosby didn't attain their level, but I don't believe that completing that one season in and of itself would change the narrative.

Including two of the Big Four.

As I said, perhaps Crosby's main storyline is yet to be completely written and perhaps it will not fit nicely into a previous player's career path. Given his talent, his age, his reknowned work ethic, his versatility, I would not be surprised if he stays at a level that statistically would be superior to what Wayne and Howe were during after XX amount of seasons/by age XX. It is also worth mentioning that along with being in the very top tier of all-time great prospects, he also wins at every single level. If he does that, that should open the door to putting that into appropriate historical perspective vs. the appropriate field of peers.

It is frustrating that some give the impression that that door is already locked. Subjective views that the 06 era was tougher and unfairly highlighting playoff low points seem to indicate an unwillingness to objectively analyse statistical achievements.

 

[daver]

Non-playoff stats are indicative of ability. Otherwise, why do we care about regular season stats at all? If I told you that one post-season the Oilers faced teams that in the regular season posted 374 GA, 344 GA, 314 GA, and 269 GA, could you guess which one was the Islanders and which one was the Jets?

The obvious flaw is that adjusting in no way considers how a team actually performed defensively in the series where the points were accumulated. Perhaps in comparing one series to another, this can be given consideration but we are comparing 148 games worth of hockey in Crosby's case. I am sure there are many examples of good defensive teams playing bad and bad defensive teams playing good over that time. If there were obvious statistical anomalies to consider then I am all for looking to explain them but in Crosby's case, there is no surprise that the player with the best RS PPG has the best playoff PPG. That being said, it is understandable that Howe's 13 season playoffs stats need some context but I would apply the same context to Crosby's RS resume too.

I would add this to the list of considerations (e.g. 2-way play, linemates, team strength) that could arguably separate one player, most notably elite offensive forwards, from another when offensive numbers are very close but would be very hesitant to move one player up to another player's level.

I don't see any weaknesses in Crosby's resume that needs to be brought up (lack of defense, lack of goalscoring, weak playoff resume, lack of championships, lack of leadership) so his numbers should speak for themselves in a comparison to any player IMO. If anything, Crosby's deferring the teams' offensive role to Malkin and/or Kessel in recent years, and his ability to carry any quality of linemate needs some consideration in comparison to some of his peers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Non-playoff stats are indicative of ability. Otherwise, why do we care about regular season stats at all?

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]

Jean Beliveau (up to age 29 season): 1.07 adj. points/game (best 4)

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
1956		200		200	9	238	10	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	6.1	9.3	10	15	1.54
1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	3.8	8.6	12	12	1.03
1954		200		200	8	212	2	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.5	2.2	10	9	0.87
1958		200		200	6	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	4.1	4.4	10	8	0.85
1957		200		200	10	266	2	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	6.0	1.6	10	8	0.76
1960		200		200	3	211	4	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	2.4	2.9	8	5	0.67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Maurice Richard (up to age 29 season): 1.12 adj. points/game (only 4)

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
1951		200		200	6	163	7	162	29.1%	0.0	0.0	6.9	8.1	11	15	1.37
1944		200		200	10	285	7	307	28.4%	0.0	0.0	6.8	4.4	9	11	1.24
1947		200		200	8	239	3	235	27.0%	0.0	0.0	6.8	2.6	10	9	0.94
1946		200		200	6	292	5	256	27.9%	0.0	0.0	4.0	3.8	9	8	0.87

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Richard and Beliveau (and especially Howe) all added after age 29. Basically, it's up to Crosby to also do so.

And just for kicks:

Spoiler

Evgeni Malkin (up to age 29 season): 0.97 adj. points/game (best 4)

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
2009	9	238	10	245	9	226	8	244	29.6%	7.1	7.6	7.5	6.1	24	28	1.18
2013	11	237	5	178	0	186		200	27.5%	9.3	5.7	0.0	0.0	15	15	1.00
2008	7	247	7	199	5	233	3	184	29.4%	5.3	6.6	4.0	3.1	20	19	0.95
2016	7	217	2	193	6	201	3	210	27.7%	6.5	2.1	6.0	2.9	23	17	0.76
2010	8	238	3	223		200		200	28.9%	6.4	2.6	0.0	0.0	13	9	0.69

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Comes down to recognizing two distinct skills. The ability to play and perform at a high level under regular season conditions and the ability to do likewise under playoff conditions.

As your data illustrates some do one a bit better, some are relatively equal.

Too often analysis tend to be regular season centric.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The obvious flaw is that adjusting in no way considers how a team actually performed defensively in the series where the points were accumulated. Perhaps in comparing one series to another, this can be given consideration but we are comparing 148 games worth of hockey in Crosby's case. I am sure there are many examples of good defensive teams playing bad and bad defensive teams playing good over that time. If there were obvious statistical anomalies to consider then I am all for looking to explain them but in Crosby's case, there is no surprise that the player with the best RS PPG has the best playoff PPG. That being said, it is understandable that Howe's 13 season playoffs stats need some context but I would apply the same context to Crosby's RS resume too.

I would add this to the list of considerations (e.g. 2-way play, linemates, team strength) that could arguably separate one player, most notably elite offensive forwards, from another when offensive numbers are very close but would be very hesitant to move one player up to another player's level.

I don't see any weaknesses in Crosby's resume that needs to be brought up (lack of defense, lack of goalscoring, weak playoff resume, lack of championships, lack of leadership) so his numbers should speak for themselves in a comparison to any player IMO. If anything, Crosby's deferring the teams' offensive role to Malkin and/or Kessel in recent years, and his ability to carry any quality of linemate needs some consideration in comparison to some of his peers.

Adjusting, done properly, never impacts on the key playoff result- winning.

As long as a team wins a playoff series, usually four games, the collective stats matter little.

Prime example would be winning four games by a goal each while losing three games by two goals each.

The losing team generates better ofensive and defensive stats but still goes home empty handed.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Non-playoff stats are indicative of ability. Otherwise, why do we care about regular season stats at all? If I told you that one post-season the Oilers faced teams that in the regular season posted 374 GA, 344 GA, 314 GA, and 269 GA, could you guess which one was the Islanders and which one was the Jets?

Black Gold Extractor consistently provides a smarter, more articulate (and more complete) version of the things I want to say.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Including two of the Big Four.

As I said, perhaps Crosby's main storyline is yet to be completely written and perhaps it will not fit nicely into a previous player's career path. Given his talent, his age, his reknowned work ethic, his versatility, I would not be surprised if he stays at a level that statistically would be superior to what Wayne and Howe were during after XX amount of seasons/by age XX. It is also worth mentioning that along with being in the very top tier of all-time great prospects, he also wins at every single level. If he does that, that should open the door to putting that into appropriate historical perspective vs. the appropriate field of peers.

It is frustrating that some give the impression that that door is already locked. Subjective views that the 06 era was tougher and unfairly highlighting playoff low points seem to indicate an unwillingness to objectively analyse statistical achievements.

People are being realistic. Unless Crosby has yet to hit his peak, he is clearly behind any member of the Big 4 in that respect. And even if you feel his peak may be comparable to Howe, contentious as that may be, he'd likely have to maintain his present level of play until 2030 to have comparable longevity. Impossible? No. Improbable? Most certainly.

I'm not sure why all this energy is being expended on projections though. What has already taken place is impressive as it stands. How many other guys in history could retire at age 30 and be reasonably compared to Howie Morenz, considered by many to be the greatest pre-WWII player?

 

[daver]

People are being realistic. Unless Crosby has yet to hit his peak, he is clearly behind any member of the Big 4 in that respect. And even if you feel his peak may be comparable to Howe, contentious as that may be, he'd likely have to maintain his present level of play until 2030 to have comparable longevity. Impossible? No. Improbable? Most certainly.

I'm not sure why all this energy is being expended on projections though. What has already taken place is impressive as it stands. How many other guys in history could retire at age 30 and be reasonably compared to Howie Morenz, considered by many to be the greatest pre-WWII player?

If he maintains his present level of play (or at least of last season as this one still going) for another three seasons, he has essentially matched Howe's reign as the best player/co-best player. Howe post 63/64 was obviously still one of the best but he had lost his position as the best (or sharing that title).

That is my main argument, Crosby has a chance to better Howe and Wayne in longevity as being the league's/world's elite player.

 

[blogofmike]

In 8 full seasons Orr won 2 Conn Smythe trophies. So, 25% of the time he played in the playoffs he was the MVP.

As a defenseman, he had 92 points in 74 games. And he was +60.

Not quite all over the map.

You've actually underlined the inconsistency compared to Beliveau. Because while Beliveau has a long line of roughly PPG seasons, you could say 25% of the time he was in the playoffs Orr had a combined total of 4 points in 9 games and was a -5, as the plus/minus champion was around the middle or bottom of the pack in plus/minus on his own team. And those are 2 of the best 8 years Orr's got.

That 25% is certainly not the same part of the map as the great 25%.

 

[blogofmike]

If he maintains his present level of play (or at least of last season as this one still going) for another three seasons, he has essentially matched Howe's reign as the best player/co-best player. Howe post 63/64 was obviously still one of the best but he had lost his position as the best (or sharing that title).

That is my main argument, Crosby has a chance to better Howe and Wayne in longevity as being the league's/world's elite player.

Do you mean best player or co-best player on his own team? Because that's about all Sid was this season. And even then he may wind up 3rd on his own team in points, with a GP advantage and point deficit against Malkin. How often did that happen to Gretzky or Howe?

 

[Canadiens1958]

You've actually underlined the inconsistency compared to Beliveau. Because while Beliveau has a long line of roughly PPG seasons, you could say 25% of the time he was in the playoffs Orr had a combined total of 4 points in 9 games and was a -5, as the plus/minus champion was around the middle or bottom of the pack in plus/minus on his own team. And those are 2 of the best 8 years Orr's got.

That 25% is certainly not the same part of the map as the great 25%.

You just provided a great example of the difference between RS and playoff hockey. Regardless of the skill level and toolbox a player has to learn how to apply them during the regular season and during the playoffs where circumstances are different. Same is true for a team.

Essentially you are trying to reduce everything to your comfort zone PPG which shows Beliveau with a sizeable advantage.

However, just like Orr in his three playoff series against the Canadiens, 1968,1969 and 1971 - all losses though Orr improved progressively, he still was schooled in playoff hockey, notably by Beliveau and Henri Richard.

Conversely, Beliveau in his first two playoff years, 1954 and 1955, 23 points in 22 games

Jean Beliveau Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

was schooled in the finals by the veteran Red Wings, namely Gordie Howe. Red Kelly and Ted Lindsay who outplayed him handily:

1954-55 Detroit Red Wings Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1953-54 Detroit Red Wings Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

You just provided a great example of the difference between RS and playoff hockey. Regardless of the skill level and toolbox a player has to learn how to apply them during the regular season and during the playoffs where circumstances are different. Same is true for a team.

Essentially you are trying to reduce everything to your comfort zone PPG which shows Beliveau with a sizeable advantage.

However, just like Orr in his three playoff series against the Canadiens, 1968,1969 and 1971 - all losses though Orr improved progressively, he still was schooled in playoff hockey, notably by Beliveau and Henri Richard.

Conversely, Beliveau in his first two playoff years, 1954 and 1955, 23 points in 22 games

Jean Beliveau Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

was schooled in the finals by the veteran Red Wings, namely Gordie Howe. Red Kelly and Ted Lindsay who outplayed him handily:

1954-55 Detroit Red Wings Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

1953-54 Detroit Red Wings Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

68 and 69, sure...but 71 Orr and the rest of the Bruins were schooled by Dryden.

although really I have a tough time saying someone got schooled when posting 12 points in 7 games

 

[daver]

Do you mean best player or co-best player on his own team? Because that's about all Sid was this season. And even then he may wind up 3rd on his own team in points, with a GP advantage and point deficit against Malkin. How often did that happen to Gretzky or Howe?

Obviously not. And obviously not based on one season in a vacuum. See this thread:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/best-player-in-the-world.973915/

 

[blogofmike]

2) What was the exact achievement that clinched each one's membership in this ultra exclusive group?

I think this part has been ignored and might be fun.

Howe: Goal no. 545. High bar for Howe as the first chronologically, I'm thinking it has to be when he's set himself up as the #1 player of all time, and I think this is a good bar setting moment. While it's a decade after Howe's 49-goal/95-point 1952-53 season, he's around 1300 points, and has just earned his 6th Ross AND 6th Hart the previous spring. That's a high bar for whoever you think #5 is.

Orr: 1970-71 season. Having already won a Cup and an Art Ross Trophy in the most photogenic way possible, the 1971 season is where Orr puts up the gaudy numbers. 102 assists, 139 points, and a +124 show 1970 wasn't a fluke, and gives Orr single season benchmarks that probably tower over whoever you have in the #5 spot.

Gretzky: 1984 Stanley Cup. Might be in the conversation before this, but fair or unfair, he probably needed a championship to clinch it. A pair of breakaway goals on Billy Smith probably feel like good comebacks against the crowd that says he's all numbers and no titles. Gretzky was already on a string of setting records and then breaking his own. By this point he has a couple 200 point years, and season records for goals, assists, points. And the second best marks for those records too. He's hit 50 in 39, and had the 51-game point streak. He was pretty outstanding in the playoffs too.

Lemieux: 1992-93 season. The comeback story gives him a career-defining narrative. He's deked his way through Jon Casey, picked up a pair of Cups through offensively strong playoff runs, and generally has the best non-Gretzky stats of the era. Injuries and Gretzky mean he only gets a 2nd Hart Trophy here, but it's the season that shows that his 60 games played might be just as good as 80 games from #5.

 

[blogofmike]

68 and 69, sure...but 71 Orr and the rest of the Bruins were schooled by Dryden.

although really I have a tough time saying someone got schooled when posting 12 points in 7 games

To an extent, but Dryden got beaten a lot too. Beliveau and Richard scoring were key in that 5-1 Bruins lead that ended up as a 7-5 Canadiens win, and are part of why Orr was a -2 despite all those points, and why Boston couldn't get anything going in Game 7.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think this part has been ignored and might be fun.

Howe: Goal no. 545. High bar for Howe as the first chronologically, I'm thinking it has to be when he's set himself up as the #1 player of all time, and I think this is a good bar setting moment. While it's a decade after Howe's 49-goal/95-point 1952-53 season, he's around 1300 points, and has just earned his 6th Ross AND 6th Hart the previous spring. That's a high bar for whoever you think #5 is.

Orr: 1970-71 season. Having already won a Cup and an Art Ross Trophy in the most photogenic way possible, the 1971 season is where Orr puts up the gaudy numbers. 102 assists, 139 points, and a +124 show 1970 wasn't a fluke, and gives Orr single season benchmarks that probably tower over whoever you have in the #5 spot.

Gretzky: 1984 Stanley Cup. Might be in the conversation before this, but fair or unfair, he probably needed a championship to clinch it. A pair of breakaway goals on Billy Smith probably feel like good comebacks against the crowd that says he's all numbers and no titles. Gretzky was already on a string of setting records and then breaking his own. By this point he has a couple 200 point years, and season records for goals, assists, points. And the second best marks for those records too. He's hit 50 in 39, and had the 51-game point streak. He was pretty outstanding in the playoffs too.

Lemieux: 1992-93 season. The comeback story gives him a career-defining narrative. He's deked his way through Jon Casey, picked up a pair of Cups through offensively strong playoff runs, and generally has the best non-Gretzky stats of the era. Injuries and Gretzky mean he only gets a 2nd Hart Trophy here, but it's the season that shows that his 60 games played might be just as good as 80 games from #5.

clinched is a tough word. i honestly don't know if mario ever clinched it, in the sense of belonging beyond a reasonable doubt.

with gretzky, i would say second cup if we go by the beyond a reasonable doubt he belongs in a sentence with howe and orr. he hit 1,000 points, he broke his own assist record for an insane third time, he tied howe for harts, was one art ross behind howe (on a technicality), and all of this in only six years. but more importantly, he utterly dominated those playoffs; there was no possible argument that messier or fuhr or coffey or anyone else was as important as him. obviously his playoff scoring was already at video game level but he raised the bar so high that he himself would never reach it again.

but if we're just asking when we start to legitimately ask if gretzky belongs in that sentence, i think him setting the all-time assist and points record in year two should have put him there. if not, when he hit 90 and 200 definitely.

with mario, well, if we're asking when you can't possibly make an argument for rocket or beliveau, i don't think he ever put those doubts away. but when could we all legitimately ask if he belonged in an top four? i would say when he hit 80 goals and 195 points. this game.

in fact, this goal got him to 195 (he hit 80 goals earlier in the game)--



a masterful four goal performance, but it was a 9-5 loss and he had never been to the playoffs before (though the penguins had already clinched for that season already), so of course it was far from an airtight case. but video game stats.

 

[bobholly39]

Do you mean best player or co-best player on his own team? Because that's about all Sid was this season. And even then he may wind up 3rd on his own team in points, with a GP advantage and point deficit against Malkin. How often did that happen to Gretzky or Howe?

This is Sidney Crosby's first "bad" regular season. This may be enough to lose him the title of best/co-best in the world (at least insomuch as daver's argument of "best/co-best player in the world" goes).

The only caveat is playoffs. If he has another dominating playoff run - or more, if he wins another conn smythe. Yes at the end of this year and going into next year I 100% fully support calling Crosby the best player in the world. But if that doesn't happen this may end up being the season where his streak comes to an end.

 

[bobholly39]

If he maintains his present level of play (or at least of last season as this one still going) for another three seasons, he has essentially matched Howe's reign as the best player/co-best player. Howe post 63/64 was obviously still one of the best but he had lost his position as the best (or sharing that title).

That is my main argument, Crosby has a chance to better Howe and Wayne in longevity as being the league's/world's elite player.

He might. I've said it many times - in terms of being consistency elite - Sidney Crosby may have one of the top 3 primes of all time. He could maybe even 1 day be argued for #1.

The problem is his peak is miles behind at least 3 of the big 4 (arguably Howe too - though maybe not quite as far imo).

Sidney Crosby's peak is actually extremely lacking. His level of play and ability could have been enough to give him the 5th best peak in all of hockey. Who knows maybe he does something supernatural in 2011 or 2012 and tops 130 or 140 points in this era and he creates an actual argument for cracking the big 4 based on his peak results. The problem is he didn't do that. Howe did. Lemieux/Orr/Gretzky even moreso. Malkin/Ovechkin both arguably have better "full" seasons than Crosby does.

If Sidney Crosby is one day recognized as the best/co-best player in the world for 15 years to Howe's 13 (assuming those are the actual counts) - it'll count for very, very little to counter the huge boost the other big 4 get with their peak over Crosby. So basically - even if Crosby unanimously gets recognized as having been the best/co-best for longer than Howe or Gretzky it doesn't move the needle a whole lot for him.

He can win 2-3 more hart/ross trophies today after age 31 - and it still doesn't do much. Howe has more. Gretzky has more. Both have better peaks, Lemieux too.

I've said it before but Crosby's only path to crack the big 4 is to do something better than any of them have, while also having a well-rounded enough resume with a few "what if" questions thrown in there. The only thing he can do now imo is Conn Smythes. He has 2. Let's start by having him win 2 more and then we can re-evaluate his placement and see if 4 smythes are enough to start a discussion.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If he maintains his present level of play (or at least of last season as this one still going) for another three seasons, he has essentially matched Howe's reign as the best player/co-best player. Howe post 63/64 was obviously still one of the best but he had lost his position as the best (or sharing that title).

That is my main argument, Crosby has a chance to better Howe and Wayne in longevity as being the league's/world's elite player.

The threshold for being the world's best player is always a moving target, and consideration must be given for how much or how little a player exceeded this threshold. Two players could have identical careers and place very differently by this metric based entirely on circumstances beyond their control.

 

[daver]

This is Sidney Crosby's first "bad" regular season. This may be enough to lose him the title of best/co-best in the world (at least insomuch as daver's argument of "best/co-best player in the world" goes).

The only caveat is playoffs. If he has another dominating playoff run - or more, if he wins another conn smythe. Yes at the end of this year and going into next year I 100% fully support calling Crosby the best player in the world. But if that doesn't happen this may end up being the season where his streak comes to an end.

I think Howe was the best player/co-best until 63/64 but there were seasons where he was given some leeway when he finished well behind in scoring.

I think Crosby has earned some similar leeway after an 18 month period where he earned three of the five MVP trophies handed out and finished 2nd in the other two. He has been at the top since 2006 so one RS should not be enough to remove him (assuming he gets back to his form from last year).

 

[Canadiens1958]

68 and 69, sure...but 71 Orr and the rest of the Bruins were schooled by Dryden.

although really I have a tough time saying someone got schooled when posting 12 points in 7 games

Popular media narrative.

Few videos exist of the series other than a hilite package of games 2 and 7.

Game 2


Game 7


Post game 7 comments by Bobby Orr are very revealing about skating being the key. Dryden had nothing to do with this aspect.

In game 2 and 7 you see how the Canadians regularly assigned 2 and 3 strong skaters to Bobby Orr limiting his options and generating key turnovers.

You are correct about Orr scoring 12 points but all were scored in the first 5 games. Orr was scoreless in games 6 and 7. The nuances of managing a playoff series that may run seven games.

 

[daver]

He might. I've said it many times - in terms of being consistency elite - Sidney Crosby may have one of the top 3 primes of all time. He could maybe even 1 day be argued for #1.

I've said it before but Crosby's only path to crack the big 4 is to do something better than any of them have, while also having a well-rounded enough resume with a few "what if" questions thrown in there. The only thing he can do now imo is Conn Smythes. He has 2. Let's start by having him win 2 more and then we can re-evaluate his placement and see if 4 smythes are enough to start a discussion.

But wouldn't having the #1 prime be something better than any of them have? To me that would be more relevant than playoff performances unless he goes off with some "best of era" performances.

Maybe not though. The question was asked before if you would pick any player outside of the Big 4 for the playoffs before any member of the Big 4 at their peak. I guess if Crosby would be picked over Howe, which may be the most reasonable thing for him to achieve, then that should hold some leverage.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think Howe was the best player/co-best until 63/64 but there were seasons where he was given some leeway when he finished well behind in scoring.

I think Crosby has earned some similar leeway after an 18 month period where he earned three of the five MVP trophies handed out and finished 2nd in the other two. He has been at the top since 2006 so one RS should not be enough to remove him (assuming he gets back to his form from last year).

Assuming there is a one to one relationship between scoring and being the best player in the league is rarely supportable.