Can Crosby Surpass Gretzky With A Superior Finish Than Wayne Had to His Career?
- Thread starter GlitchMarner
- Start date
No one thinks anyone involved in the current game can surpass Gretzky
People are giving stupid unrealistic examples for Crosby. ie - it would take 6 smythes or more. Doesn't mean anyone believes there's even a sliver of chance of it happening.
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2016
- 4,906
- 2,359
How so? He lead the league in playoff PPG from 95 to 2001 just like he lead the league in PPG.
So you are talking about A HALF SEASON as to prove your point?
Im saying that he wouldnt have won the scoring race as big as he did because ALL relevant competition folded.
Who cares? He just as likely would have had other dominant Art Ross wins if we apply the same criteria that your are applying to the relevant competition, that being giving them credit for games they did not play.
Only applying the criteria to his competition is a double standard. Not sure how you don't get this.
So either take his 20% Art Ross at face value (which is the right thing to do) or apply the same "what if" scenario to everyone.
BTW, Stamkos played LESS THAN HALF A SEASON in 13/14 at a significantly worse PPG.
NewUser293223
Registered Abuser
There's a gap in your logic.
What is 20% art ross at face value? What does that even mean? It's an Art Ross, sure, and he gets full marks for that. Does he get extra marks because he won it by 20%? Is it comparable to the years Gretzky won his art ross by lapping the competition? Is that your argument?
Because if so - that arguments holds 0 weight.
Gretzky lapped the field in 1984. But if you put his 1984 season in 1981, or 1987, or 1975, or 1923 - he still laps the field. So it's ok to give him a few extra 'brownie points' for a big margin of victory.
Are you thinking that if you take Crosby's 2014 season and put it in 2013. or 2012. or 2016. he still laps the competition by a lot? Because I think 100% no. Maybe he still wins those years, by a bit, or loses by 1-2 points in a strong year. But the only reason he won by 20% is because the usual strong suspects (ie Malkin, healthy Stamkos, regressing Ovi) happened to all have crap years/injuries.
So you give Crosby full merit for an art ross. An Art Ross is an Art Ross. But you don't necessarily give him extra credit for margin of victory.
As to your other question of 2011. What exactly are you trying to do for 2011? Do you give Crosby credit for level of play? Sure. Half seasons count too in a career evaluation. But he didn't win the Art Ross in 2011. you can't give him a 'hypothetical' art ross. You can give him full merits for the stretch he did play at a super high level, but you can't just add an art ross to his resume, that makes no sense.
So to sum up:
1. He won an art ross in 2014. Full merit for that
2. He didn't win an Art Ross in 2011. So you can't give him any merit for that. 'Hypothetical Art Ross' means exactly nothing for career value.
3. He played at a super high level in 2011 (and 2013, and 2012) - and you can give him some credit for that. (ex - he was seen as the best player in the world, and by a decent gap even, most of those years. That's some worth/merit right there).
4. 20% margin of victory means exactly nothing in that grand scheme of things. You have to apply context, and logic, and if you apply context and logic, you realize his 2014 season isn't even his most dominant season. It might not be top 3. You can give full merit to Gretzky's dominant art ross seasons because they show how above the competition he was that year but also any other years. 2014? It shows a strong level of play, but that's it.
No, what im saying is that if you have a grand slam in Tennis, say french open. If Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Wawrinka all withdraw or dont even enter the tournament, it will be an easy win for Nadal (Crosby in this example). Thats not saying anything other than that Nadal is great, and would be the odds favorite to win anyway - just that if the competition folds, it wont even be close by default.
If you take Premier League. If Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal all decides not to play that year, it would and SHOULD be a big win for Liverpool.
And btw Stamkos had 23 points in 17 games before injury (and that counting the Boston game).
No, I don't think a 20% Art Ross win makes an ounce of difference in the comparison. Crosby is not catching Wayne. But rather I was pointing out that it is intellectually dishonest to diminish the 20% Art Ross win with an obvious double standard regardless of whether it is significant or not to the conversation.
But you are making assumptions on how these players would have done if they played a full season and claiming that Crosby doesn't have his 20% Art Ross win if these players weren't injured. So that should open the door to speculate that Crosby has at least 2 to 3 more Art Ross if not for injuries right?
Apply this same line of thinking to Malkin, Stamkos etc.. for their 13/14 seasons, that 'Hypothetical full seasons means exactly nothing' and we are good.
If you want to apply context, and logic to his 13/14 season, which I am totally fine with, then all I am asking is to apply the same logic and context to his partial seasons, namely that it is pretty clear he missed out on two chances to have dominant Art Ross wins on his resume.
Frankly I am bit surprised this needs to be explained.
"Crosby won the Art by 20% in 2014"
"Yeah but injuries...."
"Crosby would won 2 or 3 more Art Rosses if not for injuries"
"Oh, that's completely different and holds zero value"
I certainly said nothing of the kind, nor have i seen that line of argument said here. Are you making arguments up?
And of course Malkin and Stamkos don't get value for missing 2014 why would they? do you think when we evaluate Malkin's career value we're going to tic "hypothetical ross in 2014" ? I don't think anyone here said that.
This is basically 2012 Malkin. Give him full credit for his ross, 109 points, to 2nd place 97 points. Big margin of victory. Is that Art Ross more important because of his gap over 2nd place? Only insomuch as you realize that if Crosby had been healthy that year, he likely finishes ahead of Malkin, or at the very LEAST - ahead of Stamkos. And that gap goes away.
Margins of victory don't really mean much at all. Or at least - it certainly doesn't mean as much as you want to imply it means.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,578
- 5,202
How much value there is at being first is obviously determined by being ahead of who, same by how much, there is no reason to ever take anything at face value and not use the context to make the best analysis.
Lemieux beating a peak Yzeman and a Greztky by almost 20% in 1989, is obviously much more impressive than beating Getzalf and Giroux by 20%.
Do anyone really take those lead at face value and find Crosby 2014 Art Ross as impressive than Lemieux 1989 win ? I think safe to say no one does.
Lemieux beating a peak Yzeman and a Greztky by almost 20% in 1989, is obviously much more impressive than beating Getzalf and Giroux by 20%.
Do anyone really take those lead at face value and find Crosby 2014 Art Ross as impressive than Lemieux 1989 win ? I think safe to say no one does.
I thought you were fully aware that you jumped into the middle of a debate with Casanova. He is totally giving Malkin and Stamkos value for missing 2014.
Your argument are so crazy I cant really keep up anymore. Im saying all his competition folded and he wouldnt win as big if they didnt, and you go directly to awarding Crosby 2-3 Art Ross. Its like talking science with the pope.
If you can't see the hypocrisy of awarding Malkin and Stamkos full seasons in 13/14 and not doing the same for Crosby, you are hilariously blind with your dislike for Crosby.
NewUser293223
Registered Abuser
Your logic is severely lacking in the last few pages. Unless you're just completely misunderstanding the point.
1. You're saying a 20% art ross margin of victory is impressive, because 20% is a lot
2. We're saying you have to put that 20% in context. With context, it's not nearly as impressive (context = Malkin/Stamkos injuries as a starter)
3. You're jumping to saying we should give Crosby hpothetical art ross in 2011 12 and 13 if we add context to his ross win of 2014.
Huh?
So we assume that if Malkin and Stamkos played full seasons Crosby doesn't have a 20% Art Ross season. I would agree that it's not unreasonable to think Malkin gets more than 87 points if he played a full season ( Stamkos is a stretch). Apply the exact same hypothetical full season for Crosby and it's not unreasonable to think he wins more Art Rosses in at least 2 of his partial seasons.
I'm just promoting consistency. In your words "hypothetical seasons have zero value" yet we want to put value on Malkin's hypothetical full season in 13/14 to the extent we devalue Crosby's Art Ross win.
But let's be clear here, I am fully on board with treating Crosby's 13/14 as one of his best but not as good on a per game basis as some of his others and the 20% margin of victory doesn't change that.
IMO, it is just unfair to apply these hypothetical scenarios to select players which is my original issue with Casanova.
I dont award them anything which I tell you numerous times but you fail to understand.
You aren't assuming that Malkin gets more than 87 points if you award him a full season?
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,578
- 5,202
Considering he has only one season in career under a ppg and was at 1.20 ppg that year, it is not a big stretch.
That said Crosby drought in somewhat large sample size of games this season show that it is dangerous to assume for when he extrapole how he would have done in 2010-2011 for example is only really safe Ross without injuries is 12-13 needing 5 points in 13 games , a low shot percentage when on ice could always have happened, Malkin could have had only 15 points in the 20 games he would have played in a 80 games season (and 80 is a lot of game for Malkin)
But the point still stand, an Art Ross win and an art Ross margin level of impressiveness is 100% relative to who you beat, being first at something is only as good as who is second, third, etc...
