Crosby current all time center ranking?

[Rhiessan71]

Are you saying that Mario is not revered for winning Art Rosses in partial seasons? Or that Orr is not assumed to have put up more generational seasons if not for his knees. There has to be some happy medium between looking at raw points and PPG, along with reasonable consideration for injuries.

The difference, as has been explain to you numerous times, is that Mario ACTUALLY achieved that higher level in FULL seasons.
And the important part is that while Mario receives some extra credit for some of his high PpG partial seasons (for good reason too, winning Art Ross' by a dozen or more point while missing 15-25% of the season), they are still NOT given as much weight as Gretzky's FULL seasons.

Or else it should be acknowledged with no dispute that Crosby's 2013/14 season was as statistically dominant as Jagr's win in 98/99 based on his lead over 2nd place. You can guess how well this will be accepted by some of the posters here.

I don't know what you're talking about?
It's accepted fine, there is no dispute that it was statistically as dominant. The dispute is over context. In this case who the 2nd place finishers were.
NO ONE is going to agree that Getzlaf, even on his best day (in this case, what was actually his best season ever) is equal offensively with Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg and Sakic.
As statistically dominant, sure.
As purely dominant or as dominant over-all, not a chance!
You can keep bringing this up every month like you always do but the answer isn't going to magically change.

Stevie Y beat Mario head to head in raw points 10 of 19 seasons, and has more career points. And was the better defensive player. Mario beats him only in peak regular season and playoff performance. But they should be a lot closer than #2 and #12 if one only deals with raw points.

We're not talking about a PpG of 1.30 to 1.22 though, We're talking about 1.9 to 1.22 and Stevie beats Mario in raw points by all of 32 points (1755-1723) despite Mario playing 600 less games (1514-915) heh
Mario vs Yzerman to Crosby vs Yzerman isn't even apples to oranges, it's more like comparing apples to moon rocks.

Noone deserves credit for points they didn't actually score but Crosby should be separated from players who he is clearly ahead of on a per game basis.

Oh he most definitely is, it's just not to the degree that YOU think he should be.

Nobody was claiming from 2005-2010 that the talent level was weak. So what has happened in the last five years? Seems pretty coincidental that all players are seeing a decrease in their production over the past 5 years and have seemingly gotten worse.

OR...
As has been shown to you MULTIPLE times now, the scoring decrease is almost perfectly mirrored with the decrease in PPO's.
And again...ES scoring is actually slightly up from 10 years ago.

How many times have we gone over these EXACT points now? 8 times? 9?
Like seriously...

 

[Hardyvan123]

Decreased PPO opportunities is only part of the story though.

It's simply much harder to score in any situation in 2016 than it was in 1984 for example.

PP scoring % is just way down across the board from the 80's as is ES scoring.

Dmen are also scoring more %wise than at other times.

 

[daver]

It's his playoff resume post-2009 that's being discussed. Crosby is not the PPG leader during this period.

Also, against top ten GAA teams:
21 7 6 13

Against other teams:
30 12 30 42

All post-2009. I hope I got the numbers right. As you point out, it's hard to know what to make of the numbers without comparing it to other players'.

No, his post-2009 resume is not being discussed. His complete playoff legacy is being discussed as I am sure the complete playoff resume of the other top centres gets discussed.

Or unless there is something overly important in comparing playoff legacies of players once their two best playoff Cup runs are removed then do so for the other comparable centres and get back to us. I am sure it will be riveting.

 

[daver]

Just explaining such instances.Refer to the last sentence in the same post where the point is made that such Art Ross winning margins happen when the winner enjoys a TOI advantage.

That really doesn't answer the question of whether Crosby's 20% lead over 2nd place should be viewed as similarly dominant as other peak Art Ross wins by Jagr in 98/99 or Makita in 66/67?

I can't see any reason to not view them as equally dominant if we apply a raw points-only metric.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Nice. First poster to conflate Maurice Richard who was at the tail end of his career with Henri Richard his much younger brother by 15 years and the topic of this discussion. While Moore played on the same line as the Richard brothers did he also played on the PP with Maurice Richard. Henri Richard had very minimal PP time. ES he easily outscored Dickie Moore.

You have a unique way of presenting your position. Dismissive of cup counting but embracing all other types of award and honour counting that is favourable to your point of view. So far you are counting Hart Trophies, phantom Conn Smythe worthy seasons, etc.

Factually - the Richard brother mix-up is a classic, you are rather weak. Syl Apps. Leafs were a team that iced (X+1) lines compared to most of the teams icing X lines. So Syl Apps had had a TOI disadvantage in terms of winning individual awards and honours. Prime example, last SC played with two other HHOF centers, Ted Kennedy and Max Bentley. Only such three line combination in history. 1954 SC finals, Canadiens vs Detroit, Rocket Richard scored three goals. Check the HSP project here.

I didn't confuse Henri and Rocket at all. In fact I said that Rocket didn't matter as much because he was in his mid to late 30's when Henri came along so his presence was more secondary. Reading comprehension.

First person who is going to use less TOI, less PP time and other fantasy land factors to further discussion. So Richard is handicapped because he didn't get PP time and played less overall? Do you really think TOI of players from that era were less than guys who play 19 or 20 minutes a night now? There were plenty of guys who never came off the ice throughout and entire hockey game in the early years. I did a thorough bio of Pete Mahovlich, who played 40 minutes in a game for Pittsburgh at the tail end of his career. So don't bring up TOI when comparing 06 and earlier era players to guys who play 1/3 of a hockey game (forwards).

You don't adhere to advanced analytics that try and level statistics across eras (considering massive changes have occurred, although you fight that reality as well). You apparently don't think winning Hart trophies matter, or at least think that Crosby is winning his in a much weaker era, OR that Henri Richard could have won major awards if he was ever used in a bigger role than he constantly played. Do you care about raw numbers?

What do you use to evaluate a player in an all time light then? Seriously. I want you to factually prove to me that Henri Richard and Syl Apps were better and more dominant hockey players against their peers. Period. Use whatever you want.

 

[edinson]

No, his post-2009 resume is not being discussed. His complete playoff legacy is being discussed as I am sure the complete playoff resume of the other top centres gets discussed.

Or unless there is something overly important in comparing playoff legacies of players once their two best playoff Cup runs are removed then do so for the other comparable centres and get back to us. I am sure it will be riveting.

Not sure what your point is here. Obviously his complete playoff resume should be taken into account when comparing him to other players. It's possible to discuss parts of a player's resume without discounting the rest of it. Most people seem to agree that Crosby's early playoff career is elite even in an all-time sense, whereas there seem to be more dividing opinions on his post-2009 playoffs.

 

[daver]

Not sure what your point is here. Obviously his complete playoff resume should be taken into account when comparing him to other players. It's possible to discuss parts of a player's resume without discounting the rest of it.

You'll notice that the posters who are bringing up his post-2009 resume never respond to requests for their opinions on his pre-2010 resume (or in the case of CYM, his pre-second round of 2010 resume).

 

[ImporterExporter]

Dude.

Crosby was great in the '08 playoffs, but just pretty good in the Finals, which his team lost. In NHL history, almost nobody wins a Conn Smythe when his team loses. And nobody ever wins a Conn Smythe for being pretty good in the Finals and losing.

Crosby was quite good in the '09 playoffs, but mediocre to poor in the Finals. Nobody ever wins the Conn Smythe for being mediocre to poor in the Finals. I mean, he was outscored 2-1 by Max Talbot.

So, no, Crosby does not have 2 legit Conn Smythe worthy playoff runs. Gretzky did not win a Conn Smythe in '85 and '88 because he was outscored 2-1 by Craig MacTavish.

He led the playoffs in scoring. The only reason he didn't win was the Penguins lost to Detroit. I'm NOT saying he SHOULD have won the CS, rather he was good enough to have been awarded it had the Pens prevailed. He had a very strong overall run. Especially for a 20 year old.

09? The guy put up 31 points. Yeah he was slowed down in the Cup finals, but we don't judge the CS on 1 series. He led the playoffs in goals scored. 2nd overall in scoring. His primary job is to produce offense. He did that at a very high level. Malkin was just a little better and was better in the Cup finals. I have zero issue with him being awarded the CS. Absolutely deserving. But the notion that overall, Sid didn't have a very strong run, is utter nonsense. Unless of course we judge a person on 1 series, which people are doing with 09 and again in 2013 vs Boston.

It's absolutely asinine to me that a guy who is only bested by 5/6 (i don't count Pederson and his 34 games) people all time in scoring per game (look at the names), is labeled as a continuous below par player in the playoffs. It holds almost zero water in reality.

Do you know who has routinely sucked, for the vast majority of his career in crunch time? Joe Thornton. I don't hear him being raked over the coals. Find a different way to try and knock Sid down.

Wait! How about Jagr! This is a guy who is routinely put into the top 20/30 players of all time lists and drafted as such in the ATD. What is his playoff legacy? 2 Cup wins to begin his career, riding Robin to Lemieux's Batman, at a young age. What dominant postseason runs does he have to his name? Jagr has been in the playoffs 17 time and never once scored the most goals, assists, points. He wasn't and isn't a defensive factor. And his two rings came while playing for a near dynasty that featured a loaded roster at 18 and 19.

I can keep going if needed....

And as i posted out way earlier this thread, Crosby ranks 15th all time at C right now, behind Lalonde and Yzerman for me. Not earth shattering or stinking of homerism. Put it up for a vote and discussion and how many respected members are going to say I'm nuts, given he was ranked 22nd two and half years ago and has added to his legacy since, this year included.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scoring

Decreased PPO opportunities is only part of the story though.

It's simply much harder to score in any situation in 2016 than it was in 1984 for example.

PP scoring % is just way down across the board from the 80's as is ES scoring.

Dmen are also scoring more %wise than at other times.

Two bolded statements are contradictory to say the least.

This implies that scoring has a positional bias. That the skilled offensive players are now playing as defencemen. So the forwards, in a relative context, must be less skilled then they were in say 1984.

This would of course contradict your long held contention that forwards today are more skilled. So all these forwards with international provenance, collectively, are less skilled than the forwards that were mainly of Canadian provenance in say 1984.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

So how would you rate his legacy thru 2009? Do you think there are many players in NHL history with a better one thru age 21?

Can't always focus on the negative can we?

Very few would have better playoff resumes through age 21. Which is why his overall playoff resume is still great. But not as great as Trottier, Sakic, or Yzerman at this point, to name the three guys most often declared inferior to Crosby in this thread.

Perhaps some actual numbers might help you make your case. It appears that only Crosby can beat up these tomato cans as his leading PPG appears to indicate. Maybe it is not as easy as you make it sound. He has about a PPG vs. teams with a Top Ten GAA. How do his peers in the league compare?

They were already provided. For your convenience:

This is a rather low threshold, but to make it quick & easy:

Worse than league avg. GAA = 40-24-38-62 (1.55)
Better than league avg. GAA = 60-19-37-56 (0.93)
Best vs. league GAA = 32-9-16-25 (0.78)

63 of his 100 playoff game were against teams that were no more than 6% better than league average. That's rather amazing. So, much of Crosby's playoff performance revolved around a high % of tomato cans and his great ability to exploit such teams.

I think you have to in the playoffs, where schedules are vastly unequal and the number of GP is determined not by the player, but by his team's success. These are Crosby's seven best playoff opponents compared to league GAA:

2007 Sens 5-3-2-5 (very respectable for first playoffs vs. good team)
2008 NYR 5-0-6-6 (was clearly outplayed by Jagr and held w/o goal)
2008 Wings 6-2-4-6 (respectable SCF vs. good team)
2013 Sens 5-4-2-6 (good series... were Sens really that good though? prob. more of a short season fluke)
2013 Bruins 4-0-0-0 (ouch)
2014 NYR 7-1-2-3 (shut down while Pens collapsed)
2015 NYR 5-2-2-4 (okay)
Totals 37-12-18-30 (0.81)

Of those 7 series, a couple were rather poor, while the rest were decent to good, but none were really that outstanding.

Exactly what tomato cans are you talking about here?

The league is as competitive as it ever has been as has the talent from top to bottom, calling players tomato cans in any era really undermines any argument you are trying to make and is at best ignorant and not well thought out and completely disrespectful, and really suggests a complete bias, at its worst.

The "tomato cans" refer to weak first round opponents that the typically weak Eastern Conference has served up as first-round punching bags in recent years. Ottawa, NY Islanders, Columbus, the defense/goaltending deficient Flyers of 2012...unlikely teams of this quality would have made the playoffs in the West in those years.

2015 was the first season in a long time where the conferences seemed to balance out. The inclusion of Calgary and Vancouver in the 2015 playoffs is the first instance in a while where the West could be accused of sending "tomato cans" to the post-season. Ironically they played each other due to the new playoff format.

well since 2009 this is how Crosby fares against the rest of the league in playoff scoring.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

That's right 13th in absolute raw scoring and 4th in PPG among the top 100 playoff point getters.

Ironically it's Getzlaf who has 1.20 PPG in 54 GP and Crosby has 1.15 in 75 GP.

That's simply elite IMO.

This is nice, but your numbers do not take into account the disparity between conferences. Other elite centers who Crosby is judged against (Getzlaf, Toews, Datsyuk, Kopitar, Thornton, Sedin) have constantly had to battle against each other in tight checking playoff matchups, often from the first round onward. It is simply not a fair playing field to directly compare the numbers of the guys in the West against the guys in the East.

 

[Canadiens1958]

20%

That really doesn't answer the question of whether Crosby's 20% lead over 2nd place should be viewed as similarly dominant as other peak Art Ross wins by Jagr in 98/99 or Makita in 66/67?

I can't see any reason to not view them as equally dominant if we apply a raw points-only metric.

But the 17 point difference 104 to 87 points is not a 20% margin working downwards, perhaps 16% would be more accurate.

Puffery does not work well here on HOH.

 

[daver]

Very few would have better playoff resumes through age 21. Which is why his overall playoff resume is still great. But not as great as Trottier, Sakic, or Yzerman at this point, to name the three guys most often declared inferior to Crosby in this thread.

I think the common opinion is that he already surpassed them in peak/prime play but not in longevity. IMO, if he does surpass them with a few more elite seasons then any perceived lacking in playoff resume shouldn't keep him behind those guys. His playoff resume as it stands now is pretty comparable to the them save for longevity.

 

[daver]

But the 17 point difference 104 to 87 points is not a 20% margin working downwards, perhaps 16% would be more accurate.

Puffery does not work well here on HOH.

Evading the question also does not work well here on HOH.

Your math doesn't change the fact that it still comparable to Jagr's and Makita's peak Art Ross winning seasons.

 

[nerdman60]

I have Crosby just outside top 20 centers of all time and possibly getting into the Hall of Fame once his career is over.

Had some good years but nothing special.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Decreased PPO opportunities is only part of the story though.

It's simply much harder to score in any situation in 2016 than it was in 1984 for example.

PP scoring % is just way down across the board from the 80's as is ES scoring.

Dmen are also scoring more %wise than at other times.

Too bad we were specifically talking about 05-10 to today eh.

 

[MXD]

I have Crosby just outside top 20 centers of all time and possibly getting into the Hall of Fame once his career is over.

Had some good years but nothing special.

...ehh...
April 1st.

 

[daver]

This is nice, but your numbers do not take into account the disparity between conferences. Other elite centers who Crosby is judged against (Getzlaf, Toews, Datsyuk, Kopitar, Thornton, Sedin) have constantly had to battle against each other in tight checking playoff matchups, often from the first round onward. It is simply not a fair playing field to directly compare the numbers of the guys in the West against the guys in the East.

I'm sorry this sounds like some fantasy land stuff. We only deal with facts here in the HOH.

 

[daver]

The "tomato cans" refer to weak first round opponents that the typically weak Eastern Conference has served up as first-round punching bags in recent years. Ottawa, NY Islanders, Columbus, the defense/goaltending deficient Flyers of 2012...unlikely teams of this quality would have made the playoffs in the West in those years.

More fantasy stuff. Seems like everyone can get tickets to Fantasy Land except Crosby.

Btw, if you are going to quote CYM, make sure there isn't any cherrypicking going on. There is a reason he choose seven best "playoff opponents compared to league GAA" and not eight because that would have included Carolina in 2009. But why make a sample size larger than it has to be when a point has to be made.

So add in Carolina to the mix and it's 37 points in 41 games. Pretty close to a PPG especially when you consider he was playing with a hand injury in 2013 vs. the Rangers.

So how does Crosby's performance vs. tough competition rate against the other top playoff performers? Only Malkin and Giroux are above a PPG overall so I am sure it rates pretty highly.

And I challenge you to find a Cup winning team that was more reliant on its two biggest offensive stars than the '09 Pens.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Two bolded statements are contradictory to say the least.

This implies that scoring has a positional bias. That the skilled offensive players are now playing as defencemen. So the forwards, in a relative context, must be less skilled then they were in say 1984.

We don't need to guess if it's positional bias or not.

And that's all it would be is a guess as there is simply zero chance in ever proving where the "more skilled" players go to position wise as youngsters or what would happen in an alternate universe.

What it really comes down to is usage and deployment by coaches and the stats are there with Dmen scoring more proportionally than in other times and the reasons don't really matter.

This would of course contradict your long held contention that forwards today are more skilled. So all these forwards with international provenance, collectively, are less skilled than the forwards that were mainly of Canadian provenance in say 1984.

No need to go there as the evidence is pretty clear from 1984 to 2106 both in terms of post season award voting and international hockey (Canada still being dominant even in a rising tide of competitiveness)

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm sorry this sounds like some fantasy land stuff. We only deal with facts here in the HOH.

It's also ironic that Crosby is getting "blamed" or held to account for something out of his control but that's on par with the treatment for the modern right now player.

countless examples of "context" for many other players simply gets dismissed or player X in the past gets treated by a different standard.

this thread is ripe with examples of this, one only has to read the thread.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm sorry this sounds like some fantasy land stuff. We only deal with facts here in the HOH.

You're denying that the West has been a stronger conference than the East for most of the last decade? Facts don't support this.

Cup winners since 2006, when Crosby's career began:

East:

06 Carolina: Won a close 7-game series. Could have gone either way.
09 Pittsburgh: Won a close 7-game series. Could have gone either way.
11 Boston: Won a strangely dominant 7-game series. But still came down to a single game.

West:

07 Anaheim: Won in 5 games, never in doubt.
08 Detroit: Won in 6 games, never in serious doubt.
10 Chicago: Won in 6 games, pretty close series.
12 LA: Won in 6 games, never in serious doubt.
13 Chicago: Won in 6 games, probably should have gone 7.
14 LA: Very tight series, despite only going 5 games.
15 Chicago: Pretty close, tired Chicago hung on against an eager Lightning team, winning in 6.

West 7, East 3. All three Eastern wins could have gone the other way. All West wins required only five or six games.

Not much room for debate, but go ahead and lay your case out as to why the West has not been better than the East.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I have Crosby just outside top 20 centers of all time and possibly getting into the Hall of Fame once his career is over.

Had some good years but nothing special.

He'd get in if his career ended directly after this season. But i like your sarcasm.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your Quote

I didn't confuse Henri and Rocket at all. In fact I said that Rocket didn't matter as much because he was in his mid to late 30's when Henri came along so his presence was more secondary. Reading comprehension.

First person who is going to use less TOI, less PP time and other fantasy land factors to further discussion. So Richard is handicapped because he didn't get PP time and played less overall? Do you really think TOI of players from that era were less than guys who play 19 or 20 minutes a night now? There were plenty of guys who never came off the ice throughout and entire hockey game in the early years. I did a thorough bio of Pete Mahovlich, who played 40 minutes in a game for Pittsburgh at the tail end of his career. So don't bring up TOI when comparing 06 and earlier era players to guys who play 1/3 of a hockey game (forwards).

You don't adhere to advanced analytics that try and level statistics across eras (considering massive changes have occurred, although you fight that reality as well). You apparently don't think winning Hart trophies matter, or at least think that Crosby is winning his in a much weaker era, OR that Henri Richard could have won major awards if he was ever used in a bigger role than he constantly played. Do you care about raw numbers?

What do you use to evaluate a player in an all time light then? Seriously. I want you to factually prove to me that Henri Richard and Syl Apps were better and more dominant hockey players against their peers. Period. Use whatever you want.

The exact quote by you is below, between the lines:
___________________________________________________________________
Really? I forgot, how many Hart trophies did Henri Richard win? How many times did he lead the league in scoring? I'll save you the trouble. 0. 0. In fact he wasn't even one of the 2 and maybe 3 best players on those 50's dynasty teams. Jean Beliveau, Doug Harvey were easily more important pieces. Hell, Dickie Moore won back to back Art Ross' in 58 and 59. More significant feats than anything Richard did. Richard as at the tail end of his career, so I'd say he was much more of a secondary player by that time.
___________________________________________________________________

You start the paragraph referencing Henri Richard, the switch to he, then Richard. Never do you use the first name Maurice, the nickname Rocket or any other title that would shift the discussion to Maurice Richard.

No one thinks about ice time. They research ice time. Look at the 1959-60 Montréal Canadiens regular season scoring:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1960.html

Four listed centers, two with 30+ goals, one with 20+ goals one with 13 goals,looks like a four center rotation. Four RW with 40 plus games, 5 LWs with a range of 59 to 70 games. Three of the LWs with a history of playing multiple forward positions, Moore, Marshall all three, Bonin, both wings. For all positions and players the data shows a regular four line rotation. HSP review confirms with an indication of PP bias . The scoring distribution amongst the thirteen forwards indicates that forwards tended to play between 15 and 18 minutes per game. Further skewed to the lower number because Toe Blake used Marshall and Bob Turner(5th defenceman) as the PK forwards. Also during that era post coincidental majors or minors teams would play 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 so the available forward minutes would be reduced accordingly.

Do not know what you mean by factually prove. Factually to you seems to mean denying that Maurice Richard scoring three goals in the 1954. You still seem to claim that he went scoreless in the 1954 SC finals.

As for winning awards or honours I recognize the following. The only award that matters is winning the Stanley Cup. Everything else in terms of awards and honours is a by product of this prime team objective. Awards and honours are voted on and have to be awarded each year whether the talent or performance pool is worthy.

 

[daver]

You're denying that the West has been a stronger conference than the East for most of the last decade? Facts don't support this.

Cup winners since 2006, when Crosby's career began:

East:

06 Carolina: Won a close 7-game series. Could have gone either way.
09 Pittsburgh: Won a close 7-game series. Could have gone either way.
11 Boston: Won a strangely dominant 7-game series. But still came down to a single game.

West:

07 Anaheim: Won in 5 games, never in doubt.
08 Detroit: Won in 6 games, never in serious doubt.
10 Chicago: Won in 6 games, pretty close series.
12 LA: Won in 6 games, never in serious doubt.
13 Chicago: Won in 6 games, probably should have gone 7.
14 LA: Very tight series, despite only going 5 games.
15 Chicago: Pretty close, tired Chicago hung on against an eager Lightning team, winning in 6.

West 7, East 3. All three Eastern wins could have gone the other way. All West wins required only five or six games.

Not much room for debate, but go ahead and lay your case out as to why the West has not been better than the East.

We have no way of knowing how Crosby would perform in the West unless we play the "what if" game.

So go ahead and speculate on Crosby's playoff PPG if he played in the West instead of the East. Then we can speculate on Crosby's Art Ross and Hart trophy count if he didn't get injured.

I wonder what is going to have the bigger affect on his all-time ranking?

 

[Killion]

I'm sorry this sounds like some fantasy land stuff. We only deal with facts here in the HOH.

.... there ya go daver. no worries.