Crosby current all time center ranking?

[daver]

I posted the home/road splits earlier as well, and from what I can tell it doesn't seem like the away trips explain the differences, as there is a significant dropoff in the home stats as well. Still, I don't think too much consideration should be put into this since it could very well be a sample size issue and the same analysis hasn't been made for other post-lockout scorers.

I'm not sure if this scoring breakdown has been done for every comparable centre, but feel free to do it. The more context we have, the better. I posted the breakdown for Yzerman earlier in the thread.

At this point there are two 70/80 game samples that are in contradiction to each other. And since the other centres didn't play in the Eastern Conference from 2005 - 2016 or at the same the breakdown of East and West, not sure how applicable the stats will be.

And again, if Crosby has torched his team's immediate rivals in the standings, isn't that a good thing?

Seems like a lot of nitpicking here and I still would like to hear how a hypothetical change in conferences would affect his resume (or not) vs. him playing more full seasons of hockey if he hypothetically didn't get as injured by playing on a different team. Or perhaps having more playoff team success by playing on a different team. Seems like the best centres in the West have played on better teams than the East.

 

[daver]

Sakic is ahead of Trottier and Yzerman despite having less Cups, a similar playoff resume, and the worse defensive resume of the three. Seems his superior regular season resume is the difference between the three.

I really can't see how Crosby will be held behind these guys once his regular season resume is clearly better. This nitpicking over his playoff and defensive resume seems like a lot of noise.

 

[edinson]

At this point there are two 70/80 game samples that are in contradiction to each other. And since the other centres didn't play in the Eastern Conference from 2005 - 2016 or at the same the breakdown of East and West, not sure how applicable the stats will be.

And again, if Crosby has torched his team's immediate rivals in the standings, isn't that a good thing?

Seems like a lot of nitpicking here and I still would like to hear how a hypothetical change in conferences would affect his resume (or not) vs. him playing more full seasons of hockey if he hypothetically didn't get as injured by playing on a different team. Or perhaps having more playoff team success by playing on a different team. Seems like the best centres in the West have played on better teams than the East.

It seems we agree that the sample size is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Sakic is ahead of Trottier and Yzerman despite having less Cups, a similar playoff resume, and the worse defensive resume of the three. Seems his superior regular season resume is the difference between the three.

I really can't see how Crosby will be held behind these guys once his regular season resume is clearly better. This nitpicking over his playoff and defensive resume seems like a lot of noise.

I think Sakic's playoff resume is clearly ahead of Yzerman's. In fact, that is maybe the main reason I rank Sakic as the better player.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

They finished 7th, 8th, 5th and 6th in their Conference.

Teams better than them could have been weaker defensively, but apparently, it's not the case.

Got it.

I was a bit confused, but I'm starting to get use to that.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

So Crosby is the best against below average, blowing away Toews. He blows everyone away in the decent and very good category and is competitive in the elite category, more so if you eliminate the 7 games against the Ranger in 2013 where he was injured. Everyone steps up defensively in the playoffs. I'll give Kopitar and Toews the edge but not at the expense of a clearly superior offensive resume.

That he is not as successful against better defensive teams is hardly a surprise but there is nothing here that lowers his status as one of the top playoff performers of his era. And similar to his regular season resume, the fact that he has had the worst linemates and offensive support from his team out the four players, IMO, negates any significance to his performance against elite teams.

No, Crosby does not blow everyone away in the "decent" and "very good" categories. His sample size in the "very good" category is a miniscule 9 games. His "decent" sample size is small as well, but similar in size to Getzlaf and Kopitar. Those three have very similar outputs in that category, and Toews is the leader over a much larger sample size. And as we pointed out already, Crosby is pretty much unarguably fourth out of these four players in the "elite" sample.

So basically the numbers confirm what myself and CYM suggested a long time ago: Using either raw total points or points-per-game to compare Crosby to elite centers from the West is bogus. The entirety of his advantage in those categories is attributable to lighting up crappy defensive teams that the guys in the West seldom, in some cases never, got to feast upon.

Removing tomato cans from the equation gives us the following:

Crosby: 54 GP. 15 G, 33 A, 48 points.
Toews: 99 GP. 29 G, 57 A, 86 points.
Kopitar: 70 GP. 18 G, 42 A, 60 points.
Getzlaf: 85 GP. 22 G, 55 A, 77 points.

The difference in per-game offensive output is minimal. And Crosby has maintained this pace over the fewest number of games played, by a significant margin. His offensive resume in the playoffs is simply not superior to Toews, Kopitar, or Getzlaf once the different scoring conditions each player experienced is taken into consideration.

 

[MXD]

No, Crosby does not blow everyone away in the "decent" and "very good" categories. His sample size in the "very good" category is a miniscule 9 games. His "decent" sample size is small as well, but similar in size to Getzlaf and Kopitar. Those three have very similar outputs in that category, and Toews is the leader over a much larger sample size. And as we pointed out already, Crosby is pretty much unarguably fourth out of these four players in the "elite" sample.

So basically the numbers confirm what myself and CYM suggested a long time ago: Using either raw total points or points-per-game to compare Crosby to elite centers from the West is bogus. The entirety of his advantage in those categories is attributable to lighting up crappy defensive teams that the guys in the West seldom, in some cases never, got to feast upon.

Removing tomato cans from the equation gives us the following:

Crosby: 54 GP. 15 G, 33 A, 48 points.
Toews: 99 GP. 29 G, 57 A, 86 points.
Kopitar: 70 GP. 18 G, 42 A, 60 points.
Getzlaf: 85 GP. 22 G, 55 A, 77 points.

The difference in per-game offensive output is minimal. And Crosby has maintained this pace over the fewest number of games played, by a significant margin. His offensive resume in the playoffs is simply not superior to Toews, Kopitar, or Getzlaf once the different scoring conditions each player experienced is taken into consideration.

Kyle (and CYM) -- I might have missed it earlier, but what's the GAA difference between those groupings?

 

[Hardyvan123]

No, Crosby does not blow everyone away in the "decent" and "very good" categories. His sample size in the "very good" category is a miniscule 9 games. His "decent" sample size is small as well, but similar in size to Getzlaf and Kopitar. Those three have very similar outputs in that category, and Toews is the leader over a much larger sample size. And as we pointed out already, Crosby is pretty much unarguably fourth out of these four players in the "elite" sample.

So basically the numbers confirm what myself and CYM suggested a long time ago: Using either raw total points or points-per-game to compare Crosby to elite centers from the West is bogus. The entirety of his advantage in those categories is attributable to lighting up crappy defensive teams that the guys in the West seldom, in some cases never, got to feast upon.

Removing tomato cans from the equation gives us the following:

Crosby: 54 GP. 15 G, 33 A, 48 points.
Toews: 99 GP. 29 G, 57 A, 86 points.
Kopitar: 70 GP. 18 G, 42 A, 60 points.
Getzlaf: 85 GP. 22 G, 55 A, 77 points.

The difference in per-game offensive output is minimal. And Crosby has maintained this pace over the fewest number of games played, by a significant margin. His offensive resume in the playoffs is simply not superior to Toews, Kopitar, or Getzlaf once the different scoring conditions each player experienced is taken into consideration.

No doubt all 4 players are very good playoff performers but the sample size and other metrics and context is missing here.

The biggest example is Getzlaf having Corey Perry as a winger in contrast to some of the guys Crosby has been playing with.

Also as noted by Daver and others upthread Sid was obviously playing injured in the 14 playoffs against the NYR and his shooting % really stands out as a testament to his wrist not being anywhere close to 100%

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-updates-on-penguins-stars-wrist-and-recovery

There seems to be alot of distraction on some of Crosby's playoff resume here,

-like the 14 injury
- last season when 3 of the Pens top 4 Dmen were out and Crosby was still by far the best Pens position player in the playoffs
- his 4 game performance against Boston in which his team scored exactly 2 goals but we don't see Letang, Malkin and company getting lit up for this only Crosby.

Boston BTW has the incredible shutdown duo of Chara on the back end with Bergeron up front and Rask with a .940 save % in those playoffs.

Even in his "down" period playoff wise Crosby is 4th in PPG among all players.

Where in the hell was this criticism of Lafleur outside of his 6 year playoff peak and his down years being much much worse?

Quick answer is that it was basically ignored and overlooked.

 

[daver]

No, Crosby does not blow everyone away in the "decent" and "very good" categories. His sample size in the "very good" category is a miniscule 9 games. His "decent" sample size is small as well, but similar in size to Getzlaf and Kopitar. Those three have very similar outputs in that category, and Toews is the leader over a much larger sample size. And as we pointed out already, Crosby is pretty much unarguably fourth out of these four players in the "elite" sample.

So basically the numbers confirm what myself and CYM suggested a long time ago: Using either raw total points or points-per-game to compare Crosby to elite centers from the West is bogus. The entirety of his advantage in those categories is attributable to lighting up crappy defensive teams that the guys in the West seldom, in some cases never, got to feast upon.

Without Crosby 'feasting' on these teams the Pens don't advance in the playoffs. How that can be perceived as a negative and "bogus" is beyond me. Let's give credit where credit is due.

You want to say that Crosby would not have the PPG advantage if he played the better defensive teams the other 3 had, I will counter that those 3 would not do as well as Crosby if they played on the Pens with its significantly inferior offensive support. They might not have any Cups or even Cup appearances.

The fantasy world works both ways.

I am sure that Mr. Beliveau's revered playoff resume was bolstered by playing lesser teams and by his teammates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

False

No doubt all 4 players are very good playoff performers but the sample size and other metrics and context is missing here.

The biggest example is Getzlaf having Corey Perry as a winger in contrast to some of the guys Crosby has been playing with.

Also as noted by Daver and others upthread Sid was obviously playing injured in the 14 playoffs against the NYR and his shooting % really stands out as a testament to his wrist not being anywhere close to 100%

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-updates-on-penguins-stars-wrist-and-recovery

There seems to be alot of distraction on some of Crosby's playoff resume here,

-like the 14 injury
- last season when 3 of the Pens top 4 Dmen were out and Crosby was still by far the best Pens position player in the playoffs
- his 4 game performance against Boston in which his team scored exactly 2 goals but we don't see Letang, Malkin and company getting lit up for this only Crosby.

Boston BTW has the incredible shutdown duo of Chara on the back end with Bergeron up front and Rask with a .940 save % in those playoffs.

Even in his "down" period playoff wise Crosby is 4th in PPG among all players.

Where in the hell was this criticism of Lafleur outside of his 6 year playoff peak and his down years being much much worse?

Quick answer is that it was basically ignored and overlooked.

Bolded is categorically false. At various times I have criticzed Guy Lafleur for his playoff play. Notably in 1974 against the Rangers when on a line with Henri Richard and Steve Shutt to start the series he was lectured by Henri Richard on the bench, benched by Bowman and replaced by Claude Larose, while Shutt went on to lead the team in scoring for the series, having his breakout series.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laflegu01.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1974.html

Also I have criticized Lafleur for the 1984 playoffs where he did not buy into what Jacques Lemaire was teaching and coaching.

 

[daver]

No, Crosby does not blow everyone away in the "decent" and "very good" categories. His sample size in the "very good" category is a miniscule 9 games. His "decent" sample size is small as well, but similar in size to Getzlaf and Kopitar. Those three have very similar outputs in that category, and Toews is the leader over a much larger sample size. And as we pointed out already, Crosby is pretty much unarguably fourth out of these four players in the "elite" sample.

Yet Getzlaf's 12 game sample in the 'below average' category is enough to conclude that he "smoked them in Crosby-like fashion".

I don't see any reason to believe these other 3 players would challenge Crosby in PPG if they happened to play more 'below average' teams.

And does regular season GAA really give the best indication of a team's defensive strength in the playoffs? Every playoff team tightens up their D and likely plays above their regular season level. This whole exercise seems really questionable. Even more so if it is going to be used to keep him from passing centres in the rankings with clearly inferior regular season resumes.

How many below average teams did the Wings, Avs play in the '90s or the Islanders in the '80s? Even if they did, shouldn't a player get credit for helping his team finish high the standings to play weaker opponents.

I think this playoff angle needs to be put to bed. A Cup, another Cup appearance, the leader in playoff PPG and raw points, with two excellent if not Conn Smythe worthy runs, is very comparable to the playoff peaks/primes of his closest rivals in the all-time ratings.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Selectively

No doubt all 4 players are very good playoff performers but the sample size and other metrics and context is missing here.

The biggest example is Getzlaf having Corey Perry as a winger in contrast to some of the guys Crosby has been playing with.

Also as noted by Daver and others upthread Sid was obviously playing injured in the 14 playoffs against the NYR and his shooting % really stands out as a testament to his wrist not being anywhere close to 100%

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-updates-on-penguins-stars-wrist-and-recovery

There seems to be alot of distraction on some of Crosby's playoff resume here,

-like the 14 injury
- last season when 3 of the Pens top 4 Dmen were out and Crosby was still by far the best Pens position player in the playoffs
- his 4 game performance against Boston in which his team scored exactly 2 goals but we don't see Letang, Malkin and company getting lit up for this only Crosby.

Boston BTW has the incredible shutdown duo of Chara on the back end with Bergeron up front and Rask with a .940 save % in those playoffs.

Even in his "down" period playoff wise Crosby is 4th in PPG among all players.

Where in the hell was this criticism of Lafleur outside of his 6 year playoff peak and his down years being much much worse?

Quick answer is that it was basically ignored and overlooked.

But the vaunted Bruins shutdown trio you list must have been playing very selectively in the 2013 playoffs. Against Toronto JVR and Kessel combined for 13 PTS in seven games, against the Rangers, Nash and Brassard though limited to a combined 4 PTS in five games generated more offensive action and against Chicago, Toews and Kane combined for 10 PTS in six games to win the SC.

Pittsburgh led by Crosby, collectively scored 2 goals in four games. Only contribution was that they inflated the defensive stats of the Bruins vaunted trio.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sakic is ahead of Trottier and Yzerman despite having less Cups, a similar playoff resume, and the worse defensive resume of the three. Seems his superior regular season resume is the difference between the three.

These 3 players are separated by so few votes that if only a handful of them changed it could literally reverse the order.
The real difference between these 3 IMO is that Yzerman has the offensive peak and longevity, Trottier has the offensive prime, team success and was the best defensively over-all from start to finish and Joe contributed a high level of offense the longest.

As I said before, a poll between Stevie and Joe is one of the closest one can have around here outside of Roy vs Hasek.

I really can't see how Crosby will be held behind these guys once his regular season resume is clearly better. This nitpicking over his playoff and defensive resume seems like a lot of noise.

So what you're saying is that because Yzerman's, Sakic's and Trottier's playoff resumes are so good and so close that they tend to end up being ranked based on their regular season performances, we should automatically do the same for Crosby?
That we should ignore Crosby's clearly inferior PO resume and just focus on regular season performance?
That's mighty fine logic you got going on there

I'm sorry but until Crosby's PO resume is at their level, IF it gets to their level, we're just going to have to continue to "nitpick" it and make some "noise" heh

 

[daver]

Pittsburgh led by Crosby, collectively scored 2 goals in four games. Only contribution was that they inflated the defensive stats of the Bruins vaunted trio.

No excuses but when the whole team is shutdown including Malkin, it is obvious that it was a very good defensive performance by Boston in what was a very low scoring series.

I am sure the other top playoff performers have had similarly underproductive 4 game samples that should not define their playoff resumes other than being a poor 4 games (in Crosby's case out of 100 games).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kyle (and CYM) -- I might have missed it earlier, but what's the GAA difference between those groupings?

I categorized "elite" as being ranked #1-5 in regular season goals against, "very good" as being ranked #6-10, "decent" as #11-15, and "below average" as #16 or worse. It's not perfect, and perhaps using GAA as compared to the overall league average would be more accurate. But then again, averages can be skewed by a couple really good or really awful teams, so not necessarily.

No doubt all 4 players are very good playoff performers but the sample size and other metrics and context is missing here.

The biggest example is Getzlaf having Corey Perry as a winger in contrast to some of the guys Crosby has been playing with.

Also as noted by Daver and others upthread Sid was obviously playing injured in the 14 playoffs against the NYR and his shooting % really stands out as a testament to his wrist not being anywhere close to 100%

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-updates-on-penguins-stars-wrist-and-recovery

There seems to be alot of distraction on some of Crosby's playoff resume here,

-like the 14 injury
- last season when 3 of the Pens top 4 Dmen were out and Crosby was still by far the best Pens position player in the playoffs
- his 4 game performance against Boston in which his team scored exactly 2 goals but we don't see Letang, Malkin and company getting lit up for this only Crosby.

Boston BTW has the incredible shutdown duo of Chara on the back end with Bergeron up front and Rask with a .940 save % in those playoffs.

Even in his "down" period playoff wise Crosby is 4th in PPG among all players.

Where in the hell was this criticism of Lafleur outside of his 6 year playoff peak and his down years being much much worse?

Quick answer is that it was basically ignored and overlooked.

Lafleur and Letang are not centers and are not part of the discussion.

And there you go right on back to points-per-game. Despite a lengthy post clearly demonstrating that Crosby's points-per-game advantage only exists due to an abnormally high volume of games against weak defensive opponents that players in the other conference never had a chance to take advantage of due to the NHL's conference-based playoff format.

Without Crosby 'feasting' on these teams the Pens don't advance in the playoffs. How that can be perceived as a negative and "bogus" is beyond me. Let's give credit where credit is due.

You want to say that Crosby would not have the PPG advantage if he played the better defensive teams the other 3 had, I will counter that those 3 would not do as well as Crosby if they played on the Pens with its significantly inferior offensive support. They might not have any Cups or even Cup appearances.

The fantasy world works both ways.

It's not a negative. Not at all. But if people want to base their case for Crosby upon point totals and per-game averages, it invites closer investigation of how the point totals were achieved.

Second bold: Facts are once again getting in the way of your assumptions.

If you remove all goals Crosby had a point on in the 2009 playoffs, the Penguins averaged 2.00 goals per game.

2007 Ducks, minus Getzlaf: 1.95 goals per game.
2010 Hawks, minus Toews: 2.23 gpg.
2012 Kings, minus Kopitar: 1.85 gpg.
2013 Hawks, minus Toews: 2.17 gpg.
2014 Kings, minus Kopitar: 2.38 gpg.
2015 Hawks, minus Toews: 2.09 gpg.

Only 2010 Toews and 2014 Kopitar enjoyed significantly more offensive support than Crosby. 07 Getzlaf and 12 Kopitar in fact had less.

I am sure that Mr. Beliveau's revered playoff resume was bolstered by playing lesser teams and by his teammates.

You can continue making assumptions, or you can do the research and find out for certain.

 

[daver]

I categorized "elite" as being ranked #1-5 in regular season goals against, "very good" as being ranked #6-10, "decent" as #11-15, and "below average" as #16 or worse.

Change this to 1-8 and Crosby's PPG jumps to a PPG once you remove the Ranger series in 2014. Then his "elite" PPG is higher than everyone else's.

You are hardly making a strong case to dismiss Crosby's PPG advantage. There are tons of other variables to consider besides making baseless assumptions that the noted centres, who are significantly behind Crosby offensively in the regular season, would perform as well as Crosby against "below average" teams.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Change this to 1-8 and Crosby's PPG jumps to a PPG once you remove the Ranger series in 2014. Then his "elite" PPG is higher than everyone else's.

Did you also expand the list to include 1-8 for the other three players, and conveniently remove the worst 20% of the sample size for them as well?

You are hardly making a strong case to dismiss Crosby's PPG advantage. There are tons of other variables to consider besides making baseless assumptions that the noted centres, who are significantly behind Crosby offensively in the regular season, would perform as well as Crosby against "below average" teams.

Performing against "below average" teams does not bolster playoff legacies and win Stanley Cups. How Toews or Kopitar might have performed against recent editions of the Avalanche or Coyotes is of no importance. Nobody cares what Getzlaf did against Winnipeg and Calgary last year, he was judged for what unfolded against Chicago.

 

[daver]

Second bold: Facts are once again getting in the way of your assumptions.

If you remove all goals Crosby had a point on in the 2009 playoffs, the Penguins averaged 2.00 goals per game.

2007 Ducks, minus Getzlaf: 1.95 goals per game.
2010 Hawks, minus Toews: 2.23 gpg.
2012 Kings, minus Kopitar: 1.85 gpg.
2013 Hawks, minus Toews: 2.17 gpg.
2014 Kings, minus Kopitar: 2.38 gpg.
2015 Hawks, minus Toews: 2.09 gpg.

Only 2010 Toews and 2014 Kopitar enjoyed significantly more offensive support than Crosby. 07 Getzlaf and 12 Kopitar in fact had less.

How about we look at the PPGs of the other players on each team and compare that to our Four Centres' PPG over their entire playoff careers.

Toews:

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

The average PPG of the next 8 highest scorers on the Hawks (Kane thru to Saad) is 0.65. Toews' PPG of 0.87 is 34% better than this.


Kopitar: The average PPG of the next 7 highest scorers (excluded Frolov as he only played one season) on the Kings is 0.60. Kopitar's PPG of 0.86 is 43% better than this.


Getzlaf: The average PPG of the next 8 highest scorers on the Ducks is 0.60. Getzlaf's PPG of 0.97 is 62% better than this.


Crosby: The average PPG of the next 8 highest scorers (stopped before Hossa as he only played one season) on the Pens is 0.60. Crosby's PPG of 1.18 is 98% better than this.


AND PLEASE NOTE: Despite the other Pen players also playing against "tomato cans" they did not do any better than the Kings', Hawks', and Ducks' supporting players. Makes you think that perhaps Crosby didn't have it so easy against these 'below average' defensive teams or his supporting cast was that much weaker. Take your pick.

 

[daver]

Performing against "below average" teams does not bolster playoff legacies and win Stanley Cups. How Toews or Kopitar might have performed against recent editions of the Avalanche or Coyotes is of no importance. Nobody cares what Getzlaf did against Winnipeg and Calgary last year, he was judged for what unfolded against Chicago.

Give me an effin break! Now you pull out the "because Cups" and "when it really matters" card.

As my above post shows, Crosby has advanced his team through the playoffs offensively more so than any other player, period. He cannot be held responsible when other than Malkin at times, there is no one on his team that has stepped up when needed.

Can't get to the Cup without winning playoff rounds you know.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

How about we look at the PPGs of the other players on each team and compare that to our Four Centres' PPG over their entire playoff careers.

Toews:

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

The average PPG of the next 8 highest scorers on the Hawks (Kane thru to Saad) is 0.65. Toews' PPG of 0.87 is 34% better than this.


Kopitar: The average PPG of the next 7 highest scorers (excluded Frolov as he only played one season) on the Kings is 0.60. Kopitar's PPG of 0.86 is 43% better than this.


Getzlaf: The average PPG of the next 8 highest scorers on the Ducks is 0.60. Getzlaf's PPG of 0.97 is 62% better than this.


Crosby: The average PPG of the next 8 highest scorers (stopped before Hossa as he only played one season) on the Pens is 0.60. Crosby's PPG of 1.18 is 98% better than this.


AND PLEASE NOTE: Despite the other Pen players also playing against "tomato cans" they did not do any better than the Kings', Hawks', and Ducks' supporting players. Makes you think that perhaps Crosby didn't have it so easy against these 'below average' defensive teams or his supporting cast was that much weaker. Take your pick.

So let's review...

-After it was pointed out that Crosby's big playoff points-per-game advantage over contemporary Western conference centers was heavily influenced by a large number of games against weak defensive teams, you suppose that these other centers must also have seen their numbers dwindle when pitted against elite competition. The numbers were run, and it was revealed that in fact, no they don't. Crosby's offensive output ranked fourth out of four against top-5 defensive teams.

-It was next claimed that Toews, Kopitar, and Getzlaf wouldn't have done as well and may not have won any Cups or even reached the final had they been burdened with the supposedly poor offensive support that Crosby received. The numbers were run, and they showed that Getzlaf and Kopitar both won Cups in seasons where they had less external offensive support than Crosby. Toews won two of his three Cups with only slightly more.

-Now you have decided, without explanation, that only the scoring contributions of 8 other players on each team (or 7 in Kopitar's case) should be examined. I guess I missed the rule change where goals from third/fourth liners and 2nd/3rd pairing defenseman stopped counting. You have also expanded the criteria to include a bunch of seasons where the player in question did not win the Stanley Cup or reach the final. You have also omitted Hossa from Crosby's selected support teammates, yet apparently he remains one of Toews'.

Where will the goalposts be moved to next?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Give me an effin break! Now you pull out the "because Cups" and "when it really matters" card.

As my above post shows, Crosby has advanced his team through the playoffs offensively more so than any other player, period. He cannot be held responsible when other than Malkin at times, there is no one on his team that has stepped up when needed.

Can't get to the Cup without winning playoff rounds you know.

So what you're saying is that you believe Crosby is by far the one most responsible for any success the Pens have had in the POs?

Therefore, he should also be the one held most responsible for their failures as well then correct?

 

[daver]

So let's review...

-After it was pointed out that Crosby's big playoff points-per-game advantage over contemporary Western conference centers was heavily influenced by a large number of games against weak defensive teams, you suppose that these other centers must also have seen their numbers dwindle when pitted against elite competition. The numbers were run, and it was revealed that in fact, no they don't. Crosby's offensive output ranked fourth out of four against top-5 defensive teams.

-It was next claimed that Toews, Kopitar, and Getzlaf wouldn't have done as well and may not have won any Cups or even reached the final had they been burdened with the supposedly poor offensive support that Crosby received. The numbers were run, and they showed that Getzlaf and Kopitar both won Cups in seasons where they had less external offensive support than Crosby. Toews won two of his three Cups with only slightly more.

-Now you have decided, without explanation, that only the scoring contributions of 8 other players on each team (or 7 in Kopitar's case) should be examined. I guess I missed the rule change where goals from third/fourth liners and 2nd/3rd pairing defenseman stopped counting. You have also expanded the criteria to include a bunch of seasons where the player in question did not win the Stanley Cup or reach the final. You have also omitted Hossa from Crosby's selected support teammates, yet apparently he remains one of Toews'.

Where will the goalposts be moved to next?

Show me in each playoff year what % each centre contributed to their teams overall goal total.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Show me in each playoff year what % each centre contributed to their teams overall goal total.

You can compile this data yourself and present it to the group if you're interested, I've done enough legwork in discrediting your assumptions for the time being.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Show me in each playoff year what % each centre contributed to their teams overall goal total.

So was 2010 a good playoff for Crosby or a bad one?
Was it a good one cause he blasted a bad Sens team for 14 points in just 6 games?
Or was it a bad one cause he did poorly against the Habs with only 5 points in 7 games?
I think we both know what side of the good/bad meter the slider ends up on that playoffs for Sid don't we?

What about 12/13?
Are those playoffs of Sid's remembered for being good or bad.
Are they remembered for Sid beating up the 7th and 8th seed Sens and Isles for 15 points in 10 games.
Or are they remembered for the complete 0 points in 4 games beat down he suffered at the hands of the Bruins?

Again, I think we both know what those POs are remembered for

You know what else just happened there?
I just covered a full 1/4 of Crosby's total playoff production (29 of 118) in 16 games (out of 100) and just 3 series(out of 18).
Interesting...

 

[Czech Your Math]

Career playoff PPG, adjusted for regular season GAPG:

Crosby 1.34
Giroux 1.26
Malkin 1.24
Kane 1.20
Getzlaf 1.18

If you remove Getzlaf's 2006 playoffs as a rookie, his adjusted PO PPG is 1.33. Before last year, when he was obviously injured, Malkin was at 1.30. So it's not like Crosby has been at another level entirely IMO. Still he's been as good or better than any of his peers so far in overall PO PPG.

The main concerns with his playoffs are his recent performance (and how that will translate to future performance) and his fairly consistent lack of production against stronger defensive teams. IIRC, he wasn't particularly great in game sevens either.

Each player's GP & adjusted PO PPG vs. 3 levels of defense (10% or better than league avg. GAPG, 0-9% better, worse than avg.):

Crosby 32 @ 1.06, 28 @ 1.23, 40 @ 1.63
Giroux 29 @ 1.07, 21 @ 1.50, 7 @ 1.39
Malkin 32 @ 0.92, 28 @ 1.27, 41 @ 1.46
Kane 60 @ 1.26, 39 @ 1.27, 17 @ 0.81
Getzlaf 56 @ 1.20, 25 @ 1.11, 16 @ 1.25

We'll just have to see how he does in the near future (while he's still in his prime) overall and against the better defensive teams in the playoffs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As I said before, this is the history board. Not the place to discuss Crosby, Getzlaf, Kopitar, and Toews.