Crosby vs Ovechkin - Pick a player moving forward after 2009-2010 - no hindsight available

[bobholly39]

A lot of what you say makes sense. I think the difference is that no one is trying to say or convince others that Malkin is top 5 all time. Any contender for top 5 is going to be more scrutinized, as they should.

So in 1954 - Gordie Howe won the Stanley Cup. He only scored 3 points in 7 games in the finals. That's less than Metro Prystai. I'll be honest - i don't even know who that player is, I had to look him up. The next time someone brings up Gordie Howe's name as a member of the top 4 players of all-time, are you going to nitpick on his 1954 Stanley Cup Finals performance? I don't think so.

Sidney Crosby is just always scrutinized, and over scrutinized, and held to a much higher standard than others for some reason. 2009 playoffs were fantastic for Crosby. His finals weren't the best - but considering he had 3 other final performances where he did even better, it doesn't matter.

 

[bobholly39]

I could be wrong, but I think the intent is never to bash Crosby as a starting point, but rather to refute people bashing Ovechkin. It is a lot easier to find Pens fans, and homer Canadians who will absolutely shit on Ovechkin with no merit to their reasoning (if any was even given). Most Ovechkin fans are completely able to praise Crosby for how great he was, and are willing to even admit that Crosby was a better player for longer.

The main arguments for them being close all time is that Ovechkin had a higher peak that was full, and his legacy as the leagues (potential) best goalscorer of all time.

The issue is when other people need to bash Ovechkin, because they feel threatened that there are actual good arguments for Ovi as well:
- People shit on Ovechkin for not being good in the playoffs - so a counter argument will of course to bring up Crosbys stats in the cup finals etc.
- People shit on Ovechkin for not having enough international success - so of course its reasonable to state how Crosby's olympics require a ton of context as well
- People will claim that Crosby peaked higher than Ovechkin because of his partial seasons - so for sure a counter will be to bring up how Ovechkin had more dominating 'part seasons', (and full seasons as well)

The issue is that whenever someone tries to present a logical argument for why Ovechkin may have an upper hand in some aspect of a subject, people start just insulting and get way out of hand to defend Crosby.

This is typical HF. Discussion starts good - one poster makes a dumb claim, other responds in kind, and it degenerates. I agree 100% with that.

I know I certainly try to avoid that in my posts. I've never criticized Ovechkin's individual playoff resume. It's not as good as Crosby - but it's strong enough. In an all-time sense among top ~5-10 players of all time? It's weak - was even weaker prior to his smythe. But overall, it's very good.

Also - I find the bolded hilarious. There are some fans who bash on Ovechkin, absolutely. But there are a whole lot more of Crosby haters than Ovechkin haters around here. Have you met HF?

 

[filinski77]

This is typical HF. Discussion starts good - one poster makes a dumb claim, other responds in kind, and it degenerates. I agree 100% with that.

I know I certainly try to avoid that in my posts. I've never criticized Ovechkin's individual playoff resume. It's not as good as Crosby - but it's strong enough. In an all-time sense among top ~5-10 players of all time? It's weak - was even weaker prior to his smythe. But overall, it's very good.

Also - I find the bolded hilarious. There are some fans who bash on Ovechkin, absolutely. But there are a whole lot more of Crosby haters than Ovechkin haters around here. Have you met HF?

Fair points, when discussing all-time status, or peak play etc. I just personally find it more common to see someone say Crosby AINEC or whatever, and provide no argument, or to diss Ovechkin and say he's overrated and one-dimensional and that he does not belong in the discussion.

That is what I find ridiculous. In an all-time status, I think Crosby and Ovechkin are very close, no more than 1-3 spots away from eachother, and they both have a lot of career left to change that perception. I just find it so tiring how I find myself always defending people who make baseless claims against Ovechkin (my fault, I'm obviously not obligated to lol), whereas you'll never see me actually bash Crosby for no reason, since in fact, as a Canadian, Crosby is still one of my favorite players to watch.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I could be wrong, but I think the intent is never to bash Crosby as a starting point, but rather to refute people bashing Ovechkin. It is a lot easier to find Pens fans, and homer Canadians who will absolutely shit on Ovechkin with no merit to their reasoning (if any was even given). Most Ovechkin fans are completely able to praise Crosby for how great he was, and are willing to even admit that Crosby was a better player for longer.
.

You must post in completely different Crosby threads than me, because I've never seen the bolded as the case. If anything, it's a very, very tiny segment who will give Crosby props while the vast majority will dismiss literally every trophy he won as undeserved or not a big deal.

 

[Pyrophorus]

Crosby has more runway left.

 

[daver]

I could be wrong, but I think the intent is never to bash Crosby as a starting point, but rather to refute people bashing Ovechkin.

Are you referring to Midnight "Crosby is waaaaaaay overrated due to unearned 2nd Assists!" Judges?

 

[daver]

The storyline of Crosby's more versatile offense, better all around game, and leadership had started to be written after the 2010 season.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I had always figured that OV would drop to a 90 point player after age 26 once he lost a little explosiveness. Of course, he never hit 90 again, but some of that has to do with league scoring dropping.

 

[bobholly39]

Fair points, when discussing all-time status, or peak play etc. I just personally find it more common to see someone say Crosby AINEC or whatever, and provide no argument, or to diss Ovechkin and say he's overrated and one-dimensional and that he does not belong in the discussion.

That is what I find ridiculous. In an all-time status, I think Crosby and Ovechkin are very close, no more than 1-3 spots away from eachother, and they both have a lot of career left to change that perception. I just find it so tiring how I find myself always defending people who make baseless claims against Ovechkin (my fault, I'm obviously not obligated to lol), whereas you'll never see me actually bash Crosby for no reason, since in fact, as a Canadian, Crosby is still one of my favorite players to watch.

Huge nitpick on the bolded. I disagree entirely.

Without discussing the merits of each player individually - here's a list of players generally seen as contenders for 5th all time. Roy/Hasek/Crosby/Beliveau/Hull/Jagr/Harvey/Bourque/Ovi/Richard...and I may be forgetting a couple.

It's actually very possible for Crosby and Ovechkin to be close all time, and still be ~5-10 slots apart from each other depending on what you value, because there's a lot of players to choose from in the history of hockey.

 

[Gurglesons]

Fair points, when discussing all-time status, or peak play etc. I just personally find it more common to see someone say Crosby AINEC or whatever, and provide no argument, or to diss Ovechkin and say he's overrated and one-dimensional and that he does not belong in the discussion.

That is what I find ridiculous. In an all-time status, I think Crosby and Ovechkin are very close, no more than 1-3 spots away from eachother, and they both have a lot of career left to change that perception. I just find it so tiring how I find myself always defending people who make baseless claims against Ovechkin (my fault, I'm obviously not obligated to lol), whereas you'll never see me actually bash Crosby for no reason, since in fact, as a Canadian, Crosby is still one of my favorite players to watch.

I think the people that view Ovechkin as a better player are far more likely to continuously discredit Crosby.

I mean this thread is essentially that. I made a comment about how Crosby was viewed in 2010 as more of a winner from a success standpoint in the league and it has turned into the typical responses of "Crosby didn't show up in the SCF or in the Olympics", "his team is better", etc, etc.

Ovechkin is an amazing player. The issue is Crosby is a top ten all time NHLer at this point. Ovechkin ain't at this point.

 

[filinski77]

You must post in completely different Crosby threads than me, because I've never seen the bolded as the case. If anything, it's a very, very tiny segment who will give Crosby props while the vast majority will dismiss literally every trophy he won as undeserved or not a big deal.

People might dismiss one of his Smythes (for fair enough reasons), but who's really denying his Harts and Pearsons, Rockets, Rosses etc. He 100% deserved all of that. I just feel like you never see people going into a thread going "Crosby isn't even top 20 all time", "Crosby is so overrated", Crosby is one dimensional and a negative for his team", shit like that you hear all the time. I think there's a difference between adding context to things like partial seasons, and team awards, but nobody really denies his skill and ability and what he has accomplished (not including the secondary assist people lol).

 

[Varan]

I think the people that view Ovechkin as a better player are far more likely to continuously discredit Crosby.

I mean this thread is essentially that. I made a comment about how Crosby was viewed in 2010 as more of a winner from a success standpoint in the league and it has turned into the typical responses of "Crosby didn't show up in the SCF or in the Olympics", "his team is better", etc, etc.

Ovechkin is an amazing player. The issue is Crosby is a top ten all time NHLer at this point. Ovechkin ain't at this point.

He’s top-10

 

[Varan]

You must post in completely different Crosby threads than me, because I've never seen the bolded as the case. If anything, it's a very, very tiny segment who will give Crosby props while the vast majority will dismiss literally every trophy he won as undeserved or not a big deal.

There are more pens/Crosby fans that will nonsensically go into OV threads and bash for no reason whatsoever. Threads that have nothing to to with Crosby.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No hindsight - Ovechkin. How can you not pick the guy coming off 3 straight Pearson/Lindsay trophies who was only 2 years older?

With hindsight - Crosby AINEC

 

[filinski77]

Huge nitpick on the bolded. I disagree entirely.

Without discussing the merits of each player individually - here's a list of players generally seen as contenders for 5th all time. Roy/Hasek/Crosby/Beliveau/Hull/Jagr/Harvey/Bourque/Ovi/Richard...and I may be forgetting a couple.

It's actually very possible for Crosby and Ovechkin to be close all time, and still be ~5-10 slots apart from each other depending on what you value, because there's a lot of players to choose from in the history of hockey.

I don't really put goalies in my consideration, due to how much different it is and how hard to compare.

I agree that being close can be 5-10 spots behind. But at the same time, when you look at all the common benchmarks (Harts, Pearsons, Ross, point/gp leads, Rockets, etc) it is shocking how close Crosby and Ovechkin are. It can all come down to perspective. Ovechkin had the higher sustained peak, Crosby a longer and better Prime. For me, what pushes Ovechkin so high up is the fact that added to that Peak he had, the guy has 9 rockets (2 more than #2 in NHL history), and will likely end up 2nd in all time goals, despite playing in a way lower scoring environment. That importance (for the fundamental most important thing in hockey) is what makes him great, and certainly gives him an argument to be ahead of Crosby.

My line of thinking is that I'm totally okay with people having Crosby ahead all-time, but Ovechkin certainly has arguments to be ahead of Crosby all-time as well. For that reasoning, I don't see how a player that could arguably be ahead of Crosby all-time, inherently has to be much closer than 5-10 spots away.

 

[Gurglesons]

He’s top-10

If he breaks the goalscoring record. If he retired tomorrow. I don’t believe he is.

 

[bobholly39]

If he breaks the goalscoring record. If he retired tomorrow. I don’t believe he is.

The goal-scoring record is often overrated from an all-time sense. Ovechkin is going to rank very high in an all-time list, and he'll rank that high based on his overall goal-scoring, and all the rockets, and scoring so many goals late in age too, and everything else to do with his resume.

But if he ends his career with 882 goals vs 897 goals (no record vs record) - it'll make exactly 0 difference to his all-time placement. Unless whoever you have ranked right above him, is ranked above him by the slimmest of margins that this 15 extra career goal is enough to push him over the edge.

Now if he retires with....~803 goals vs ~890 goals, sure that starts being a big difference, especially if we're not just talking compiling ~15 goal seasons till age 44 to get to 890.

But the record itself - while it'll be a huge and memorable accomplishment, and certainty worth of celebration - won't matter a whole lot in his all-time ranking.

 

[daver]

So age difference comes down to 1 draft year. That's it. If you really wouldn't take the guy who was easily the better player for 80% of the time in the 5 years before making that choice, because 1 guy is ONE draft year younger, then that's just silly.

Easily the better player?

Crosby was the more impressive rookie given he was almost two years younger with zero pro experience.

Crosby was easily better in 06/07. The only season you can say this.

Give OV the nod for his goal totals in 07/08 but give Crosby credit for leading the playoffs in scoring as a 21 year old.

Whatever edge you want to give OV in the regular season the next two years, Crosby has the edge in the playoffs.

And as pointed out previously, two deep Cup runs clearly affected Crosby in 09/10 in his first 20 - 25 games.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

So in 1954 - Gordie Howe won the Stanley Cup. He only scored 3 points in 7 games in the finals. That's less than Metro Prystai. I'll be honest - i don't even know who that player is, I had to look him up. The next time someone brings up Gordie Howe's name as a member of the top 4 players of all-time, are you going to nitpick on his 1954 Stanley Cup Finals performance? I don't think so.

Sidney Crosby is just always scrutinized, and over scrutinized, and held to a much higher standard than others for some reason. 2009 playoffs were fantastic for Crosby. His finals weren't the best - but considering he had 3 other final performances where he did even better, it doesn't matter.

Did anyone say the wings won that cup "largely on Howe's back"? Crosby is going to be "over scrutinized" when you have his fans saying ridiculous things like the 09 cup was won "largely on his back", completely disrespecting what Malkin did. I don't mean you specifically because you didn't say it, but if his fans are going to make claims like he carried the team, he's so clutch, etc then there shouldn't be a problem with his performances being more scrutinized because we have to see if the claims are accurate (which they are not).

 

[bobholly39]

Did anyone say the wings won that cup "largely on Howe's back"? Crosby is going to be "over scrutinized" when you have his fans saying ridiculous things like the 09 cup was won "largely on his back", completely disrespecting what Malkin did. I don't mean you specifically because you didn't say it, but if his fans are going to make claims like he carried the team, he's so clutch, etc then there shouldn't be a problem with his performances being more scrutinized because we have to see if the claims are accurate (which they are not).

Has anyone ever tried to imply the Pens won in 2009 on "Crosby's back" while excluding Malkin from that statement? I think 2009 Pens was very much a 2 horse team - more so than a large majority of cup winners in the past ~30 years, maybe even #1. So yes he was very important to that cup. But no it doesn't mean he was necessarily the best (or even second best) player in every series, every game or every shift. Just for the 4 round playoffs overall.

As to your question about Howe - no, and that's my point. People don't scrutinize others to that extent. I know Ovechkin similarly gets some over-scrutinization at times, but I find it so much worst and more common with Crosby.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Did anyone say the wings won that cup "largely on Howe's back"? Crosby is going to be "over scrutinized" when you have his fans saying ridiculous things like the 09 cup was won "largely on his back", completely disrespecting what Malkin did. I don't mean you specifically because you didn't say it, but if his fans are going to make claims like he carried the team, he's so clutch, etc then there shouldn't be a problem with his performances being more scrutinized because we have to see if the claims are accurate (which they are not).

When has that ever been said? Quotes please, because that's quite the claim. Every Penguins fan I've talked to knows the importance of Malkin that run.

 

[Gurglesons]

Did anyone say the wings won that cup "largely on Howe's back"? Crosby is going to be "over scrutinized" when you have his fans saying ridiculous things like the 09 cup was won "largely on his back", completely disrespecting what Malkin did. I don't mean you specifically because you didn't say it, but if his fans are going to make claims like he carried the team, he's so clutch, etc then there shouldn't be a problem with his performances being more scrutinized because we have to see if the claims are accurate (which they are not).

Who said this? Saying it is arguable that Crosby should have won the Smythe based on his ES numbers and the dynasty was going to be established largely on his back doesn't reject Malkin's impact on either the 08 or 09 finals run?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

No hindsight - Ovechkin. How can you not pick the guy coming off 3 straight Pearson/Lindsay trophies who was only 2 years older?

With hindsight - Crosby AINEC

Because one guy already had 27 and 31 point playoffs on top of 4/5 100 point seasons and his own hardware to boot

 

[filinski77]

Easily the better player?

Crosby was the more impressive rookie given he was almost two years younger with zero pro experience.

Crosby was easily better in 06/07. The only season you can say this.

Give OV the nod for his goal totals in 07/08 but give Crosby credit for leading the playoffs in scoring as a 21 year old.

Whatever edge you want to give OV in the regular season the next two years, Crosby has the edge in the playoffs.

And as pointed out previously, two deep Cup runs clearly affected Crosby in 09/10 in his first 20 - 25 games.

2005/2006: Ovi had 4 more points, 13 more goals. Easily the better player that season. More impressive =/= better. (Just like how Selanne was not the best player in the league in his rookie season, despite having one of the most impressive rookie seasons ever). And if anything, Ovechkin was just as impressive (if not more): 3rd in rookie goals and 3rd in rookie points in NHL history (2nd place for both were in a much higher scoring 80's, and only 1 goal and 3 points ahead of Ovi)

2006/2007: Crosby easily the better player. No debate here

2007/2008: Ovi had Ross/Hart/Pearson/Rocket, 13 more goals than #2. Better points/gp than Crosby, despite actually playing the whole season. Ovechkin's goals/gp was 75% higher than Crosbys. Ovechkin had a good playoffs (still only had 2 less goals than Crosby despite playing 1/3 as much). The fact that Crosby's team performed better does not clear the edge that Ovechkin had in the RS, and the fact that he played just as good in the playoffs too. Team success =/= better player that year.

2008/2009: Ovi had Rocket/Pearson/Hart, 7 more points than Crosby (higher point/gp too), 23 more goals than Crosby. Ovi lead the league in points/gp and goals/gp. Ovechkin finished T-4th in goals and 5th in points in the playoffs (despite only playing 2 rounds). He actually had a much better points/gp and goals/gp than Crosby did (enough so that if he were to have played more rounds, it's likely that although his /gp stats would have likely decreased a bit, he potentially could have finished with more goals and equal/more points). Again, Crosby's team success does not make up for the huge gap Ovi had in the RS.

2009/2010: Tied Crosby in points and only had 1 less goal, despite playing 9 less games. Wins the Pearson, and finished ahead of Crosby in Hart voting. point/gp and goal/gp lead. 12% higher point/gp and 10% higher goals/gp than Crosby. Both had great performances in the playoffs, despite losing in 1st/2nd round. Crosby had 0.03 points/gp higher, Ovechkin had over 50% better goals/gp, but let's call them even in the playoffs, Ovechkin was clearly better in the RS.

4/5 = 80%. The only possible argument for the last 3 seasons is by a crazy overvaluation of the playoff raw totals (because in reality Ovechkin played just as good in the playoffs - just no team success) that Crosby had due to the Penguins success, and using that to try and make up the clear gap that Ovechkin had in the RS where he swept the Pearsons and goal/gp and point/gp leads, as well with finishing with higher Hart performances in all 3 as well.

 

[Gurglesons]

2005/2006: Ovi had 4 more points, 13 more goals. Easily the better player that season. More impressive =/= better. (Just like how Selanne was not the best player in the league in his rookie season, despite having one of the most impressive rookie seasons ever). And if anything, Ovechkin was just as impressive (if not more): 3rd in rookie goals and 3rd in rookie points in NHL history (2nd place for both were in a much higher scoring 80's, and only 1 goal and 3 points ahead of Ovi)

2006/2007: Crosby easily the better player. No debate here

2007/2008: Ovi had Ross/Hart/Pearson/Rocket, 13 more goals than #2. Better points/gp than Crosby, despite actually playing the whole season. Ovechkin's goals/gp was 75% higher than Crosbys. Ovechkin had a good playoffs (still only had 2 less goals than Crosby despite playing 1/3 as much). The fact that Crosby's team performed better does not clear the edge that Ovechkin had in the RS, and the fact that he played just as good in the playoffs too. Team success =/= better player that year.

2008/2009: Ovi had Rocket/Pearson/Hart, 7 more points than Crosby (higher point/gp too), 23 more goals than Crosby. Ovi lead the league in points/gp and goals/gp. Ovechkin finished T-4th in goals and 5th in points in the playoffs (despite only playing 2 rounds). He actually had a much better points/gp and goals/gp than Crosby did (enough so that if he were to have played more rounds, it's likely that although his /gp stats would have likely decreased a bit, he potentially could have finished with more goals and equal/more points). Again, Crosby's team success does not make up for the huge gap Ovi had in the RS.

2009/2010: Tied Crosby in points and only had 1 less goal, despite playing 9 less games. Wins the Pearson, and finished ahead of Crosby in Hart voting. point/gp and goal/gp lead. 12% higher point/gp and 10% higher goals/gp than Crosby. Both had great performances in the playoffs, despite losing in 1st/2nd round. Crosby had 0.03 points/gp higher, Ovechkin had over 50% better goals/gp, but let's call them even in the playoffs, Ovechkin was clearly better in the RS.

4/5 = 80%. The only possible argument for the last 3 seasons is by a crazy overvaluation of the playoff raw totals (because in reality Ovechkin played just as good in the playoffs - just no team success) that Crosby had due to the Penguins success, and using that to try and make up the clear gap that Ovechkin had in the RS where he swept the Pearsons and goal/gp and point/gp leads, as well with finishing with higher Hart performances in all 3 as well.

Quick question. Why does the point / gp spread matter when individually focusing on Ovechkin's seasons, but not when viewing the player's career as a whole?