Defensively better: Crosby vs. Backstrom

[GreatGonzo]

I'm not sure why you wrote all that when my original post was about how mentioning how far back Crosby was from Couture is irrelevant because Couture isn't the guy who HF thinks was "robbed", Kessel was. And in that case, Crosby was 3 points back. How far back Crosby was from someone who people aren't arguing should win has no bearing or else people should also think Couture is more deserving than Kessel as well.

Also, Crosby's defense gets brought up in large part because of who some say should have won (Kessel). Crosby finished 3 points back, but had added responsibility in defensive situations that Kessel didn't. That's why his defense is brought up, because he's being compared to a guy who was literally all offense, and still only finished 3 points ahead.

The only reason Ovechkin is brought up isn't to say Crosby's Conn Smythe was as good as Ovechkin's, but to point out that in both cases, they finished behind teammates in points. Yet it's only Crosby that that is constantly mentioned. Ovechkin finishing FIVE POINTS behind not only his teammate but actual linemate is glossed over. Yet all we hear is "OMG CROSBY HAD LESS POINTS THAN KESSEL!".

I also think this site is so damn hypocritical and double standard when it comes to "advanced stats" and Crosby. When other players have "great possession numbers", HF will use that to prop up how good they are, even when their actual numbers are moderate. But when Crosby has strong possession numbers, like he did in the Finals versus San Jose, the ONLY measurement of his performance is raw stats.

And like I have said a million times and once more, I’m not part of that crowd. I don’t think there was any robbery but I certainly think Crosby was gifted it for doing “good enough” in the voters eyes.

And that still goes on the false idea that Crosby’s defense was enough to make up for those measly 3 points, only it wasn’t. It’s just more and more reaching and overrating the play in his own end. After the 3rd round, Kessel had 9 goals and 18 points in 18 games while Crosby was tied at 15 points with 2 other players with 6 goals and a -2 plus/minus. He wasn’t exactly lighting up the way or playing this defense that apparently was enough to overthrow Kessels goals and overall offense.

If Crosby’s Smythe was so not controversial and deserving, you wouldn’t have to look elsewhere to have to justify it. You wouldn’t have to compare it to someone else while putting in it a vacuum. Either way it’s weak based on that alone.

Where are these “strong possession numbers” you speak of though? And how can you correlate them to being so distinguished and impactful, that they helped the Pens win a cup more than Kessel, Murray, or Letang? Those are the details many Pen fans leave out and instead just go off of a media driven story. How can you be so good defensively that your a -2 with 15 points in 18 games while being a negative and under PPG player for 2/3 of those series?

Your constant need to defend it, compare it to Ovis, or try to talk hypocritical behavior, onlt further proves my point. It was a grace period award, and then 3 years later, Crosby actually shows signs of some good defensive play.....and that ultimately has to be tied to his play that post season. For Crosby, the argument is constantly changed and he always gets the benefit of the doubt. To act like he doesn’t is ridiculous.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Poor raw stats? He had 46 points in 48 games in the back to back years. Thornton doesn't get the benefit of the doubt for his possession numbers because his raw stats are just plain bad. Even if you isolated his production to the finals, Crosby had 11 points in 12 finals games. Far cry from Thornton's overall playoff career, and the lackluster numbers he's put up to earn less than the benefit of the doubt for his possession numbers.

There's a difference between pointing out "strong possession numbers" for a guy who also averaged around a point per game in actual raw numbers, and "strong possession numbers" for a guy who doesn't produce much actual raw numbers. In one case, a player produced pretty good numbers AND had great possession numbers. In the other case, a player literally only has possession numbers to argue with.

Okay, let’s use just 2016 in particular. Crosby had 6 goals, 19 points in 24 games. And a minus 2. Actually inferior to Thornton’s performance in those playoffs in every metric besides goals. And roughly on par with Thornton’s career playoff scoring rates.

I have seen far more people defend that 2016 run of Crosby’s, using metrics like CF% and xGF%, than I have seen them defend Thornton’s playoff career. At that point, the only defense of Crosby is that he previously posted great raw stats, so his advanced stats should hold more weight.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Where are these “strong possession numbers” you speak of though? And how can you correlate them to being so distinguished and impactful, that they helped the Pens win a cup more than Kessel, Murray, or Letang? Those are the details many Pen fans leave out and instead just go off of a media driven story. How can you be so good defensively that your a -2 with 15 points in 18 games while being a negative and under PPG player for 2/3 of those series?

I mean, do you want me to post the numbers? Or are you disputing he put up great "advanced stats" versus the Sharks in the finals? Is there even a point to me posting them since you don't seem to think they matter as much as his -2 rating in the playoffs trumping all?

Your constant need to defend it, compare it to Ovis, or try to talk hypocritical behavior, onlt further proves my point. It was a grace period award, and then 3 years later, Crosby actually shows signs of some good defensive play.....and that ultimately has to be tied to his play that post season. For Crosby, the argument is constantly changed and he always gets the benefit of the doubt. To act like he doesn’t is ridiculous.

Who is defending it? I'm just putting context in where people act like Crosby's the only player to ever win a CS while not finishing first in scoring on his team, or not having a playoff run for the ages, and pointing out that the guy who people say should have won (Kessel) simply didn't have the same defensive responsibilities Crosby did.

Crosby's CS was weak, relative to most years, but it was also on a team that didn't really have a "standout" performance that year. None of the other potential CS winners to choose from on the Pens had the kind of playoffs where you said "this guy was flat out dominant", either.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Okay, let’s use just 2016 in particular. Crosby had 6 goals, 19 points in 24 games. And a minus 2. Actually inferior to Thornton’s performance in those playoffs in every metric besides goals. And roughly on par with Thornton’s career playoff scoring rates.

I have seen far more people defend that 2016 run of Crosby’s, using metrics like CF% and xGF%, than I have seen them defend Thornton’s playoff career. At that point, the only defense of Crosby is that he previously posted great raw stats, so his advanced stats should hold more weight.

Um, wasn't Thornton's playoff performance that year seen as a pretty strong one? That if the Sharks had gone on to win, he'd have shaken his choker label because of his play? So I'm not sure why you'd choose that run to argue that raw totals and high possession numbers are misleading since I don't recall people criticizing Thornton for that particular post season.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Um, wasn't Thornton's playoff performance that year seen as a pretty strong one? That if the Sharks had gone on to win, he'd have shaken his choker label because of his play? So I'm not sure why you'd choose that run to argue that raw totals and high possession numbers are misleading since I don't recall people criticizing Thornton for that particular post season.

Even if you look at career, Thornton’s career playoff points per game is 0.74. Crosby’s playoff points per game in 2016 was 0.79.

The point is, I don’t really see the double standard hurting Crosby. If anything, I’ve seen more people praise him for strong possession numbers and poor raw stats in 2016 than I’ve seen praise for just about any other player.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Even if you look at career, Thornton’s career playoff points per game is 0.74. Crosby’s playoff points per game in 2016 was 0.79.

The point is, I don’t really see the double standard hurting Crosby. If anything, I’ve seen more people praise him for strong possession numbers and poor raw stats in 2016 than I’ve seen praise for just about any other player.

You don't see the numerous posts in this thread pointing out his raw totals and his plus/minus stat, while not even touching on his possession numbers? This thread is proof that Crosby doesn't get credit for his possession numbers if his raw numbers aren't also outstanding.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

You don't see the numerous posts in this thread pointing out his raw totals and his plus/minus stat, while not even touching on his possession numbers? This thread is proof that Crosby doesn't get credit for his possession numbers if his raw numbers aren't also outstanding.

And what I am saying is that outside of fans of players on those teams (think of another player with the initials JT as well...), nobody really gets credit for playoff possession numbers if they post poor raw numbers.

Maybe it only gets talked about more because Crosby won the Smythe, but I’ve honestly seen more people defending Crosby based on playoff Corsi than any other player. And that’s my point. Outside of Sharks fans, nobody defends Thornton based on playoff Corsi.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

And what I am saying is that outside of fans of players on those teams (think of another player with the initials JT as well...), nobody really gets credit for playoff possession numbers if they post poor raw numbers.

Maybe it only gets talked about more because Crosby won the Smythe, but I’ve honestly seen more people defending Crosby based on playoff Corsi than any other player. And that’s my point. Outside of Sharks fans, nobody defends Thornton based on playoff Corsi.

The only times I see it brought up, or if I bring it up, are when I see things like "Crosby was bad" or "Crosby wasn't even close to deserving of the CS". In those cases, I think bringing up his strong possession numbers is valid since it disproves the "bad" argument. It's not brought up to say "he was flat out dominant but just unlucky", but to point out it's silly to say he was bad/weak/not very good.