How close is Crosby to top 5 status now?

[Big Phil]

No, not saying he is there yet, but there is no better place to discuss it than here since the main board is every extreme direction you can think of on this issue. Here it is more stable and we will be talking a lot of history on this thread. So I figure he never cracks into the Mount Rushmore of hockey, the "big 4" but can and just might be comfortably slotted in #5 when all is said and done.

Let's assume he has already equalled the Sakic/Yzerman/Trottier group. Maybe surpassed them. The Messier/Esposito/Mikita/Morenz/Lafleur/Jagr group is another story but they aren't top 5 quite. The top 5 candidates are Beliveau/Hull/Richard etc. How does he stack up against them. Keep in mind the comparison is their full careers vs. Crosby's first 12 so far. Here it is:

Cups:
Beliveau - 10
Richard - 8
Crosby - 3
Hull - 1

Keeping in mind the league sizes and such before and after expansion I think 3 (so far) in a 30 team league is pretty darn good.

Top 10 scoring finishes:
Beliveau - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9
Richard - 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6
Hull - 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Again, he holds up rather well here. Certainly isn't out of place and that goes for two seasons where he was wiped out because of injury.

All-star selections:
Beliveau - 6 First team, 4 2nd team
Richard - 8 First team, 6 2nd team
Crosby - 4 First team, 3 2nd team (this is assuming he is a 2nd team all-star in 2017)
Hull - 10 First team, 2 2nd team

Pretty important to note that Crosby and Beliveau are both centers and that is the best guy to compare him with in this sort of thing, but again, even after 12 years he holds up well.

Hart finishes:
Beliveau - 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4
Richard - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 8
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6
Hull - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 7

Still holds up here. Very impressive.

To look at their playoff resumes I'd rank them like this:

Beliveau/Richard
Crosby
Hull

He definitely isn't the worst, but there is still work to be done to surpass the other two I think.

Anyway, we can get into other things such as intangibles and style of play and dominance and such but I thought I would open it up and show everyone just how close he is to these guys.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He's already in the 5 - 15-or-so group with Hull, Richard, Beliveau, Morenz, Harvey, Shore, Bourque, Roy, Hasek, maybe Plante, maybe Lidstrom.

Probably in the lower end of the group as of now, but probably ends up in the higher end with a normal career curve.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Big Phil, sorry if this sidetracks your thread (but I'll discuss anyway). I saw a number of threads on the main board asking about Malkin's all-time ranking. I was surprised to see the majority of responses had him in the top 30 all-time. That felt way too high to me - though maybe I'm just being old fashioned?

At this point, I think Malkin and Forsberg are quite comparable. The 2009 top players project had Forsberg 65th all-time, and the 2014 top centers projected had Forsberg 20th all-time (which probably corresponds to around 60th-70th all-time).

Statistically they're very close. They're virtually even in games played (Forsberg ahead 708-706), and Forsberg has outscored Malkin by 53 points (6%). Their eras were, overall, roughly even in terms of levels of offense. Malkin finished 1-1-2 in scoring (never again in the top ten) while Forsberg was 1-2-4-5-9. I generally don't like per-game arguments, but both players were injured often, and have similar placings in PPG (1-1-2-4-5-6-6-9 for Forsberg, 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8 for Malkin). It's remarkably close.

Both players spent most of their careers (or all, in the case of Malkin) sharing ice time with an even better center. I believe Forsberg generally got tougher matchups than Malkin.

Awards? Both were first-team all-stars three times (Malkin never really came close to making the year-end all-star team again, Forsberg had a year when he 3rd behind Lemieux and Gretzky). Both won a Hart, but Malkin was a runner-up twice (Forsberg never even again in the top five).

Playoffs? Pretty close. Yes, Malkin has an extra Cup and a Smythe. But both led the playoffs in scoring twice (and both have one more top five finish - 5th place for both of them). In two more games Forsberg has 14 extra points. Forsberg led his team in playoff scoring more often (6-4). Forsberg contributed a larger percentage of his team's offense but it's close (35% vs 34%).

Defensive play? Forsberg is clearly better.

As of today, I think Malkin and Forsberg should be nearly even in an all-time ranking. Malkin was probably a bit better at his very best (three years as a Hart finalist compared to one for Forsberg, and one truly historic playoff run). But he was also less consistent and lacked Forsberg's strong (though sometimes overrated) two-way play.

If Forsberg is ranked around 60th-70th all-time, which I think is reasonable, Malkin should be around there as well. Am I completely wrong about this - or is everyone else?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with you, HO. Main board would have 50 players in the "top 20" until you ask them to actually rank them.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'll never get behind the idea that the third best scorer from about one-third of hockey history is better than literally every goalie. Felt the same about Jagr too when people were talking about him as a top-5 player.

As of today, I think Malkin and Forsberg should be nearly even in an all-time ranking. Malkin was probably a bit better at his very best (three years as a Hart finalist compared to one for Forsberg, and one truly historic playoff run). But he was also less consistent and lacked Forsberg's strong (though sometimes overrated) two-way play.

He averaged +29 per 82 from 1995-2006 - both regular season and playoffs. Highest cumulative numbers in the regular season and playoffs too over defensemen like Lidstrom and Stevens. If anything, he is underrated in that regard. That Forsberg didn't receive Hart nominations in 1998 and 1999 is likely a reflection of voter emphasis on value, as he received 1st Team selections over players who fared better in Hart voting. He's at least as good as Mike Bossy - not in the 60-70 range. But hey, Malkin probably isn't a bad comparison for Bossy either.

 

[The Panther]

He's already in the 5 - 15-or-so group with Hull, Richard, Beliveau, Morenz, Harvey, Shore, Bourque, Roy, Hasek, maybe Plante, maybe Lidstrom.

Probably in the lower end of the group as of now, but probably ends up in the higher end with a normal career curve.

I largely agree with this. At the moment, I think I'd have him more towards 15th-place and nowhere near 5th-place, but a lot of the story yet to be written.

I'll never get behind the idea that the third best scorer from about one-third of hockey history is better than literally every goalie. Felt the same about Jagr too when people were talking about him as a top-5 player.

I know what you mean, but it's just so hard to rank goalies against skaters -- it's rather like trying to rank 60s to 80s-era Soviet players against NHLers. It's too difficult.

 

[Peat]

Question as someone new to these sort of comparisons - would PPG over their first 12 seasons be considered a relevant metric?

 

[Iceman]

Question as someone new to these sort of comparisons - would PPG over their first 12 seasons be considered a relevant metric?

Not by itself on paper but if you can use the stat in a meaningful way then sure.

 

[Thenameless]

I suspect that now, and even at the end of his career, he will be in the discussion with others for 5th but that it still won't be clear cut. Those are some seriously good players that he's competing with, and I wouldn't mind having one or two of them over him on my team.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Personally I can't even see my way past him even being top-15 right now, let alone top-5.
Top-25...definitely.
Top-20...fairest estimation imo

I simply look at it like this...Right off the bat, I can automatically place 4 Dmen (Harvey, Shore, Bourque and Lidstrom) and 3 goalies (Roy, Hasek and Plante) ahead of Crosby before I even start thinking about forwards.

That puts it at 11 spots already and out of the forwards of Hull, Beliveau, Morenz, Richard, Jagr, Messier, Lafleur and Esposito I am more than just a little confident that I can pick at least 4 of them ahead of Crosby.

So yeah, top-20 is about as good as it gets imo.

I agree with you, HO. Main board would have 50 players in the "top 20" until you ask them to actually rank them.

Aint that the truth.
I knew the second that the Pens won the Cup this year I was going to need to avoid the main boards at all costs. I took one look at them the other day and made a quick post in one of the tamer threads. Besides that, I simply read some of the thread titles and immediately closed my browser heh, what a mess.

 

[MXD]

Far enough so the answer can be : "He might never reach Top-5 status"

 

[bobholly39]

I find it odd how these forums usually like talking about "right now" vs "where he'll be realistically after career". I get that the 2nd includes hypothetical speculation, but at least it's worth something, since Crosby isn't retiring now. Nor is it really apples to apples to compare 12 seasons to 20 or so.

Crosby for top 5 status? I feel as though he's 100% making a run at it. He's still the best player in the world today (sorry McDavid). He's the favorite for the Smythe, and maybe the Hart/Ross going into next year - and defending Rocket Champion. If he maintains his level of play for 3-5 more years, he can still add more accolades to his resume at an almost exponential value. Just consider, in history of hockey, how much more significant 3 smythes (how about back to back ones) would be compared to 2 when compared to others.

He's 1 of 2 players ever in history to have a chance at a 3-peat smythe. If he somehow does it - can we even say Beliveau > Crosby for playoffs anymore? I don't know but i know the opposite will definitely become a possibility.

So yes - I think no one is out of reach for Crosby.

And honestly - I'll even go one step further and say that Crosby isn't that far from Howe through age 29. The reason why this matters a bit less is because Howe has the best longevity (by far) in the history of the NHL, so even if we think Crosby is close, he's about to lose ground, so it matters less

 

[bobholly39]

The one big blemish in Crosby's resume is his peak imo.

His peak is ok - but not top 5 of all time (or even close?). 2011 (maybe even 2012, and even 2013 shortened season) could have been a special season for him, maybe. But he didn't see it through.

Having Crosby score 130 (140?) points in a season, or score 60+ goals, would have raised his stock significantly from an all-time perspective.

I'm less worried about the almost for sure Ross/Hart he would have won in 2011 and 2013, than I am with his lack of a truly dominant full season.

In terms of level of play/domination over a full season - I'd say Crosby's peak is probably near the lower end of the other players in contention for top 5-20 spots. The rest of his resume is strong enough that he can overcome this and still make a push for #5, but with such a season his case would be that much stronger.

 

[The Panther]

He's still the best player in the world today (sorry McDavid). He's the favorite for the Smythe, and maybe the Hart/Ross going into next year - and defending Rocket Champion. If he maintains his level of play for 3-5 more years, he can still add more accolades to his resume at an almost exponential value.

This is all possible, of course, but we would have said exactly the same things about Orr in 1975 and Gretzky in 1991 and Lindros in 2000 and Forsberg in 2003 (well, Lindros is a bit different in that he hadn't won a Cup yet). The point is, players often suddenly start to have "career value decline" when no one sees it coming, but it sneaks up on them (or pounds them, like Stevens on Lindros).

I mean, think about how close Crosby was to having a "meh" season by his standards. If the Pens had lost either of their two game 7s, this season would have gone down as nothing special for Sid. Simultaneously, if the Oilers hadn't blown a 3-0 lead with 2 minutes left in a game (tied by a controversial goal), they'd have advanced to the final four instead of the Pens, and we'd now have 1000 threads on the main-forum about how McDavid is king and Crosby is washed-up.

So, yeah, Sid is very consistent and may keep producing at near-top levels for several years to come (as Howe did), or he and his team may start to decline and 2016-17 may go down as "Sid's last great year". I'm optimistic for him, but I'm not gonna start awarding him career plaudits he hasn't yet earned.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I find it odd how these forums usually like talking about "right now" vs "where he'll be realistically after career". I get that the 2nd includes hypothetical speculation, but at least it's worth something, since Crosby isn't retiring now. Nor is it really apples to apples to compare 12 seasons to 20 or so.

It's the Lindros syndrome. Eric was ranked a top 50 player of all time by a THN panel 1998 (on an otherwise very Original 6 heavy list), and it looked assinine in retrospect. So we made it something of a rule to not credit players for what they haven't yet done.

 

[Peat]

Not by itself on paper but if you can use the stat in a meaningful way then sure.

Fair enough, was just curious as I know some advance Sid's current PPG, but some people will do anything here so I wanted to know whether that actually held water.

 

[daver]

Top 10 scoring finishes:
Beliveau - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9
Richard - 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6
Hull - 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Again, he holds up rather well here. Certainly isn't out of place and that goes for two seasons where he was wiped out because of injury.

The elephant in the room is how to give reasonable consideration to partial seasons which stick out the most for Crosby, especially when he seemed to be playing at his absolute peak during three of the four significantly affected seasons.

It is interesting to note that if Crosby was playing during a 50 game regular season like Richard did for a few years, he would have two more Top 3 Art Ross finishes in 07/08 and 10/11. I.e. when the season hit the 50 game mark Crosby was still Top 3 in scoring despite being injured. IMO, at the very least, a look at partial seasons could be a tiebreaker for two players who have very similar raw point Art Ross finishes.

Is there a general consensus on this dynamic? Or is it a personal preference as to how to view them?

The other dynamic that pops to mind is whether or not comparing Top Ten finishes for players from different league sizes makes statistical sense?

 

[bobholly39]

This is all possible, of course, but we would have said exactly the same things about Orr in 1975 and Gretzky in 1991 and Lindros in 2000 and Forsberg in 2003 (well, Lindros is a bit different in that he hadn't won a Cup yet). The point is, players often suddenly start to have "career value decline" when no one sees it coming, but it sneaks up on them (or pounds them, like Stevens on Lindros).

I mean, think about how close Crosby was to having a "meh" season by his standards. If the Pens had lost either of their two game 7s, this season would have gone down as nothing special for Sid. Simultaneously, if the Oilers hadn't blown a 3-0 lead with 2 minutes left in a game (tied by a controversial goal), they'd have advanced to the final four instead of the Pens, and we'd now have 1000 threads on the main-forum about how McDavid is king and Crosby is washed-up.

So, yeah, Sid is very consistent and may keep producing at near-top levels for several years to come (as Howe did), or he and his team may start to decline and 2016-17 may go down as "Sid's last great year". I'm optimistic for him, but I'm not gonna start awarding him career plaudits he hasn't yet earned.

Last year Crosby was close to having a "meh" year, but i'd argue this year he wasn't really. Most of the season people were absolutely wow'ed by his domination at goal scoring, and PPG pace. It's really only in the last 10-15 games his pace dropped him out of the Ross race. I think he has a solid chance at the Lindsay for example still, because his year was pretty great.

So sure, the line between greatness and not is sometimes thin.

Also - I agree with you, that we can never predict future accolades, and you never know when someone might decline. So I'm not predicting any "accolades" for Crosby. I'm not saying he should be a top 5 player because he's going to win another smythe, or hart, or ross. I am saying he's in an excellent position to win more of these awards (better position than any of Gretzky, Lindros, Forsberg or Orr were at the same age by FAR imo). But what I am saying is, short of his play falling off a cliff, or him retiring tomorrow, if he maintains some semblance of respectable longevity in his 30s (say plays to ~38, with a few more top 5 ross/hart finishes, which is a very conservative estimate for him), he's headed towards #5.

 

[MXD]

The one big blemish in Crosby's resume is his peak imo.

His peak is ok - but not top 5 of all time (or even close?). 2011 (maybe even 2012, and even 2013 shortened season) could have been a special season for him, maybe. But he didn't see it through.

Having Crosby score 130 (140?) points in a season, or score 60+ goals, would have raised his stock significantly from an all-time perspective.

I'm less worried about the almost for sure Ross/Hart he would have won in 2011 and 2013, than I am with his lack of a truly dominant full season.

In terms of level of play/domination over a full season - I'd say Crosby's peak is probably near the lower end of the other players in contention for top 5-20 spots. The rest of his resume is strong enough that he can overcome this and still make a push for #5, but with such a season his case would be that much stronger.

You know what?
IF Crosby had a 140 pts season with 60+ goals during his career (and if it wasn't 05-06 or 06-07), and another one season at least reasonably close to this so it doesn't look like a complete fluke...

I'm probably switching Lemieux and Beliveau.

 

[daver]

Far enough so the answer can be : "He might never reach Top-5 status"

Or close enough so the answer can be: "Maybe by next season."

A compelling narrative for Crosby is that he put himself at the very top of the pack in his 2nd season after an historic rookie season. He has basically stayed there for 11 seasons straight with some time spent sharing that space with OV and Malkin. Can we say the same for Hull, Richard or Belliveau applying the same sort of metrics: Art Ross placings, PPG, playoff performances?

 

[MXD]

Or close enough so answer can be: "Maybe by next season."

Not happening.

 

[MXD]

I really don't understand the hurry of ranking Crosby higher than what his achievements suggests. Let him achieve, then rank accordingly. It's very... simple.

 

[daver]

Not happening.

Possibly 12 seasons of being the best/co-best, and/or another Top 3 Art Ross/Hart placing, and/or another CS would be getting into unprecedented territory for non-Big 4 players; the latter being unprecedented, period.

 

[Boxscore]

Right now I have Crosby exactly on par with Yzerman. The scary thing is that Sid presumably still has another 7-10 years of hockey left in him, barring serious injury.

IF Crosby were to accomplish this, before his career is over, there's a good chance he lands 5th all-time:

- 2 more Cups
- 1 more Conn Smythe
- 3 more Art Ross
- 3 more Harts
- 1 more Rocket
- Avg. 75 points over 8 more seasons (600 total)

That would put Sid at 9th all-time in scoring with 5 Cups, 3 Connies and a nice collection of individual awards, while clearly being the best player of his generation.

If he does that, you're looking at...

1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Lemieux
4. Howe
5. Crosby

Done deal.

If he only accomplishes half of that it gets trickier.

 

[MXD]

Possibly 12 seasons of being the best/co-best, and/or another Top 3 Art Ross/Hart placing, and/or another CS would be getting into unprecedented territory for non-Big 4 players; the latter being unprecedented, period.

Well, if you're convinced, so be it.

I'm not, and your post above is... solid reason to prefer my perspective to yours.