How close is Crosby to top 5 status now?

[Namba 17]

What is the offensive gap

Top 10 scoring finishes:
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6
Mikita - 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4

and how cannot you not give Crosby the clear playoff edge in applying the same metrics?

And Mikita's playoff stats were for 12 games.

So? Your suggestion? Don't take PO into account? We don't have other PO numbers.

 

[Namba 17]

Doesn't seem quite right to award Mikita with the "better playoff run".

I didn't do that. I said, that Crosby, probably has an edge here. But really, it's not that big.

 

[MXD]

If you are referring to Mikita's 57 game 72/73 season (3rd in PPG), I don't see much difference between that season and Crosby's 53 game 07/08 season (2nd in PPG).

Then we have 10/11 and 12/13.

As for dismissing a 48 game season in a Mikita vs. Crosby comparison, should we exclude any season that was 50 games or less from this discussion?

First, Mikita played more games (both in absolute and in relative terms, with the season being a wee bit shorter) than Crosby did (in absolute and relative terms).

Second, this is a case where Mikita's competition was... QUITE better.

Third, I was saying that his Mikita's best "partial" season was better than ANY of Crosby's partial seasons. I don't think this is particularily hard to understand.

Crosby's sum of partial seasons might be better than Mikita's sum of partial seasons, but that's the kind of argument that weakens everything else you might put forward, because it only highlights Crosby having more partial seasons to begin with (which are, usually, less valuable than full seasons), and the fact that Mikita's other partial seasons happened when he was 35+, an age Crosby has yet to reach (and at which point players usually start to regress), and, thus, achieve no meaningful purpose other than to make Crosby look good in a comparison that really, really shouldn't be made (the equivalent would be like concluding that Alex Radulov is a better player than Jaromir Jagr because he was better than Jagr in every full season he played after coming back from the NHL).

 

[daver]

I didn't do that. I said, that Crosby, probably has an edge here. But really, it's not that big.

What metrics you are applying to draw this conclusion? Who had the best single playoff run?

 

[daver]

Perhaps these Crosby vs. Mikita or anyone else not mentioned in the OP should be brought up in the Top Centres/Players threads.

 

[66871]

There's a catch to this though.

If you keep 2013 out of this (because it was only a 48 games season, thus making things harder to compare in a apples-to-apples fashion), Mikita probably has the best "partial" season between both (helped by the fact he played more in his very good partial season than Crosby did in any partial seasons).

I think it's telling that the detractions against Crosby have gone from not giving him credit for things he didn't do (which is fair) to actively ignoring things he did do.

 

[MXD]

I think it's telling that the detractions against Crosby have gone from not giving him credit for things he didn't do (which is fair) to actively ignoring things he did do.

I think it's telling that you didn't bother about "comparing apples to apples".

 

[daver]

First, Mikita played more games (both in absolute and in relative terms, with the season being a wee bit shorter) than Crosby did (in absolute and relative terms).

Second, this is a case where Mikita's competition was... QUITE better.

Third, I was saying that his Mikita's best "partial" season was better than ANY of Crosby's partial seasons. I don't think this is particularily hard to understand.

I am perfectly willing to add Mikita's 72/73 season to his list of elite seasons. The concept that we wouldn't give any value to partial seasons is as unreasonable as relying solely on PPGs in a listing of elite seasons.

Based on this, Crosby has eleven elite seasons vs. Mikita's nine giving him the superior prime. That, plus a superior playoff resume can be viewed as overriding Mikita's advantage of longevity.

 

[daver]

I think it's telling that you didn't bother about "comparing apples to apples".

So are we supposed to assume that if Crosby played in Richard's era he gets his concussion at the 25 game mark instead of the 41 game mark, or his ankle sprain at the 28 game mark instead of the 48 game mark? Too bad he didn't play with Morenz, then he wouldn't have any partial seasons!

HOH is all about reasonable comparisons of apples to oranges.

 

[seventieslord]

Right now I have Crosby exactly on par with Yzerman..

That ship sailed, like, well over a year ago. Before he wrapped up two more top-3 scoring seasons, two cups and two smythes.

 

[Sentinel]

I would focus on centers first. To me, Crosby is currently sharing #4/5 with Morenz. With a great second half of his career, he can move up past Beliveau.

Mikita only won one Cup, while a part of a more than solid roster. That's underachieving. Until 2016 playoffs, Crosby's Pens were poster children for underachieving, but luckily for them Sullivan arrived. I rank Mikita below Yzerman, Sakic, Trottier, and Espo.

 

[66871]

I think it's telling that you didn't bother about "comparing apples to apples".

Apples to apples would mean 82 game seasons to 82 game seasons and 70 game seasons to 70 games seasons, would it not?

There was one season during Crosby's career that was 68% the length of the first nine seasons of Mikita's career. On the other hand, those nine seasons of Mikita's career were 85% the length of every other season in Crosby's time.

It seems selective to pretend there is some magic number below which seasons don't count. You are entitled to apply a discount, but consistency would seem to demand a proportional discount for all seasons that aren't 82 games.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seeds

I think it's telling that you didn't bother about "comparing apples to apples".

More to the point no need to compare "seeds to seeds".

 

[MXD]

I am perfectly willing to add Mikita's 72/73 season to his list of elite seasons. The concept that we wouldn't give any value to partial seasons is as unreasonable as relying solely on PPGs in a listing of elite seasons.

Based on this, Crosby has eleven elite seasons vs. Mikita's nine giving him the superior prime. That, plus a superior playoff resume can be viewed as overriding Mikita's advantage of longevity.

That'S a reasonable way to put it. Still reads like a PPG finish list, but reasonable.

So are we supposed to assume that if Crosby played in Richard's era he gets his concussion at the 25 game mark instead of the 41 game mark, or his ankle sprain at the 28 game mark instead of the 48 game mark? Too bad he didn't play with Morenz, then he wouldn't have any partial seasons!

HOH is all about reasonable comparisons of apples to oranges.

Nah, I just didn't want to lump "that" partial season with the "other" partial seasons. Achieves no real purpose, especially considering that Crosby already has more partial seasons than Mikita (and that these seasons are intrinsically less valuable than full seasons). There's no evidence that Crosby doesn't get injured in October either and doesn't play a single game, and there's no evidence that Crosby doesn't end up even above the 70 games mark, which wouldn't make his season a partial one.

I would focus on centers first. To me, Crosby is currently sharing #4/5 with Morenz. With a great second half of his career, he can move up past Beliveau.

Mikita only won one Cup, while a part of a more than solid roster. That's underachieving. Until 2016 playoffs, Crosby's Pens were poster children for underachieving, but luckily for them Sullivan arrived. I rank Mikita below Yzerman, Sakic, Trottier, and Espo.

That's also a very reasonable way to put it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sad......

So are we supposed to assume that if Crosby played in Richard's era he gets his concussion at the 25 game mark instead of the 41 game mark, or his ankle sprain at the 28 game mark instead of the 48 game mark? Too bad he didn't play with Morenz, then he wouldn't have any partial seasons!

HOH is all about reasonable comparisons of apples to oranges.

But it is not about adjusting for concussions, ankle sprains and whatever strikes one`s fancy.

Look at performance in Richard's era, how he did when playing three games in four nights as opposed to Crosby facing similar scheduling.

Might advance cross era understanding.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top 10 scoring finishes:
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6
Mikita - 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4
Top 10 goalscoring finishes:
Crosby - 1, 1, 7, 8
Mikita - 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Hart finishes:
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6
Mikita - 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7

All-star selections:
Crosby - 4 (or 5) First team, 2 (or 3) 2nd team
Mikita - 6 First team, 2 second team.

The thing that stands out most to me is that Crosby has a significantly better Hart record.

Mikita once was the best scorer and goal-scorer of the PO.
Crosby never.

Smythe-calibre playoffs:

Crosby 4 Mikita 1

Honestly, Crosby's playoff record is so much better, it isn't even worth talking about.

Also Mikita was great defensively and even has 2 retro selke. It's retro, off course, but still. I don't even know if Crosby's selke record exists.

Mikita was great defensively in the second half of his career, but by then, he was no longer a top 10 scorer. In the 1960s, Chicago's star forwards were criticized as a group for lack of two-way play. I've yet to see anything written about Mikita's personal defensive play in the 1960s one way or the other, except that he couldnt handle Beliveau's size in the playoffs.

Whereas Crosby has been a good (not great) defensive player for years now, while also being a regular top 5 scorer.

By the way, "retro Selkes" were invented by the questionable source book "Ultimate hockey." They are nice and all, but hardly definitive.

[/quote]
Really, what exactly Crosby did, that you think, he surpassed Mikita? Crosby is worse scorer with significantly worse defensive game.[/QUOTE]

Similar scoring record (I don't know how you can look at there records as say one is "better"), advantage in Hart voting, 1st vs 3rd best player of his generation, significantly better playoffs.

Mikita has the whole second half of his career where he was a strong two-way player, but no longer a top 10 scorer. IMO, that doesn't make up for Crosby's other advantages, but you are free to disagree.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How would you guys compare Crosby and Béliveau defensively?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Mikita Defensively

In response to the point made by TDMM, upthread.

Initially Mikita`s defensive strength was that he was an RHS shooting center, excellent on faceoffs, aggressive forechecker. The other defensive skills developed as the sixties progressed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Good Question

How would you guys compare Crosby and Béliveau defensively?

Good question.

First, it has to be appreciated that each played in different eras, with different defensive structures and philosophies.

The Canadiens with Beliveau, under Toe Blake then Ruel and McNeil played a variety of intricate one and two man forechecking defenses, constantly forcing the opposition in an effort to create two on one turnover opportunities. Pittsburgh regardless of the coach, during Crosby`s time plays a relatively passive forechecking system, mainly one-man, the center. So Crosby does have the recognition and management demands that Beliveau had, especially as dictated by shift length. Crosby does not have to work with his wingers defensively the way Beliveau did. Granted Beliveau played with more viable defensive wingers.

Conversely, Crosby cannot use the Red Line like Beliveau could to contain the opposition by creating offside situations.Likewise in the defensive zone Crosby has more corner responsibilities. This is a function of the Penguins lacking wingers, especially LWs like Gilles Tremblay or Dick Duff that were/are reliable in the defensive zone while being strong skaters who offered offensive support. Also Crosby with the exception of Kris Letang plays with average to weak first pass defencemen so he has to help with the transition. Beliveau played with
Harvey, later J.C.Tremblay and other strong first pass defencemen. So the defensive responsibilities were different in the defensive zone.

Overall, edge to Beliveau because he had greater defensive responsibilities and executed them for a longer period of time against tougher opposition. Crosby does not have to play against a Mikita, Delvecchio/Ullman , Kelly/Keon quality offensive center upwards off 42 games a season.

 

[Merya]

Crosby might have a decent chance for top 5, but I don't think he can change "it" to "big five". Indeed, he might have a better chance to shrink "it" to "big three".
There certainly is an organized push on behalf of the NHL to make him replace the Great One going on. Furthermore, discussions about Crosby's greatness would be more fruitful in november.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Good question.

First, it has to be appreciated that each played in different eras, with different defensive structures and philosophies.

The Canadiens with Beliveau, under Toe Blake then Ruel and McNeil played a variety of intricate one and two man forechecking defenses, constantly forcing the opposition in an effort to create two on one turnover opportunities. Pittsburgh regardless of the coach, during Crosby`s time plays a relatively passive forechecking system, mainly one-man, the center. So Crosby does have the recognition and management demands that Beliveau had, especially as dictated by shift length. Crosby does not have to work with his wingers defensively the way Beliveau did. Granted Beliveau played with more viable defensive wingers.

Conversely, Crosby cannot use the Red Line like Beliveau could to contain the opposition by creating offside situations.Likewise in the defensive zone Crosby has more corner responsibilities. This is a function of the Penguins lacking wingers, especially LWs like Gilles Tremblay or Dick Duff that were/are reliable in the defensive zone while being strong skaters who offered offensive support. Also Crosby with the exception of Kris Letang plays with average to weak first pass defencemen so he has to help with the transition. Beliveau played with
Harvey, later J.C.Tremblay and other strong first pass defencemen. So the defensive responsibilities were different in the defensive zone.

Overall, edge to Beliveau because he had greater defensive responsibilities and executed them for a longer period of time against tougher opposition. Crosby does not have to play against a Mikita, Delvecchio/Ullman , Kelly/Keon quality offensive center upwards off 42 games a season.

Thank you, very interesting.

 

[bobholly39]

I think regardless of where you have Crosby ranked, it's important to keep into account quality of competition when we're discussing scoring finishes etc. A player like Beliveau accomplished his feats against the likes of Howe, Richard, Hull, Mikita etc. Sidney Crosby is 2 years removed from prime Crosby legitimately losing a scoring title to Jamie Benn of all people. That'd be like prime Jagr losing a scoring title to Markus Naslund. I guess my point is that not all "3rd place scoring finishes" can be treated equally.

Sidney Crosby is not Gretzky, nor Lemieux.

Wayne Gretzky would never have lost a scoring title to Jamie Benn - or anyone for that matter outside of #66 - in his prime. Reverse is true for Lemieux.

Literally every other single player in the history of the sport outside of those 2 cannot be held to that same standard. They're the only 2 who have displayed such dominance in their prime that they would never be outscored, period.

Crosby lost a scoring title to Benn, or Sedin.
Gordie Howe lost scoring titles to Dickie Moore and Geoffrion, and likely others.

What's the difference?

Also - Jagr *did* lose a scoring title to Markus Naslund in his prime. 2003 (Jagr was 30). Naslun had 104 point (2nd place) to Jagr's 77 points. The fact that Forsberg happened to outscore Naslund by 2 points for the Ross that year doesn't change anything.

 

[bobholly39]

Crosby might have a decent chance for top 5, but I don't think he can change "it" to "big five". Indeed, he might have a better chance to shrink "it" to "big three".
There certainly is an organized push on behalf of the NHL to make him replace the Great One going on. Furthermore, discussions about Crosby's greatness would be more fruitful in november.

So to change it to a "big 5" - Crosby needs a *lot* more things in my opinion.

His current trophy case is simply not going to cut it. His current trophy case can be enough to finish top 5, in argument for 5th spot (possibly as a heavy favorite even), if he ends with some top 3-5 scoring finishes, top 3 hart voting seasons, strong playoffs, etc.

But to be a "big 5" - he definitely needs some very, very special stuff. Example would be a 3rd back to back smythe (and maybe even a 4th one before he retires). That could be enough to push the argument of a big 5.

Or how about 2 more harts/rosses. Past 30 years old. When McDavid is supposed to dominate, for Crosby to beat him out twice would be significant.

But yeah - it would likely take a lot to make it a big 5. Though it's certainly not impossible. The sky's the limit for Crosby in terms of accomplishments over the next 3-5 years. Best player in the world, on the best team in the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Arbitrary

Sidney Crosby is not Gretzky, nor Lemieux.

Wayne Gretzky would never have lost a scoring title to Jamie Benn - or anyone for that matter outside of #66 - in his prime. Reverse is true for Lemieux.

Literally every other single player in the history of the sport outside of those 2 cannot be held to that same standard. They're the only 2 who have displayed such dominance in their prime that they would never be outscored, period.

Crosby lost a scoring title to Benn, or Sedin.
Gordie Howe lost scoring titles to Dickie Moore and Geoffrion, and likely others.

What's the difference?

Also - Jagr *did* lose a scoring title to Markus Naslund in his prime. 2003 (Jagr was 30). Naslun had 104 point (2nd place) to Jagr's 77 points. The fact that Forsberg happened to outscore Naslund by 2 points for the Ross that year doesn't change anything.

Rather arbitrary statement. Winning the Art Ross is not the main objective of the game, rather it is a by-product.

So why did Gretzky and Lemieux not win more Stanley Cups in their prime? Zero each, post prime.

 

[bobholly39]

Rather arbitrary statement. Winning the Art Ross is not the main objective of the game, rather it is a by-product.

So why did Gretzky and Lemieux not win more Stanley Cups in their prime? Zero each, post prime.

You're taking my post out of context.

The poster I replied to was implying that Beliveau faced tougher competition for Ross because he faced off against Howe Richard Hull and Mikita while Crosby as losing rosses to Benn.

So am I saying Art Rosses are the end all be all? No. But I am replying to a poster whose implying that Crosby is somehow inferior to Beliveau because he lost a Ross to Benn.

Outside of Lemieux and Gretzky - no other player in history dominated his peers in the point race (when not injured for Lemieux of course) every year of their prime, without exception. So yeah, Crosby doesn't have a 100% success record when it comes to winning the Ross, BUT he does have a better success rate than Beliveau imo.