How close is Crosby to top 5 status now?

[Bear of Bad News]

Folks, knock off the attacks, or I'll turn this car around right now.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Players with 2 harts and 2 Smythes

Lemieux, gretzky, Orr, crosby.

 

[bobholly39]

Players with 2 harts and 2 Smythes

Lemieux, gretzky, Orr, crosby.

Yeah that looks like exceptionally good company.

But to play's devil's advocate.

That's only because Conn Smythe didn't exist before the 60s. Beliveau at the very least would be in that group if not, and likely Howe and maybe cpl of others. But regardless - very elite club.

 

[NoMessi]

Players with 2 harts and 2 Smythes

Lemieux, gretzky, Orr, crosby.

His first Conn Smythe was a lifetime achievement award and totally undeserving. His second one was coin flip between him and Malkin (I would prefer Malkin but its fair that Crosby have 1 because hes been top 2-3 in 3 playoffs, 08, 09 and 17)

 

[MXD]

His first Conn Smythe was a lifetime achievement award and totally undeserving. His second one was coin flip between him and Malkin (I would prefer Malkin but its fair that Crosby have 1 because hes been top 2-3 in 3 playoffs, 08, 09 and 17)

I'm usually against Crosby in this thread in order because the arguments for him are generally terrible, both on form and on substance, but Crosby was a pretty good pick in 2016 all things considered.

He wasn't particularily deserving, but with Letang being so-so in the Stanley Cup Finals, he became the most deserving.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Players with 2 harts and 2 Smythes

Lemieux, gretzky, Orr, crosby.

Conn Smythe has only been around since 1965.

Add Beliveau if you include retroactive Conn Smythes

 

[ImporterExporter]

His first Conn Smythe was a lifetime achievement award and totally undeserving. His second one was coin flip between him and Malkin (I would prefer Malkin but its fair that Crosby have 1 because hes been top 2-3 in 3 playoffs, 08, 09 and 17)

Sigh.

Its comments like this that I was talking about in the "Did Crosby rob Kessel" thread.

"Totally undeserving"? Really. Why? For once, will somebody actually bring tangible evidence as to why he didn't deserve, whatsoever, consideration for the CS. I think it was certainly one of the weaker CS's in history but nowhere near the undeserving ledge.

Crosby beat Malkin because he was easily the best player in the Finals, on either side. Also Crosby played 2 fewer games (he missed all but 1 minute of game 3 vs Washington and then all of game 4) than Malkin so the 1 point difference is absolutely meaningless.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Conn Smythe has only been around since 1965.

Add Beliveau if you include retroactive Conn Smythes

52 years is still along time. Only 4 players in 52 years.

 

[Plural]

Conn Smythe is the most erratic trophy. Obviously it's a great achievement and understandably held to a high regard. But it has more "why" winners than any other trophy in NHL history.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Conn Smythe is the most erratic trophy. Obviously it's a great achievement and understandably held to a high regard. But it has more "why" winners than any other trophy in NHL history.

I think the Smythe gains more prestige when it involves all time greats. Players like Justin Williams can win a Smythe but there never brought up in an all time sense. But when it comes to all timers the Smythe is usually a big tie breaker between players IE. Crosby and ovechkin.

 

[MXD]

I think the Smythe gains more prestige when it involves all time greats. Players like Justin Williams can win a Smythe but there never brought up in an all time sense. But when it comes to all timers the Smythe is usually a big tie breaker between players IE. Crosby and ovechkin.

In other words, the Smythe is prestigious because Crosby won it, and Crosby is great because he won a prestigious award.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think the Smythe gains more prestige when it involves all time greats. Players like Justin Williams can win a Smythe but there never brought up in an all time sense. But when it comes to all timers the Smythe is usually a big tie breaker between players IE. Crosby and ovechkin.

In other words, the Smythe is prestigious because Crosby won it, and Crosby is great because he won a prestigious award.

*MOD EDIT*

There are a lot more meh winners for the Conn Smythe than for any other trophy because of the small sample size along with many other factors

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think the Smythe gains more prestige when it involves all time greats. Players like Justin Williams can win a Smythe but there never brought up in an all time sense. But when it comes to all timers the Smythe is usually a big tie breaker between players IE. Crosby and ovechkin.

Bolded: Counting Conn Smythes isn't why Crosby (All time great) > Ovechkin in that tie most people would use cups.

Underlined: Duh because it makes people question the award a little bit in terms of absolute comparisons between players.

that first bold is exactly what MXD implied, because an All time great (Crosby) won it it has more worth

 

[quoipourquoi]

Final warning for the thread. Be nice to each other.

 

[MXD]

Bolded: Counting Conn Smythes isn't why Crosby (All time great) > Ovechkin in that tie most people would use cups.

Underlined: Duh because it makes people question the award a little bit in terms of absolute comparisons between players.

that first bold is exactly what MXD implied, because an All time great (Crosby) won it it has more worth

What I hinted at is there's a way of arguing that Sidney Crosby is a great player and in Top-15 territory other than litterally go full Hygrade Sausage with the Conn Smythe Award.

 

[Plural]

I agree, Crosby and his Conn Smythe's (or Smythe worthy runs which seems to be a recurring phrase in Crosby talks) are nice and cast a nice light on his already great career. But they're currently being used a simplistic 1-2-3-etc.etc. kind of count which doesn't make much sense.

 

[GuineaPig]

The funny thing is, I don't even think that highly of Crosby and in my opinion he should have three Conn Smythes.

Is being a great playoff performer important? Yeah. But at the end of the day I don't think getting an extra trophy at the end of Cup run sways things in my mind one way or the other

 

[ImporterExporter]

The funny thing is, I don't even think that highly of Crosby and in my opinion he should have three Conn Smythes.

Is being a great playoff performer important? Yeah. But at the end of the day I don't think getting an extra trophy at the end of Cup run sways things in my mind one way or the other

I agree with this mostly. I think being MVP of the entire playoffs should matter to some degree in a singular form. I think where the prestige starts to really shine through is if you get a player that does it multiple times, or back to back. Those are extremely rare instances and one should evaluate the magnitude.

 

[authentic]

The funny thing is, I don't even think that highly of Crosby and in my opinion he should have three Conn Smythes.

Is being a great playoff performer important? Yeah. But at the end of the day I don't think getting an extra trophy at the end of Cup run sways things in my mind one way or the other

The people who go on about the fact that he shouldn't have 2 Smythes are out of their minds IMO.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

he just won his 8th ESPY for best hockey player, easily the most all time

how much longer are some of you going to pretend he isn't the best ever?

 

[bobholly39]

he just won his 8th ESPY for best hockey player, easily the most all time

how much longer are some of you going to pretend he isn't the best ever?

The espys are around since 1993 only.

 

[Doctor No]

how much longer are some of you going to pretend he isn't the best ever?

How long are you going to pretend that the ESPYs are relevant in any fashion?

I'll admit that back when Robert Espy founded the ESPYs in 1915, they were all about the sport. Now, though? Pure commercialism.

 

[bobholly39]

The people who go on about the fact that he shouldn't have 2 Smythes are out of their minds IMO.

The problem is it's a double standard.

I've never once heard "Martin St-Louis shouldn't have 2 Art Rosses". yet he only won in 2013 bc Crosby had a freak injury.

And I never hear "Gretzky should only have 8 harts, not 9". He got his 9th the year Lemieux scored 199 points, and Gretzky scores 168 - also 85 goals to 54.

Crosby has 2 smythes and deserves full merits for them. As does St-Louis with his Ross's, and Gretzky with his harts.

 

[MXD]

The problem is it's a double standard.

I've never once heard "Martin St-Louis shouldn't have 2 Art Rosses". yet he only won in 2013 bc Crosby had a freak injury.

And I never hear "Gretzky should only have 8 harts, not 9". He got his 9th the year Lemieux scored 199 points, and Gretzky scores 168 - also 85 goals to 54.

Crosby has 2 smythes and deserves full merits for them. As does St-Louis with his Ross's, and Gretzky with his harts.

I think there has to be some kind of terminology effort here.

The Art Ross is a "numerical" award. You score the most points, you win. The choice of the winner can absolutely not be questionned. Of course, there are Art Rosses that are weaker and stronger than others due to a myriad of reasons, and MSL's 2013 might be a slightly "weak" one, partly because of Crosby. It's also very impressive since he was about 82 years old by then. Patrick Kane's recent Art Ross was certainly strong. I can't see how there can be an undeserved Art Ross since (MAYBE) Max Bentley (who didn't even get an actual Art Ross, he just led the NHL in points) or Roy Conacher (and even then it's debateable, considering his teammate was 2nd and everyone else was so much behind them there's no way of telling if Lindsay had a shot).

Back to Crosby... If one uses "undeserving", it probably implies that somebody else should've won, and that Crosby was a bad choice. I think myself that he was absolutely not undeserving. I would've given it to Letang after the 3rd round, but the trophy is awarded after the Finals.

I'd say, however, that it was a "weak" Conn Smythe award. Conn Smythe winners usually have better playoffs than the ones Crosby had in '16. If you only consider the 4 playoffs during which Crosby got to the finals, 2016 was almost certainly his weakest. But the Conn Smythe is awarded to one player, every year. Not two. Not zero. Not three. One. Someone had to win it in 2016, and only one player could win it in 2009.

And it's not a Crosby-special. The same thing applies for other awards. The 2015 Vezina (Price) was a strong Vezina. The 2016 Vezina (Holtby) was a weak Vezina, probably the weakest DESERVED Vezina since, I don't know.... Kolzig? But it was a totally deserved Vezina. Same thing for the Calder : Matthews is a rather strong Calder, and I can't think of a weak one on top of my head (Drury?), but it doesn't mean their respective Calders were not deserved.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think there has to be some kind of terminology effort here.

The Art Ross is a "numerical" award. You score the most points, you win. The choice of the winner can absolutely not be questionned. Of course, there are Art Rosses that are weaker and stronger than others due to a myriad of reasons, and MSL's 2013 might be a slightly "weak" one, partly because of Crosby. It's also very impressive since he was about 82 years old by then. Patrick Kane's recent Art Ross was certainly strong. I can't see how there can be an undeserved Art Ross since Max Bentley (who didn't even get an actual Art Ross, he just led the NHL in points) or Roy Conacher (and even then it's debateable, considering his teammate was 2nd and everyone else was so much behind them there's no way of telling if Lindsay had a shot).

Back to Crosby... If one uses "undeserving", it probably implies that somebody else should've won, and that Crosby was a bad choice. I think myself that he was absolutely not undeserving. I would've given it to Letang after the 3rd round, but the trophy is awarded after the Finals.

I'd say, however, that it was a "weak" Conn Smythe award. Conn Smythe winners usually have better playoffs than the ones Crosby had in '16. If you only consider the 4 playoffs during which Crosby got to the finals, 2016 was almost certainly his weakest. But the Conn Smythe is awarded to one player, every year. Not two. Not zero. Not three. One. Someone had to win it in 2016, and only one player could win it in 2009.

And it's not a Crosby-special. The same thing applies for other awards. The 2015 Vezina (Price) was a strong Vezina. The 2016 Vezina (Holtby) was a weak Vezina, probably the weakest DESERVED Vezina since, I don't know.... Kolzig? But it was a totally deserved Vezina. Same thing for the Calder : Matthews is a rather strong Calder, and I can't think of a weak one on top of my head (Drury?), but it doesn't mean their respective Calders were not deserved.

Spot on. This really hits all major points well.