If Crosby played in the 80s, 90s

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Doesn't seem to have affected guys like Messier, Trottier, Yzerman, etc. when discussions of all-time greats comes up, even though they played during that era.

They are all time greats, not in the discussion of 5th best.

 

[Canucks1096]

Rocket Richard and Jean Belliveau have 1 Art Ross between them and they are regarded as Top 10 players by many.

True but Jean Belliveau does have 2 Hart and 10 all star teams. Rocket has 1 Hart and 14 all star teams.

I think the 10 cups and 8 cup wins by Jean and Rocket played some factor as well when people ranking them in the top 10.

 

[BCShark]

i love how sure some of you are when asking such a complex question. lots of gifted posters on here

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

How? Jagr is top ten all time and is comparable to Crosby.

Jagr isn't set in the top 10 all time. And that's the point, everyone knows Lemieux was way better than Jagr so no one even tries to argue it. With Crosby there's a slight argument that's building because he plays at a different time. If he played at the same time as Lemieux he'd be an after thought.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

He'd be the 3rd best player but his legacy would be impacted in a huge way. Not just because of the awards he'd lose, but because he wouldn't be close to Gretzky/Lemieux in pts so he'd quickly be brushed aside in regards to this "top 5-10" all time talk.

Ehh, it's hard to argue this when Jagr won five Art Ross trophies plus two 2nd place finishes and basically ran a train offensively over the NHL for a good stretch without Gretzky or Mario in the mix, yet routinely gets left out of the conversation for 5th best of all time.

 

[Canucks1096]

It's not too hard to look at a player's career in a vacuum unless you have an agenda. You can play the "if he played in the 80s and 90s" card with other Top 10 players and argue they would be rated lower all-time.

Not really. If you are the top 6 to top 10 player it doesn't impact you a lot without 66 and 99 because you still won't be good enough to win any nhl awards and all star team.
Kind of like Modano and Sundin in the 90s. Both probably top 10 center and both won no individual trophies because just being top 10 center is not good enough win much or anything. and I think Sundin one second all star team


But if your 3rd to 6th best player at times you have a shot at all star teams and awards without 66 and 99. So that will impact your legacy.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

They are all time greats, not in the discussion of 5th best.

But, I mean, the only thing it affects is Crosby's trophy case. It doesn't affect how good he is.

It's like saying Nicklas Lidstrom's legacy would be affected if he played during the same era as Bobby Orr. Lidstrom would lose out on all his Norris trophies, so would he suddenly no longer be seen as a top 5 defenseman (or whatever he is) off all-time?

 

[Canucks1096]

Yzerman would have won the Hart once. 87-88 Fuhr was 2nd in voting behind Gretzky and would have won over Lemieux and Yzerman.

Your point still stands, outliers like Gretzky and Lemieux happening so close to each other will definitely stifle the award cabinets for other players in their position. Was it Messier who finished directly behind Mario and Wayne in points twice twice? Selanne also finished behind Mario once. A lot of other guys too, but thise cane quickly to mind.

Yes that is exact reason why I think he would of won the Hart in 1988. Also with No Gretzky oilers regular season points would of been less. Which means less win for Fuhr so that would impact the voting. Back in the 80s more wins equals better goalie. That's why a lot of the win leader got the Vezina because of most wins.

Messier finished 2nd to 99 in 1990. Yzermen finished directly behind 99 and 66 in 1989.

 

[Canucks1096]

But, I mean, the only thing it affects is Crosby's trophy case. It doesn't affect how good he is.

It's like saying Nicklas Lidstrom's legacy would be affected if he played during the same era as Bobby Orr. Lidstrom would lose out on all his Norris trophies, so would he suddenly no longer be seen as a top 5 defenseman (or whatever he is) off all-time?

I agree it doesn't impact how good you are in my opinion. But when the nhl is talking about all time greats. They don't just look at your stats. They look your awards and all star team. It will affect your legacy for sure.

 

[Sadekuuro]

It's like saying Nicklas Lidstrom's legacy would be affected if he played during the same era as Bobby Orr. Lidstrom would lose out on all his Norris trophies, so would he suddenly no longer be seen as a top 5 defenseman (or whatever he is) off all-time?

FWIW, that's pretty much what happened to Brad Park.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

But, I mean, the only thing it affects is Crosby's trophy case. It doesn't affect how good he is.

It's like saying Nicklas Lidstrom's legacy would be affected if he played during the same era as Bobby Orr. Lidstrom would lose out on all his Norris trophies, so would he suddenly no longer be seen as a top 5 defenseman (or whatever he is) off all-time?

It doesn't affect how good Crosby is but it would give a different perspective of him. In today's era Crosby is the gold standard in terms of pt finishes, PPG finishes, etc. That's his biggest "thing", that's he always at the top and sometimes well ahead. But with Gretzky and Lemieux around, Crosby would be relegated to the background and a clear 3rd. Let's not kid ourselves, he wouldn't come close to them in terms of pts or PPG. His 2 way game wasn't anything special in his early years so it wouldn't make up the huge gap. So the perspective changes because it's going to be pretty hard to argue that 3 of the top 5 players ever were all offensive minded Cs who played at the same time and 1 of them was clearly lagging behind.

 

[Canucks1096]

It doesn't affect how good Crosby is but it would give a different perspective of him. In today's era Crosby is the gold standard in terms of pt finishes, PPG finishes, etc. That's his biggest "thing", that's he always at the top and sometimes well ahead. But with Gretzky and Lemieux around, Crosby would be relegated to the background and a clear 3rd. Let's not kid ourselves, he wouldn't come close to them in terms of pts or PPG. His 2 way game wasn't anything special in his early years so it wouldn't make up the huge gap. So the perspective changes because it's going to be pretty hard to argue that 3 of the top 5 players ever were all offensive minded Cs who played at the same time and 1 of them was clearly lagging behind.

Part of the 80s it was Steve Yzermen. Agree 100% on what you said

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

It doesn't affect how good Crosby is but it would give a different perspective of him. In today's era Crosby is the gold standard in terms of pt finishes, PPG finishes, etc. That's his biggest "thing", that's he always at the top and sometimes well ahead. But with Gretzky and Lemieux around, Crosby would be relegated to the background and a clear 3rd. Let's not kid ourselves, he wouldn't come close to them in terms of pts or PPG. His 2 way game wasn't anything special in his early years so it wouldn't make up the huge gap. So the perspective changes because it's going to be pretty hard to argue that 3 of the top 5 players ever were all offensive minded Cs who played at the same time and 1 of them was clearly lagging behind.

It depends what your definition of "lagging behind them" means. I mean, Dionne tied Gretzky in points one season. Yzerman and Bernie freakin' Nicholls finished within 20 points of Gretzky one season. I'd argue Crosby is better than those guys, so I'd argue he'd be a lot closer to Gretzky and Lemieux than those guys got.

I don't think Crosby would be scoring close to Gretzky and Lemieux's 200-point peaks, but I do think in the 1980s era high scoring/crappy goaltending, Crosby's peak would be in the 150+ points range, which would still put him comfortably ahead of everyone other than those two.

It also depends in this hypothetical scenario what team Crosby plays for. Is it still the Penguins? In that case, he'd be playing *with* Lemieux, and his stats would likely be inflated (not to mention he'd probably help Lemieux break Gretzky's records) in that situation.

That's the problem with these hypotheticals. You also have to factor in stuff like the above.

 

[Canucks1096]

It depends what your definition of "lagging behind them" means. I mean, Dionne tied Gretzky in points one season. Yzerman and Bernie freakin' Nicholls finished within 20 points of Gretzky one season. I'd argue Crosby is better than those guys, so I'd argue he'd be a lot closer to Gretzky and Lemieux than those guys got.

I don't think Crosby would be scoring close to Gretzky and Lemieux's 200-point peaks, but I do think in the 1980s era high scoring/crappy goaltending, Crosby's peak would be in the 150+ points range, which would still put him comfortably ahead of everyone other than those two.

It also depends in this hypothetical scenario what team Crosby plays for. Is it still the Penguins? In that case, he'd be playing *with* Lemieux, and his stats would likely be inflated (not to mention he'd probably help Lemieux break Gretzky's records) in that situation.

That's the problem with these hypotheticals. You also have to factor in stuff like the above.

You are only giving a few examples and those examples just happened once to that player. True Crosby is better than those players and he is better than all the players today. Both if you go season by season and look at Crosby healthy season. 6 out of 8 healthy season he wasn't even the best player.

2006 JT Jagr
2009 Malkin Ovechkin
2010 H Sedin Ovechkin
2015 Taveres Benn
2016 Kane
2017 Mcdavid

So that 8 players that actually had a better season than Crosby. If Crosby is not clearly the best player season by season now. He is probably nit going to be clearly the best player season by season in the 80s without Lemieux and Gretzky.

Crosby highest point total now is 120 points but that's because the nhl called a lot of pps back in 2007 His second highest was 109. So Crosby healthy season he score between 84 to 109 points. 150 points is about 50 more points from now. Doesnt that seem like a lot?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

You are only giving a few examples and those examples just happened once to that player. True Crosby is better than those players and he is better than all the players today. Both if you go season by season and look at Crosby healthy season. 6 out of 8 healthy season he wasn't even the best player.

2006 JT Jagr
2009 Malkin Ovechkin
2010 H Sedin Ovechkin
2015 Taveres Benn
2016 Kane
2017 Mcdavid

So that 8 players that actually had a better season than Crosby. If Crosby is not clearly the best player season by season now. He is probably nit going to be clearly the best player season by season in the 80s without Lemieux and Gretzky.

No, but just like now, he'd be the better player than anyone not named Wayne or Mario for the vast majority of those seasons.

Crosby highest point total now is 120 points but that's because the nhl called a lot of pps back in 2007 His second highest was 109. So Crosby healthy season he score between 84 to 109 points. 150 points is about 50 more points from now. Doesnt that seem like a lot?

150 points in the 1980s. Considering a guy like Bernie Nicholls was able to do it, do you really think it's a stretch that Crosby could reach that mark a handful of times during his peak?

And I'm not sure where you get the "in a healthy season he scores between 84 to 109" thing, considering that for the vast majority of his career Crosby was averaging 100+ per 82 games. His CAREER WORST over a full season is 84 points. That's like referring to Gretzky's later seasons when he scored his career worst and saying Gretzky was a "100 point to 200 point player". We're talking about PEAK.

 

[daver]

Jagr isn't set in the top 10 all time. And that's the point, everyone knows Lemieux was way better than Jagr so no one even tries to argue it. With Crosby there's a slight argument that's building because he plays at a different time. If he played at the same time as Lemieux he'd be an after thought.

Just like OV would be too right?

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

It depends what your definition of "lagging behind them" means. I mean, Dionne tied Gretzky in points one season. Yzerman and Bernie freakin' Nicholls finished within 20 points of Gretzky one season. I'd argue Crosby is better than those guys, so I'd argue he'd be a lot closer to Gretzky and Lemieux than those guys got.

I don't think Crosby would be scoring close to Gretzky and Lemieux's 200-point peaks, but I do think in the 1980s era high scoring/crappy goaltending, Crosby's peak would be in the 150+ points range, which would still put him comfortably ahead of everyone other than those two.

It also depends in this hypothetical scenario what team Crosby plays for. Is it still the Penguins? In that case, he'd be playing *with* Lemieux, and his stats would likely be inflated (not to mention he'd probably help Lemieux break Gretzky's records) in that situation.

That's the problem with these hypotheticals. You also have to factor in stuff like the above.

That was peak Dionne vs rookie Gretzky, not a great example. Nicholls was quite obviously a product of Gretzky and either way, 18pts isn't exactly close at all.

That's the point, he would clearly be lagging behind. Lemieux is a bit hard to say because of injuries, but over the 80s decade (80/81-89/90), Gretzky AVERAGED 185pts a season. Give Crosby 150. Hell, let's be SUPER generous and give him 160. That's still 25pts per season. In other words, Crosby would be miles behind.

If Crosby was on the pens at the same time as Lemieux then his legacy would take an even bigger hit. Think about Crosby and Malkin. Crosby is the face of the franchise, teams gameplan for him, he's the captain, etc. Malkin gets disrespected so often in the media and his legacy is looked at as "meh" because he's usually seen as the Robin to batman. And this brush off of his legacy happens despite Malkin having the same number of rosses, a better peak season, a better peak playoffs, etc. Now imagine Crosby on Lemieux's team. He's going to be the sidekick like Malkin, but also a clearly inferior player. He will have zero argument as a top 5 player in history.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Just like OV would be too right?

Obviously Lemieux is way better than Ovechkin. But OV would still have his claim to fame as the best W of the decade and he would have a legit argument as a goal scorer vs Lemieux. Unfortunately Crosby plays the same position and role as Lemieux and he's inferior at everything.

 

[Canucks1096]

No, but just like now, he'd be the better player than anyone not named Wayne or Mario for the vast majority of those seasons.



150 points in the 1980s. Considering a guy like Bernie Nicholls was able to do it, do you really think it's a stretch that Crosby could reach that mark a handful of times during his peak?

And I'm not sure where you get the "in a healthy season he scores between 84 to 109" thing, considering that for the vast majority of his career Crosby was averaging 100+ per 82 games. His CAREER WORST over a full season is 84 points. That's like referring to Gretzky's later seasons when he scored his career worst and saying Gretzky was a "100 point to 200 point player". We're talking about PEAK.

2006 102 points
2007 120 points
2009 103 points
2010 109 points
2014 104 points
2015 84 points
2016 85 points
2017 89 points

Like I said the 120 points was a bunch pps and inflated his stats. So 84 to 109 points. The only reason why Nichols got 150 points because he was on Gretzky wing. Your Gretzky example was when he was 35 in 1995/1996 when he got 102 points. Crosby 84/85 points when he was still in his prime at age 28 and 29. So hugh difference. To have a fair assessments you need to look at all the different seasons in his prime his good and bad. Sure 84 points is not his peak but a player peaks only last for a few seasons. Right now we are having discussion on where Crosby will finish in points in 80s. So just a talking about Crosby Peak seasons is not the correct way to measure it.

I did say 50 more points so 100 to 150. So his average in his prime years right now is about 100 points.

 

[daver]

True but Jean Belliveau does have 2 Hart and 10 all star teams. Rocket has 1 Hart and 14 all star teams.

I think the 10 cups and 8 cup wins by Jean and Rocket played some factor as well when people ranking them in the top 10.

I thought the whole premise of your thread was to show how Crosby would not have had the all-star showings if he played in the 80s and 90s. Why wouldn't Belliveau also have a lot less hardware and likely a lot less Cups too, and a lower all-time ranking?

Oops....

 

[daver]

Obviously Lemieux is way better than Ovechkin. But OV would still have his claim to fame as the best W of the decade and he would have a legit argument as a goal scorer vs Lemieux. Unfortunately Crosby plays the same position and role as Lemieux and he's inferior at everything.

Still no reason why he couldn't potentially have the 3rd best career as a Centre in NHL history. It really isn't difficult to put things in context.

Noone was questioning Mario's talent level when he was finishing 2nd to Wayne most years.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

That was peak Dionne vs rookie Gretzky, not a great example. Nicholls was quite obviously a product of Gretzky and either way, 18pts isn't exactly close at all.

That's the point, he would clearly be lagging behind. Lemieux is a bit hard to say because of injuries, but over the 80s decade (80/81-89/90), Gretzky AVERAGED 185pts a season. Give Crosby 150. Hell, let's be SUPER generous and give him 160. That's still 25pts per season. In other words, Crosby would be miles behind.

If Crosby was on the pens at the same time as Lemieux then his legacy would take an even bigger hit. Think about Crosby and Malkin. Crosby is the face of the franchise, teams gameplan for him, he's the captain, etc. Malkin gets disrespected so often in the media and his legacy is looked at as "meh" because he's usually seen as the Robin to batman. And this brush off of his legacy happens despite Malkin having the same number of rosses, a better peak season, a better peak playoffs, etc. Now imagine Crosby on Lemieux's team. He's going to be the sidekick like Malkin, but also a clearly inferior player. He will have zero argument as a top 5 player in history.

2006 102 points
2007 120 points
2009 103 points
2010 109 points
2014 104 points
2015 84 points
2016 85 points
2017 89 points

Like I said the 120 points was a bunch pps and inflated his stats. So 84 to 109 points. The only reason why Nichols got 150 points because he was on Gretzky wing. Your Gretzky example was when he was 35 in 1995/1996 when he got 102 points. Crosby 84/85 points when he was still in his prime at age 28 and 29. So hugh difference. To have a fair assessments you need to look at all the different seasons in his prime his good and bad. Sure 84 points is not his peak but a player peaks only last for a few seasons. Right now we are having discussion on where Crosby will finish in points in 80s. So just a talking about Crosby Peak seasons is not the correct way to measure it.

I did say 50 more points so 100 to 150. So his average in his prime years right now is about 100 points.

Sidney Crosby has the fifth highest career PPG in league history. The four ahead of him played in the 1980s. You honestly think that a guy with the fifth highest career PPG playing in a lower scoring era wouldn't at least be able to produce in the 150 point range, even though many other players with LOWER career PPG produced that or slightly less during the 1980s?

Players were routinely scoring in the 130-140 point range in the 80s, with a couple surpassing 150. Most of those guys didn't have near Crosby's career PPG. Yet you think it's a stretch to think that Crosby, at his peak, wouldn't score 150 or so points?

Also, I'm not sure how much you watched hockey back then if you think Nicholls played with Gretzky. On the PP, sure. But they were LA's 1-2 punch down the middle. Nicholls primarily played with Robitaille and I believe Taylor, with Gretzky getting Tonelli and ... Krushelnyski?

 

[Sol]

I think there's been more Crosby threads this off-season than sens fans have made about Karlsson through all time. Anyways, please start already season.

 

[Remington 700]

Are you kidding me? Crosby takes way more physical play than Gretzky or Lemiuex. That's the stupidest thing I've seen today.

Lemieux took way more physical abuse than Crosby. Go watch his highlights he's being slashed on the wrist in nearly every highlight. There's a reason he made the "garage league" comment.

 

[Laveuglette]

Bourque > Crosby imo.