If Crosby played in the 80s, 90s

[Sadekuuro]

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?

You say that like everyone dropped 150. Even in the 80s, a grand total of only four (4) players managed this feat. That one of them was a seemingly random name (who was actually a pretty damn good player) having his Gretzky-fueled, perfect storm mega-peak season didn't suddenly mean it was routine or easy to accomplish.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

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?

You have to consider he wouldn't have the training, nutrition, etc of today. Even then, I said give Crosby 160pts. That's still 25 behind what Gretzky averaged for the decade, ~50 behind his peak.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

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.

I never said he couldn't be the 3rd best C in history.

Because he tore the league apart himself multiple times.

 

[Canucks1096]

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?

You are kind of exaggerating a little bit. Sure 80s were higher scoring but a lot of the stars were still not getting 130 to 140 points. I checked from 1983 to 1993. I started 1983 because we are pretending Crosby was born 1965 so he would of started playing in 1983 If he started at 18. These are the players that had over 130 points Kurri 2x Hawerchuk Coffey Savard Yzermen 2x Nicholls Hull Lafonatine Oates Turgeron Selannae. Yzermen did it twice and Kurri did it twice and rest 1x. So from a 10 year stretch other than 66 and 99 it only happened 13 times. So on average little bit over 1 season.

Nicholls did play some center but he was switched to Gretzky for a lot of parts of that season. I am sure of that.

I don't think You realized how difficulty 150 points is. Sure Crosby is 6th in ppg now but Crosby is 30. Most other players that near the top played from late 30s to 40s. I think safe to assume his ppg will decrease once he gets older. Even if Crosby gets 90 points in next 4 season and 80 points in his 4 season after. Assuming he plays around 80 games. It will go down to about 1.13 which will put in top 18 In ppg.

Like I said before Crosby 100 point in his full 8 seasons. 50 more points is a lot. He might be able to do it for a few seasons and that's it.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

he would dominate the 80's and 90's more than he does now

 

[cupcrazyman]

Who would protect Crosby since its the 80s & 90s ?

 

[Canucks1096]

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.

It didn't really impact Trottier because he started his career in the 70s. He won a Ross and Hart before Gretzky came.

Yzermen would of won 2 Hart in 1988 and 1989 and in 1989 the Ross. Probably another Pearson. Plus Smythe and Selke that he won later his legacy wouldn't of been higher. Yzermen is usually never in the conversation for the top 10 players. I think part of the reason for his individual trophy was lacking. With those extra awards I think fair to say people might of pit him in the top 10.

It had no impact on Messier because he found a way to win the Hart when Lemieux wasn't healthy and Gretzky started to decline a little bit. 1990 he showed he can a carry team without Gretzky. 1992 rangers went from a non playoff team to a top team

 

[Canucks1096]

Can someone do the adjusted points total for Crosby in the 80s? Right now he has 782 games 1027 points.

Since the lockout gpg is about 2.80 range. 80s is in 3.80 range. So about a goal difference.

Crosby point total 150 to 160 points people been saying seem way too high. If he played 80s i think his numbers will be about 115 to 130 points. Maybe a season or 2 in the 150s. But he won't get that consistently

 

[Kcoyote3]

He'd be a lot older now.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

I certainly think Sid does some things better than Gretzky and Mario.

If Sid played in the same era, i'd say he'd be up there with them.

Purely based on eye test, and limited viewings of the 80's/90's.

 

[Son Goku]

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.

There's a difference between being top five all time and being in the big four. Do you suppose Rocket Richard could keep up with Lemieux and Gretzky?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Can someone do the adjusted points total for Crosby in the 80s? Right now he has 782 games 1027 points.

Since the lockout gpg is about 2.80 range. 80s is in 3.80 range. So about a goal difference.

Crosby point total 150 to 160 points people been saying seem way too high. If he played 80s i think his numbers will be about 115 to 130 points. Maybe a season or 2 in the 150s. But he won't get that consistently

For the record, I said Crosby's *peak* would be the 150 point range or so. I didn't say he'd do it consistently. Just like Gretzky's *peak* was 200+, he didn't get 200+ points every single season.

 

[Canucks1096]

For the record, I said Crosby's *peak* would be the 150 point range or so. I didn't say he'd do it consistently. Just like Gretzky's *peak* was 200+, he didn't get 200+ points every single season.

True but you also said you didn't think its a stretch if he gets 150 points a Handful of times in his peak. The word handful can be subjective But when I hear the word handful it means more than a few times to me. Considering a hockey player prime is pretty short. Doing more than a few times is pretty consistent to me.

 

[Ducks in a row]

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?

Crosby is 30 his career isn't done and as he plays more his career points per game average should lower. Who knows how it will finish when his career is done but odds are greatly in favor of it being lower then it is now if he keeps playing for many more years.

 

[daver]

I never said he couldn't be the 3rd best C in history.

That's the whole premise of this thread. Every player can be evaluated appropriately regardless of who was or wasn't playing at the same time.

There is no reason to think that Crosby would not dominate the rest of the league (besides Wayne and Mario) in the same way that he has over his career.

 

[daver]

The whole point of this thread is to take Crosby down a notch.

You can take any player an insert them into the 80s and 90s and show how they would not win as many accolades because of Wayne and Mario. This is a futile exercise.

 

[Canucks1096]

The whole point of this thread is to take Crosby down a notch.

You can take any player an insert them into the 80s and 90s and show how they would not win as many accolades because of Wayne and Mario. This is a futile exercise.

You can do that but that is pointless because 99.9% of player didn't directly lose an award to Gretzky and Lemieux. With no Lemieux and Gretzky 99.9% of players still wouldn't win anything. But the player that fell a spot behind Gretzky and Lemieux would of won something.

Some of those players are Yzermen Hawerchuk Savard Trottier. All those player would won some trophy or more trophies.

 

[Canucks1096]

That's the whole premise of this thread. Every player can be evaluated appropriately regardless of who was or wasn't playing at the same time.

There is no reason to think that Crosby would not dominate the rest of the league (besides Wayne and Mario) in the same way that he has over his career.

You are right every player can be evaluated appropriately but do everyone actually do that on this forum? When there is thread comparing Crosby to a superstar in the 80s. The first thing people do is to count Crosby trophies which is not correct way to evaluate a player since that star will hardly have any trophies because he played in 66/99 era. There one thread a few years ago about Crosby vs Yzermen. A lot of users didn't think Yzermen was on the same level as Crosby because Crosby awards. Yzermen would of had a few Harts without 66/99 and Crosby wouldnt have much awards either if he played in the 80s. Crosby is closer to Yzermen Messier Trottier than to Gretzky and Lemieux. But a lot user don't think so because all they do is just count Crosby awards.

I still think Crosby will he the 3rd best player but he is just a step above some of the players I listed. If Crosby played 80s people perception will change and they won't think Crosby is way better than some of the other stars in the 80s

It depend what you mean by dominating. Would Crosby still be a top 5 scoring? Yes he will. Would he win all those awards? No he wouldn't.

 

[daver]

You are right every player can be evaluated appropriately but do everyone actually do that on this forum? When there is thread comparing Crosby to a superstar in the 80s. The first thing people do is to count Crosby trophies which is not correct way to evaluate a player since that star will hardly have any trophies because he played in 66/99 era. There one thread a few years ago about Crosby vs Yzermen. A lot of users didn't think Yzermen was on the same level as Crosby because Crosby awards. Yzermen would of had a few Harts without 66/99 and Crosby wouldnt have much awards either if he played in the 80s. Crosby is closer to Yzermen Messier Trottier than to Gretzky and Lemieux. But a lot user don't think so because all they do is just count Crosby awards.

I still think Crosby will he the 3rd best player but he is just a step above some of the players I listed. If Crosby played 80s people perception will change and they won't think Crosby is way better than some of the other stars in the 80s

It depend what you mean by dominating. Would Crosby still be a top 5 scoring? Yes he will. Would he win all those awards? No he wouldn't.

A review of scoring finishes, PPG with reasonable context, and playoff performances would give an indication of how much more a player dominates their peers vs. another player.

Crosby has already easily surpassed Yzerman's career best scoring finishes, with consideration for Mario and Wayne, by age 30. He is on par with players like Hull and Belliveau thru age 30/12 seasons and is viewed as being arguably on pace for the #5 player all-time.

 

[daver]

You can do that but that is pointless because 99.9% of player didn't directly lose an award to Gretzky and Lemieux. With no Lemieux and Gretzky 99.9% of players still wouldn't win anything. But the player that fell a spot behind Gretzky and Lemieux would of won something.

Some of those players are Yzermen Hawerchuk Savard Trottier. All those player would won some trophy or more trophies.

Since you are so caught up in this, why don't you list the trophies and scoring finishes that the bolded would have had and compare them the Crosby. Then you can let people decide how Crosby compares to them.

You need to start backing up the OP with some numbers. I'll even get you going. Crosby has a total of fourteen Top 3 Art Ross finishes/Hart nominations over an 11 year period. This is as many as Hull and Belliveau have. Only members of the Big 4 have more.

How many would the players you have bolded have if you remove Wayne and Mario from equation?

 

[Canucks1096]

Since you are so caught up in this, why don't you list the trophies and scoring finishes that the bolded would have had and compare them the Crosby. Then you can let people decide how Crosby compares to them.

You need to start backing up the OP with some numbers. I'll even get you going. Crosby has a total of fourteen Top 3 Art Ross finishes/Hart nominations over an 11 year period. This is as many as Hull and Belliveau have. Only members of the Big 4 have more.

How many would the players you have bolded have if you remove Wayne and Mario from equation?

So why are you asking me to Compare Crosby to Hawerchuk and Savard? I never said Crosby was close to those 2 players. I did say Crosby is close to Messier Yzermen and Trottier. I used Hawerchuk and Savard as an example of some players that were impacted by 66 and 99 since you wrote you can take any player and they won't win anything.

Let me ask you this why are we doing top 3 Art Ross/hart and not top 1 or top 5 or top 10. Is it because you know if we do top 3 your argument will look a lot better? Top 1 your argument won't look that good. Messier accomplished the most and it's funny you didnt ask me to Compare Messier.

Cherry picking.

 

[daver]

Pretend if Crosby played in the 80s, 90s and he was born in 1965. So in that era would Crosby be the clear cut 3rd best player behind Lemieux and Gretzky? If the answer is No who is better than Crosby or close to Crosby in the 80s/90s?

If Crosby played in the 80s/90s. I think it's fair to say he probably won't have anywhere close to awards/all star teams he has right now. Crosby is the best player for the last 10 years if you look at his whole career but if you look at season by season a lot of times he is not the best player. He only has 2 Hart and Ross out of 8 healthy seasons. So would people still think he is top 5 to top 10 player of all time if he played in 80s/90s?

Let's start from the beginning.

Regardless of what era Crosby played in, he would still be rated the same as he is now. Most in the HOH forum have him in the #15 range and acknowledge that he arguably has the #5 best resume by age 30/after 12 seasons. He would be the clear cut 3rd best player of his era with Messier being the closest competitor.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

 

[daver]

So why are you asking me to Compare Crosby to Hawerchuk and Savard? I never said Crosby was close to those 2 players. I did say Crosby is close to Messier Yzermen and Trottier. I used Hawerchuk and Savard as an example of some players that were impacted by 66 and 99 since you wrote you can take any player and they won't win anything.

Let me ask you this why are we doing top 3 Art Ross/hart and not top 1 or top 5 or top 10. Is it because you know if we do top 3 your argument will look a lot better? Top 1 your argument won't look that good. Messier accomplished the most and it's funny you didnt ask me to Compare Messier.

Cherry picking.

Why don't you present some ****ing numbers then.

 

[CapnZin]

It's hard to compare today's players to others/style of play in different decades.

Crosby would not survive the tough style of play... especially early in his career. He may get cross checked and slashed, but he rarely gets a big hit or a dirty hit (here come all the pens fan about BUF, WSH, and the most recent WSH hit).

Goalies weren't as quick and as talented 20 years ago. Crosby would be quicker and probably have a higher hockey IQ than most.

I'd still take Gretzky over Crosby, but idk about Lemeiux.

For me: 1) Gretzky 2) Crosby 3) Lemieux 4) Messier

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

The whole point of this thread is to take Crosby down a notch.

You can take any player an insert them into the 80s and 90s and show how they would not win as many accolades because of Wayne and Mario. This is a futile exercise.

You can flip the script on any player and ask "what if".

What if Lemieux and Gretzky were dropped into this era?

Lemieux was a physical specimen with his reach and size, so I think he would dominate any era.

Gretzky was an undersized player that looked like a roasted chicken with his shirt off. Would his superior IQ and talent have been enough to fight through the systematic, close checking hockey of today and put up ungodly numbers? Would he have been as dedicated as Crosby has been about training?

I don't think Gretzky would ever get close to approaching 200 points in today's era... sadly.