Is Sidney Crosby on track to be (or already is) the 4th best forward ever?

[Zuluss]

Regarding Crosby vs. Bobby Hull: I once played with the numbers, taking average leads of #1 and #2 in points/goals over #5 or #10, during the O6 era and after 1996 (the current relatively low-scoring environment).
The ratio of average O6 leads to average current leads is rather stable at 60%, no matter how you do it (#1 vs #10, #2 vs #5, etc.)

If we adjust Hull's leads over #10 in points this way, we get
Crosby, 7 best % leads over #10 in points
32-27-26-19-17-15-14
Bobby Hull, 7 best % leads over #10 in points
37-27-27-22-21-17-16

Bobby Hull is a tad better on this metric, but he was also a legendary goal-scorer. Just imagine that in 13/14 Crosby gets 36 goals and 104 points and then a young Bobby shows up and scores 65 goals and 106 points. I think nobody would have doubted in this scenario that young Bobby Hull is a much better player.
Now, picture that happening year after year during all Crosby's peak years: Hull edges him out for Art Ross by a few points and keeps scoring a ridiculous amount of goals while doing that.

 

[Son Goku]

In a full season, he was not capable of peaking higher than Malkin, Kane, and, by some metrics, D. Sedin.
If we use partial seasons, shouldn't we do the same for everyone else? That is, pitch Crosby's 10/11 or 12/13 against their hot streaks?



The use of ppg basically says: let's mix together their peak seasons and meh seasons and deduct from Jagr's best season if his 14th-best season is not good enough.
I can give you that: Jagr's 8th to 14th-best seasons are worse than Crosby's 8th to 14th-best seasons - though 3 of Crosby's 14 seasons are drastically shortened by injuries. But still, Crosby has a longer prime than Jagr.
But in his 3 best seasons and even in his 7 best seasons Jagr was much better, and that's what really counts.
You cannot trade top3-top5 finishes against Art Ross wins that easily, one win is probably worth 3 or 4 such finishes.
I mean, Orr played 9 kinda-sorta full seasons. There are tons of defensemen who had a longer prime. But no one was close to peak Orr, and thus Orr is better than anyone.

okay but you can’t use Orr as a comparable because Crosby isn’t held to the same standards. Nobody claims Crosby is the greatest, he has the regular season peaks to put his name up against the all time greats, then you add in his prime longevity and his playoff stature and that’s what puts him in the conversation as a top five player all time. 99% of HOF’ers don’t have the career Crosby has had and he’s only 31. IMO right now he is a top ten player of all time but I believe he projects to be “in the conversation” for being a top five player of all time by the time he retires. I also think the majority of fans will believe so as well just because of all the memorable moments he’s had throughout his career moreso than numbers (whether people agree with that or not, hockey is largely a nostalgic sport)

 

[daver]

It's probably because bossy was never considered best on his team just like malkin is forgotten about .

I guess most people name both sakic and foppa when discussing lists of players tho so maybe it's unfair.

Howe gets in pretty much because he played for freaking ever . And he has pretty great finishes throughout his entire career in terms of scoring. Top 5 in scoring for 20 years straight is a pretty good stat.

Plus 12 top three hart finishes and six harts / rosses . 20 all star team selections. Idk how Crosby ever bumps him

To be fair, anything other than first place finishes in scoring needs to be compared with context. Statistically speaking, a Top 5 placing in a six team league is not the same as a Top 5 finish in a 30 team league.

I think a Top Ten in today's league is the equivalent to Howe's Top 5 finishes. With that in mind, Crosby thru 14 seasons/by age 31 is very comparable to Howe.

Their PPG dominance vs. their peers, though hard to make a completely accurate comparison, is very close, Howe has the clearly superior raw point finishes, Crosby has the clearly superior playoff resume.

Howe obviously adds some elite elements to his resume after this but the fact that Crosby is hanging with him is significant, and you can argue that no other player in NHL history can make this claim besides the other Big 4.

 

[Zuluss]

he has the regular season peaks to put his name up against the all time greats

No, he does not. His one-year peak is behind Kane and light years behind Yzerman or Sakic, not to mention folks like Bobby Hull, Richard, Esposito, Lafleur.
His three-year peak is basically non-existent - part of it is injuries, but he was never able to put together even two consecutive seasons in which he would lead #10 in points by 20%.
But his really long prime and team awards get him past Yzerman and Sakic (who did not have as many top5 finishes in points and Hart voting) and maybe past Lafleur and Esposito, who had a relatively short prime.

IMO right now he is a top ten player of all time but I believe he projects to be “in the conversation” for being a top five player of all time by the time he retires.

No, it does not work this way. You cannot compile your way to greatness (unless you shatter an all-time record for goals/points, but even then not so much). As any athlete, Crosby will largely be judged by his best seasons (probably 7-8 of them), and his very best ones will hold even more weight.
If he could not prove to be better than peak Jagr or peak Bobby Hull before 31, he is unlikely to move past them, that would require a sudden monster season like Jagr's 2005/06. Outside of that, he can add one or two top5/top10 finishes in points to his resume, and if he is tied with someone now (say, Lafleur), adding those might move the needle in his favor.

 

[daver]

No, he does not. His one-year peak is behind Kane and light years behind Yzerman or Sakic, not to mention folks like Bobby Hull, Richard, Esposito, Lafleur.
His three-year peak is basically non-existent - part of it is injuries, but he was never able to put together even two consecutive seasons in which he would lead #10 in points by 20%.
But his really long prime and team awards get him past Yzerman and Sakic (who did not have as many top5 finishes in points and Hart voting) and maybe past Lafleur and Esposito, who had a relatively short prime.

You need to expand on this claim. If we apply zero context, two players named have zero Art Ross trophies while Crosby has the best Art Ross win in the last 25 years.

Any context you apply to other players needs to be applied to Crosby. When that is done, his one year peak is certainly on the same level as the others with the caveat that he missed games.

 

[Zuluss]

You need to expand on this claim. If we apply zero context, two players named have zero Art Ross trophies while Crosby has the best Art Ross win in the last 25 years.

Any context you apply to other players needs to be applied to Crosby. When that is done, his one year peak is certainly on the same level as the others with the caveat that he missed games.

Best % leads over #5/#10 in points
Crosby 27/32
Kane 29/38
Yzerman 35/58
Sakic 24/33 (and 2nd in Selke)
Lafleur 40/52

Bolded is an absolute lie, which is based on lead over #2 and the fact that Crosby's #2 in 13/14 was Getzlaf (and not peak Malkin, or peak Ovechkin, or even peak Stamkos). And yet Kane repeated matched Crosby's margin over #2 in 15/16 (though his #2 was Benn, who is also nothing special, but at least Benn was the reigning Art Ross winner).

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

No, he does not. His one-year peak is behind Kane and light years behind Yzerman or Sakic, not to mention folks like Bobby Hull, Richard, Esposito, Lafleur.
His three-year peak is basically non-existent - part of it is injuries, but he was never able to put together even two consecutive seasons in which he would lead #10 in points by 20%.
But his really long prime and team awards get him past Yzerman and Sakic (who did not have as many top5 finishes in points and Hart voting) and maybe past Lafleur and Esposito, who had a relatively short prime.



No, it does not work this way. You cannot compile your way to greatness (unless you shatter an all-time record for goals/points, but even then not so much). As any athlete, Crosby will largely be judged by his best seasons (probably 7-8 of them), and his very best ones will hold even more weight.
If he could not prove to be better than peak Jagr or peak Bobby Hull before 31, he is unlikely to move past them, that would require a sudden monster season like Jagr's 2005/06. Outside of that, he can add one or two top5/top10 finishes in points to his resume, and if he is tied with someone now (say, Lafleur), adding those might move the needle in his favor.

Only you would think being a mvp finalist year after year is “compiling”

 

[Yackiberg8]

Best % leads over #5/#10 in points
Crosby 27/32
Kane 29/38
Yzerman 35/58
Sakic 24/33 (and 2nd in Selke)
Lafleur 40/52

Bolded is an absolute lie, which is based on lead over #2 and the fact that Crosby's #2 in 13/14 was Getzlaf (and not peak Malkin, or peak Ovechkin, or even peak Stamkos). And yet Kane repeated matched Crosby's margin over #2 in 15/16 (though his #2 was Benn, who is also nothing special, but at least Benn was the reigning Art Ross winner).

Why are the leads over #5 and #10 the final determination of who had a better Art Ross win? Because you say so?

 

[daver]

Why are the leads over #5 and #10 the final determination of who had a better Art Ross win? Because you say so?

That poster will try to massage the numbers as best as possible to place Crosby behind OV and others.

No reasonable person will look at Crosby's partial seasons as raw numbers only. Nor is it reasonable to put those partial seasons completely on par with the best full seasons of those other players as he did miss games due to bad luck and untimeluy injuries.

The bottom line is that it is not reasonable to say that Crosby, at his peak level of performance, was not on the same level as any other player besides the Big 4.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The bottom line is that it is not reasonable to say that Crosby, at his peak level of performance, was not on the same level as any other player besides the Big 4.

Nonsense.

Sustaining a peak has tremendous value, and to say Crosby's peak has the same value as players who sustained it for years on end is not equitable to the players who showed up every night and grinded out full seasons at peak performance.

 

[NextYear67]

Sid is top 5 all time. Haters can't stand it.

 

[Weztex]

Sid is top 5 all time. Haters can't stand it.

I'm a big fan of Crosby and wish him to end up as high as possible on any list. But saying that no case can be made for any other player either shows bias or a cruel lack knowledge in hockey history.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

How many players in history have been a hart finalist 5 times in 7 years? Crosby has two harts wins as well. Besides the big four there has never been a player with the consistent elite level of play Crosby has. His highs due to injuries of course may not be where they should... but his consistency is near unrivalled.

 

[spiny norman]

Over 1000 posts.

Closed.