Looking back at Crosby's career, is there any disappointment?

[The Panther]

Okay, so Sid Crosby was and is an awesome player, will be a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, and in the future will be a legendary player of the recent era. That's all a given. Full marks for a superb career, still a long way from over. And 3 Stanley Cups as team captain speak for themselves.

With all that being said, is there any disappointment over his career in terms of:
(a) his level of statistical achievement / peer domination?
(b) his not-infrequent injuries and accordant games missed?

Crosby has led the NHL in goals twice, and assists once. He has two scoring titles, and likely would have had one or two more without injury. But those injuries happened.

I never accuse players of not living up to their media/fan hype, because that obviously has nothing to do with the player's actual play. But in Crosby's case, I do think the NHL/Canadian media-hype over him was a bit excessive (akin to Lindros, 13-14 years earlier), and that this probably engendered some negative opinions towards him when he was merely the best (or co-best) player of his era, and not an utterly dominant player statistically, like Orr / Gretzky / Lemieux (not that those are realistic expectations for anyone).

Anyway, how do you feel?

Click to read more...

 

[Passchendaele]

Yes, certainly.

What, you could argue were his prime years (2010-14) were pretty much ruined by injuries.

A lot of people like to bring up that Crosby was on pace for 130+ points that one year well.. that's mere speculation. Maybe he would have slowed down and ended up at ~115 pts. Or maybe he would have netted 135. But that's the thing. one way or the other, he missed out on that.

 

[JackSlater]

I think that he disappointed somewhat based on where he was at the end of the 2007 season. You hoped that he was tracking to maybe having a big four type of peak, as he was probably the second best teenager ever. It didn't end up that way but it's been a great career to this point. Compared to where he was when he was drafted, rather than after two seasons, I don't think that he has disappointed.

 

[Habsfan18]

The best player of his era and recognized as arguably a top 10-15 player all-time. Certainly nothing disappointing about that although the injuries right in his prime really stings. He was robbed of what should have been some of his most productive years.

Still, he’ll go down as one of the greatest. His style and the way he thinks the game is on a level of his own. One of the smartest players ever.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

You answered your own question. Injuries. Top 10 player of all time is a bad?

 

[wetcoast]

It's always disappointing when great players have injuries.

Would have loved to see full complete NHL careers of Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Jean Beliveau, Peter Forsberg and Sidney Crosby

 

[Vilica]

This isn't really a disappointment per se, but it is an interesting factoid. Presuming the Penguins don't accomplish it this year, Sid will have completed 15 seasons, 14 of them with Malkin at his side, and never finished first in his conference in a full season (the Penguins did finish 1st in the 12-13 lockout season, and have 6 2nd place conference finishes).

You wouldn't really put any weight on the lack of one, but Crosby doesn't really have a signature outstanding full team regular season. Pens finished 2nd in the division to the Devils in his first Hart season, though they won the Metro in his second Hart year. Pens also finished 2nd in the division to the Rangers in Malkin's Hart year.

 

[Gurglesons]

Any objective fan not trying to discredit Crosby has him in the top ten players of all time. How much does another Ross or Hart change that?

 

[BenchBrawl]

His peak was destroyed by injuries and the Johnston fiasco. His prime had a mountain peak but is now disguised as a plateau because of it. Even worse, those peak years were in a low-scoring environment. Worse still, it included a lockout, which reduced his GPs even more.

No serious disappointment. He fulfilled his potential, maybe not to the max, but comfortably enough.

For precision:

Prime: His entire career except maybe his rookie season
Peak: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Note: Those four peak years coincide with his age 23, 24, 25, 26 seasons. Almost exactly the same age range at which the "Big 4" had their peak seasons themselves.

Gretzky's peak years: age 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Orr's peak years: age 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Howe's peak years: age 22, 23, 24, 25
Lemieux' peak years: From 22 to 27, with some seasons destroyed by injuries in that window. Age 27 was the cancer year.

You see the pattern. So it's plausible this was indeed Crosby's peak and his short-sample size performances were sustainable to a large degree.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Any objective fan not trying to discredit Crosby has him in the top ten players of all time. How much does another Ross or Hart change that?

Personally, I'd have Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Hasek, Bourque, Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, Roy and Richard above him. I can also see an argument for Jagr, though he loses a bit for not managing to win a cup as THE guy.

 

[Video Nasty]

Yes, even though he has had an excellent career, it has still been disappointing. I think folks are being a little insincere saying that because they think he’s a top 5-10 player all time, that his career is not a disappointment.

It is a tremendous disappointment that his sophomore year is where he peaked in points. It is a disappointment that he has won only 2 Art Rosses. How is it not a disappointment that he lost Art Rosses to Sedin and Benn during healthy seasons? 2 seasons in the past 10 years with more than 89 points?

He never truly dominated his peers. He has questionable Conn Smythes.

I wasn’t expecting Gretzky or Lemieux but I was expecting at least a handful of Rosses, more Harts and Pearsons/Lindsays than Ovechkin. Somewhere between 1800-2000 points.

Sure, that’s a lot to expect, but the talent was there for that. And honestly, if he is going to be ranked 5, he’d better only trail Gretzky in points for a start. A decent part of it was health, a large part of it was he never was leaps and bounds ahead of his peers like he was projected to be.

While his resume is that of an all time great, I simply don’t get the people who rank him at #5 ever. Or the ones who think that ranking Crosby outside the top 10 is being a nasty hater. I’m not sure about my personal ranking, but I know that I rattle off 10 players effortlessly that are not Crosby, so he’s hardly a slam dunk. No lower than 20 of course, maybe in the 12-16 range somewhere.

 

[daver]

Any disappointments on the numbers front that aren't completely attributable to injuries would be disingenuous.

He, like McDavid, was ready to dominate the NHL from the get go more so than prodigies of the past which makes their lack of significant or expected growth in peer dominance as they reach their peak less disappointing.

The closest comparable to his career per game dominance is Howe.

I would be not surprised if he is not the most popular choice for #5 all-time if he stays healthy given he arguably has the #5 best career by age 32.

 

[VanIslander]

Goals: 1st, 1st, 7th, 7th.

That's it. Four top-10 seasons in goal scoring.

His inability to play a full season and need to rely on crunched stats (per game rate) to let future generations know his potence.

History will remember him as that other Pens great center who also was a bit gimpy. Cruel but accurate. When you as a fan retire at age 65 or so and look back, you'll have to yell at the clouds to claim otherwise.

 

[daver]

Goals: 1st, 1st, 7th, 7th.

That's it. Four top-10 seasons in goal scoring.

His inability to play a full season and need to rely on crunched stats (per game rate) to let future generations know his potence.

History will remember him as that other Pens great center who also was a bit gimpy. Cruel but accurate. When you as a fan retire at age 65 or so and look back, you'll have to yell at the clouds to claim otherwise.

Or another way to look at....

Only Wayne and Howe (and maybe Mario) have more Top 3 Art Ross finishes/Hart nominations in NHL history. Sounds like he had full enough seasons to accomplish that.

Tied for 2nd most Conn Smythes in NHL history* and tied for era best playoff goalscoring run.

* if you think this needs context, tell me that the post I am responding doesn't need a desperate amount more

 

[daver]

I never accuse players of not living up to their media/fan hype, because that obviously has nothing to do with the player's actual play. But in Crosby's case, I do think the NHL/Canadian media-hype over him was a bit excessive (akin to Lindros, 13-14 years earlier), and that this probably engendered some negative opinions towards him when he was merely the best (or co-best) player of his era, and not an utterly dominant player statistically, like Orr / Gretzky / Lemieux (not that those are realistic expectations for anyone).

Anyway, how do you feel?

He was clearly a child prodigy like Wayne, he had the most dominant pre-draft CHL career in history and was as close to Wayne and Mario in pre-NHL dominance as you can get.

Obviously we can never know how the very best offensive players outside of the later 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s would do if they played in that era, one that saw the league increase it's size by a over multiple of four and saw video game numbers being put up by the generational talents at the time.

Perhaps in 50 to 100 years there can be some context on the Orr / Gretzky / Lemieux numbers that doesn't seem reasonable now. I personally think those three are on a tier of their own offensively but not to the extent that their raw numbers and % gaps over their peers indicates.

 

[bobholly39]

I think that he disappointed somewhat based on where he was at the end of the 2007 season. You hoped that he was tracking to maybe having a big four type of peak, as he was probably the second best teenager ever. It didn't end up that way but it's been a great career to this point. Compared to where he was when he was drafted, rather than after two seasons, I don't think that he has disappointed.

I think there's evidence to support that he may very well have had a peak/prime that rivals the big 4 without injuries (moreso in trophy counts than actual domination on the level of Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux of course). He quite realistically/reasonably sweeps awards in 2013 and 2011 - and probably has a great chance of standing out in 2012 as well. 2008 is even a possibility for Ross.

You answered your own question. Injuries. Top 10 player of all time is a bad?

Nobody says top 10 player of all time is bad - but if this was Gretzky wouldn't top 10 all time be bad? Or Orr, Lemieux? I think Crosby missed out on some - and so you can say it's a bit of disappointment in that sense. It doesn't make it a bad career in anyway, easily a top 10 career all time, with an argument to rise up to #5.

This isn't really a disappointment per se, but it is an interesting factoid. Presuming the Penguins don't accomplish it this year, Sid will have completed 15 seasons, 14 of them with Malkin at his side, and never finished first in his conference in a full season (the Penguins did finish 1st in the 12-13 lockout season, and have 6 2nd place conference finishes).

You wouldn't really put any weight on the lack of one, but Crosby doesn't really have a signature outstanding full team regular season. Pens finished 2nd in the division to the Devils in his first Hart season, though they won the Metro in his second Hart year. Pens also finished 2nd in the division to the Rangers in Malkin's Hart year.

That's been the Pen's way of things in the Crosby/Malkin era. Always pacing themselves in the regular season (usually very easily making playoffs, but never completely blowing it out) - and then trying for strong playoff runs. It's even more obvious the past 3-4 years - where you see mid-season they seem far back because they take it too easy till they turn it way up to safely qualify.

You're right - interesting factoid about them. Very different path than the Hawks for examples who were always winning division/conference, or even Capitals.

Any objective fan not trying to discredit Crosby has him in the top ten players of all time. How much does another Ross or Hart change that?

I think with the new generation of stars all doing so well past 2 years (McDavid, Mack, Kuch, etc) - were Crosby to come in a bit older and steal a ross/hart (especially if it's in a year with a strong field) - it would actually be very impressive. So I think one more of those would be quite valuable to him. If you had him anywhere outside of #5 - that one extra ross/hart would likely be a reason to move him up a slot or 2. Also - another smythe/cup run would also have the same value/effect,

 

[scott clam]

He's been top 10 in scoring every season since his debut, save for '11 and '12 when he was recovering from the concussion. When he finished 10th in scoring two years ago that was considered an "off" year, but he turned it "on" just in time for the playoffs. And this is coming off of back to back cups/smythes.

Injuries robbed him of more individual hardware, it's as simple as that. if he doesn't miss 10 games with a broken jaw in '13 he wins the Hart for sure.

 

[bobholly39]

Regarding the OP question - my thoughts are that yes, there definitely is some disappointment. But you have to put it in perspective of course. If you asked me the same question about Gretzky I would also answer yes - and he's easily the #1 player/career of all time. Some disappointment doesn't mean it's bad.

Outside of injuries (which are obvious, and have been discussed a million times) - here are probably my two biggest disappointments for Crosby:

1. He doesn't win scoring championships, when he should. 2015 and 2010 stand out. As a fan, that's really, really annoying. Lemieux/Gretzky would 100% have won those (not in the sense that they're so good and would outscore the competition by 50+ points - simply if it came down to the last 1-2 weeks and they were within 2-4 points of top - they'd find a way to finish #1, instead of a couple points back). Jagr - 100% same thing, even he wouldn't have lost out on those. I hate that Crosby did. I get a feeling he doesn't even care either, which is even more infuriating lol. 2015 especially - last game of the year playing against Buffalo - one of the worst teams this millenium - goes in tied for scoring lead - and gets shutout, instead of getting the easy art ross win. (can anyone here even fathom a scenario where Ovechkin loses out on a rocket if he went into the last game of the year tied, playing the worst team? He absolutely finds a way to score a couple to secure the win..).

2. Similar vein as #1 - he never stood out as the absolute best player/scorer in a best on best tournament (till the World Cup 2016 - something i love that he finally accomplished). He's super clutch/super important - and it's very possible Canada doesn't win any of the golds without him. So you can't blame him for not being important/valuable - that's not the issue, he always finds a way to contribute/help win. Golden goal. 2014 gold medal game played quite well. But as someone who is the top scorer/offensive player in the world - you'd want him to amass a ton of points and outscore everyone (again - something Gretzky/Lemieux would 100% do with their hands tied behind their backs), which he didn't do.

Flipside to all of this is - what is maybe the biggest surprise of all to everyone (unless people expected this? Honestly not sure) - is that Crosby will go down as one of the biggest winners/leaders of all time. Maybe individually his stats haven't ended up shining as bright as some expected - but he won 3 cups as team captains, those gold medals as captain/leader, never missed the playoffs after rookie year, etc etc. He's more in the mold of a Beliveau than a Lemieux in that sense.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Regarding the OP question - my thoughts are that yes, there definitely is some disappointment. But you have to put it in perspective of course. If you asked me the same question about Gretzky I would also answer yes - and he's easily the #1 player/career of all time. Some disappointment doesn't mean it's bad.

Outside of injuries (which are obvious, and have been discussed a million times) - here are probably my two biggest disappointments for Crosby:

1. He doesn't win scoring championships, when he should. 2015 and 2010 stand out. As a fan, that's really, really annoying. Lemieux/Gretzky would 100% have won those (not in the sense that they're so good and would outscore the competition by 50+ points - simply if it came down to the last 1-2 weeks and they were within 2-4 points of top - they'd find a way to finish #1, instead of a couple points back). Jagr - 100% same thing, even he wouldn't have lost out on those. I hate that Crosby did. I get a feeling he doesn't even care either, which is even more infuriating lol. 2015 especially - last game of the year playing against Buffalo - one of the worst teams this millenium - goes in tied for scoring lead - and gets shutout, instead of getting the easy art ross win. (can anyone here even fathom a scenario where Ovechkin loses out on a rocket if he went into the last game of the year tied, playing the worst team? He absolutely finds a way to score a couple to secure the win..).

2. Similar vein as #1 - he never stood out as the absolute best player/scorer in a best on best tournament (till the World Cup 2016 - something i love that he finally accomplished). He's super clutch/super important - and it's very possible Canada doesn't win any of the golds without him. So you can't blame him for not being important/valuable - that's not the issue, he always finds a way to contribute/help win. Golden goal. 2014 gold medal game played quite well. But as someone who is the top scorer/offensive player in the world - you'd want him to amass a ton of points and outscore everyone (again - something Gretzky/Lemieux would 100% do with their hands tied behind their backs), which he didn't do.

Flipside to all of this is - what is maybe the biggest surprise of all to everyone (unless people expected this? Honestly not sure) - is that Crosby will go down as one of the biggest winners/leaders of all time. Maybe individually his stats haven't ended up shining as bright as some expected - but he won 3 cups as team captains, those gold medals as captain/leader, never missed the playoffs after rookie year, etc etc. He's more in the mold of a Beliveau than a Lemieux in that sense.

Feels weird agreeing with you on Crosby...haha, but you nailed it with your last line.

In comparables, he's more like Beliveau/Clarke than Gretzky/Lemieux. Big strength is his winning more so than jaw dropping stats

 

[Gambitman]

I don’t like to use the word disappointment after a career like Crosby’s. But his first 2 years weren’t all that far off of Wayne and Mario’s first 2 seasons. It really amazes me any 18 year old can come in and dominate a game played by mid to late 20’s men who have 7-10 years of NHL experience. I really thought Crosby would hit another gear after his 2nd year and we would be looking at 6-8 years of 130-150 points.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I don’t like to use the word disappointment after a career like Crosby’s. But his first 2 years weren’t all that far off of Wayne and Mario’s first 2 seasons. It really amazes me any 18 year old can come in and dominate a game played by mid to late 20’s men who have 7-10 years of NHL experience. I really thought Crosby would hit another gear after his 2nd year and we would be looking at 6-8 years of 130-150 points.

He got that gear. He was just injured.

 

[Gambitman]

He got that gear. He was just injured.

True enough.

 

[authentic]

I think that he disappointed somewhat based on where he was at the end of the 2007 season. You hoped that he was tracking to maybe having a big four type of peak, as he was probably the second best teenager ever. It didn't end up that way but it's been a great career to this point. Compared to where he was when he was drafted, rather than after two seasons, I don't think that he has disappointed.

Call me crazy but I don't believe a big 4 type of peak is possible in the game anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time now, roughly since about the late 90s onward. If it were to happen that would only be evident to me that they are infact a clearly more talented player because the talent and especially skill level throughout the league is much better now.

Crosby disappointed certainly if people actually thought he was going to be lapping the field like Gretzky and Lemieux, and despite scoring going down after 2007 I think those more realistic 130+ point predictions would've been very real possibilities if not for the unfortunate concussions and other injuries.

With that said, if we just look at his points per game at his peak, he averaged something silly like 1.6 ppg over 120 straight games with a 1.5 playoffs points per game season in there, which quite honestly is ridiculous considering in the time span all the other players besides Ovechkin and Malkin were not even near 1.2 points per game

Missed time or not he still literally played at that level for nearly 2 straight seasons worth of games which would've come out to a 130 point pace (I think in full seasons it's probably more likely he would've fallen somewhere in the 120-125 range though but we'll never really know for sure).

I think based on pure talent alone he's comfortably the 5th best of all time, and probably McDavid is roughly similar. I think it is very unfortunate about his injuries during that 2010-2013 time frame, perhaps even more so than any other player at their peaks including Lindros, Forsberg or Lemieux just because his level of play was clearly higher than before or since unlike those players.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I do remember those injury years when he got on the ice he kinda dominated. Almost got a Lemieux feeling-light out of it.

 

[bobholly39]

Call me crazy but I don't believe a big 4 type of peak is possible in the game anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time now, roughly since about the late 90s onward.

Crosby disappointed certainly if people actually thought he was going to lapping the field like Gretzky and Lemieux, and despite scoring going down after 2007 I think those 130+ point predicitons would've been very real possibilities if not for the unfortunate concussions and other injuries.

With that said, if we just look at his points per game at his peak, he averaged something silly like 1.6 ppg over 120 straight games with a 1.5 playoffs points per game season in there, which quite honestly is ridiculous considering in the time span all the other players besides Ovechkin and Malkin were not even near 1.2 points per game

Missed time or not he still literally played at that level for nearly 2 straight seasons worth of games which would've come out to a 130 point pace (I think in full seasons it's probably more likely he would've fallen somewhere in the 120-125 range though but we'll never really know for sure).

I think based on pure talent alone he's comfortably the 5th best of all time, and probably McDavid is roughly similar. I think it is very unfortunate about his injuries during that 2010-2013 time frame, perhaps even more so than any other player at their peaks including Lindros, Forsberg or Lemieux just because his level of play was clearly higher than before or since unlike those players.

To the bolded. It's tough to say. Clearly Gretzky/Lemieux wouldn't be hitting 215 points in the NHL in 2019...but they also wouldn't be only hitting ~110 either. They were both so talented that it's really hard to say. Part of me wants to think they'd have found a way to hit 160+ while others are stuck in the ~100 range, give or take. Who knows.

I think a "big 4 peak" doesn't have to be that high though. The 2011 Ross was won with 104 points. 2012 with 109. 213 with 60 (102 pace over 82 game, lockout year). If Crosby had hit 130+ points in all 3 seasons - i think labeling it a "big 4 peak" would be fine. Not as high as I think Gretzky/Lemieux would do - but certainly comparable to Howe I expect.

To be clear i'm not trying to start a debate and say "Crosby for sure hits 130+ if no injuries". He might have or he might have slowed down - it's been argued to death. I'm just saying if he had - i think that's close enough to "big 4 peak worthy". So it's still possible today.

McDavid seems to have a comparable tier of talent. Maybe he'll have more luck and find a way to do so. Of course scoring is a bit higher today than from 2011-2013, so he'd need probably 140+ instead.