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

[Midnight Judges]

One, no you can't. Myth.

Two, there is a difference between getting run by a rival team/player (Steckel) and losing the most dominant season in the cap era in the process, and taking a slap shot to the jaw that would have shelved any player in the league for weeks and missing time because you turned an ankle or were out of shape and had a soft tissue injury. Those 2 things alone cost Sid 2 Hart's (one of which OV conveniently received directly because Sid lost the final 6 weeks of his season).

OV has not lost ANY hardware due to injury. Ever. That's a straight lie. He lost one piece of hardware due to suspension IIRC. Pretty sure he's been suspended a few times by the league now that I think about it. I give OV major marks for his durability. It's probably his most impressive feat beside the goal scoring.

But the ONLY reason there is any debate in the Sid/OV realm is directly because of Sid's injuries. The fact his career is as impressive as it DESPITE 2+ seasons lost due to various injuries speaks for itself.

If you take away OV's goal scoring what is left on his resume? Not much. The previous decade you could say OV's hitting and physical presence was a net positive. It isn't anymore. OV is one of the worst defensive players in the cap era. Even if you consider Sid average defensively, it's still miles better than any value you'd be getting out of OV. Sid's strong in the dot. Another aspect of hockey OV doesn't have to worry about. OV doesn't create offense on his own like he did 8-10 years ago. Sid has made a career off posting impressive number with vastly inferior line mates at ES. He's lifted guys like Kunitz and Dupuis into AS caliber wingers. Never had the benefit of playing with an elite playmaker or elite goal scorer like OV has for the entirety of his career.

OV has taken advantage of playing in an incredibly weak era for LW'ers so there has never really been anyone to challenge him for AS nods unlike Sid who's routinely had much better comp at C to compete with. Just last year OV had no business being a 1st team AS over Marchand who vastly outscored OV, and is a 200 foot hockey player who's value goes far beyond a single stat (goal scoring) and I have to listen to folks like you spout off about how easy Sid has it with the voters and the supposed bias against Soviets. It's comical to see OV still getting top nods for a major award based largely off his name.

Sid's led the league in goal scoring, assists, points, etc, etc. Oh that's regular season AND post season. His per game scoring numbers dwarf OV, both in the regular season and post season. But I know, goals matter x1000 and assists are worth negative value H2H. So you can skip that nonsense. We've heard it all before.

Sid has won FAR more both in the NHL and on the international scene. He's bested OV head to head in games that really matter. The Penguins have trounced Washington in 3 out of 4 playoff series head to head with OV playing ghost TWICE in game 7's on his own ice in a losing effort.

The sad thing is when OV breaks Gretzky's record the only thing you'll hear is about how the big 4 should become the big 5 and I'll just point to the fact it's going to take OV about 5000 more shots to barely pass Gretzky's record. Folks may not even realize that OV has already taken more shots on goal than Gretzky did in his entire career.

So spare me if I'm not jumping up and down and stroking myself because OV beats a record that he volume shot his way to.

Tons of falsehoods in here. I'll give you a night to factcheck yourself before I tear your post to shreds.

 

[MXD]

Tons of falsehoods in here. I'll give you a night to factcheck yourself before I tear your post to shreds.

... He's mostly right you know, so if I were you, I wouldn't take time to tear down his post, as that would necessarily involve alternative facts.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Tons of falsehoods in here. I'll give you a night to factcheck yourself before I tear your post to shreds.

You don't tear anything to shreds.

You literally go around proclaiming that goals should count for more value than points which is ridiculous.

And in the same breath refuse to acknowledge that scoring goals when taking more shots than other players in the league, inherently gives you a better chance to score goals.

So you want to re-arrange the value of scoring but ignore efficiency in scoring goals. It's beyond comical how you cherry pick numbers or studies to fit your agenda.

The reality is the only reason there is any debate here at all is injuries.

OV has never lost a single piece of hardware, definitively due to injures. Christ he never lost more than 10 games in a single season. There isn't remotely enough man games lost due to injury to claim what you're claiming but here we are.

I'd be willing to bet OV's lost as many games to suspension as he has injury. It's not far off, I know that much, but I'm sure you'll leave that out in your "tear your post to shreds" rebuttal.

I know he won a Hart in 2013 that he had no business winning. Thanks Brooks Orpik.

Just remember that when OV breaks Gretzky's goal scoring record he'll have needed thousands of more shots to do it. THOUSANDS.

His goals per game numbers aren't the greatest of all time (not even top 5) so trying to anoint him such simply because he breaks a single raw stat, is laughable. But it will happen. This sub forum and others will be run amok with 888 threads proclaiming OV the clear #5 player of all time with arguments he should squeeze past Mario and Howe and probably Orr. Book it.

OV hasn't scored more than 89 points in a season in a decade. Fact.

OV has played in the weakest era for LW of all time. Fact.

OV has played with better line mates than Sid. By a mile. Fact.

OV has played on superior teams than Sid (one only has to look at the standings and finishes) and yet consistently comes up empty when going head to head against Pitt and 87 and against other inferior opponents. I mean, you beat an expansion team for a Cup win. If ever there was a need for an * that'd be it. But those are just semantics of course.

 

[golfortennis]

Maybe this is trying to put some rose colored glasses on, but how much does playoff games impact the next season? Gretzky had 33 playoff games under his belt after 4 seasons. Crosby had 53. Now of course I'm not saying Crosby would have been Gretzky, but when you have that much extra, to borrow a baseball term, "high leverage play", coupled with the fact Crosby was playing well into June, whereas Gretzky was done by mid-May even when they did win, you have to think that would take some kind of toll that accumulates. Lemieux didn't even see a playoff game until his 5 season.

Of course, Crosby wasn't going to put up 200 point seasons at any point, but did having such a heavy playoff load impact Crosby a bit?

 

[Midnight Judges]

... He's mostly right you know, so if I were you, I wouldn't take time to tear down his post, as that would necessarily involve alternative facts.

No, he's absolutely wrong. I am happy to provide basic facts for you guys. Apparently I am especially good at google searches.

All this information is available at hockey reference.com. It's a pretty good resource.

2009-10 NHL Skater Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

OV has not lost ANY hardware due to injury. Ever. That's a straight lie. He lost one piece of hardware due to suspension IIRC.

Ovie missed 10 games in 2010. He was suspended for 4 of those games and he missed 6 due to injury.

Ovie had a 1.51 PPG and a .69 GPG that season. Ovie lost the Art Ross by 3 points and the Rocket by 1 goal. Ovie was second to Sedin in Hart voting by a small margin (5%) and won the Pearson.

If Ovie maintains his pace in 2010, and plays the 6 games he missed due to injury, he ends up with 54 goals and 118 points in 78 games. He wins the Art Ross by 6 points, Rocket by 3 goals, and certainly the Hart, in addition to the Pearson.

If Ovie played those 6 games he lost to injury, and achieved a measly one third of his pace for the season in terms of goals and points, he still ends up with 112 points, 51 goals, tying the lead in both, wins the Art Ross, another Rocket, and probably the Hart too.

So that's 3 awards Ovie lost due to injury in 1 season.

I'm not a big fan of pretending and extrapolations and whatever other fantasies are routinely entertained in the HoH forum, but it's downright entertaining to see people play the extrapolation card for Sid and then get butt hurt when they find out the same exact hypothetical helps Ovie too.

 

[MXD]

Maybe this is trying to put some rose colored glasses on, but how much does playoff games impact the next season? Gretzky had 33 playoff games under his belt after 4 seasons. Crosby had 53. Now of course I'm not saying Crosby would have been Gretzky, but when you have that much extra, to borrow a baseball term, "high leverage play", coupled with the fact Crosby was playing well into June, whereas Gretzky was done by mid-May even when they did win, you have to think that would take some kind of toll that accumulates. Lemieux didn't even see a playoff game until his 5 season.

Of course, Crosby wasn't going to put up 200 point seasons at any point, but did having such a heavy playoff load impact Crosby a bit?

Numbers? According to HR, Crosby had 49 games (not that it really matters, but if we're to quote numbers, might as well quote the right numbers).

Well, that's an interesting point. Playoff mileage is oft-mentionned as to why some great players became really old, really fast.

But then you realize Crosby's two biggest "wastes" didn't came after a "long" season. Then he had played just 5 games in 2007 (when losing many games to injuries in 07-08). Then you have the Steckel injury and the slapshot to the jaw that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever with high mileage. And then you realize that Crosby didn't get very old very fast either : I'm not sure Gretzky himself had a better season at Age 31+ (that's 91-92 onwards) than the season Crosby had in 18-19.

 

[MXD]

No, he's absolutely wrong. I am happy to provide basic facts for you guys. Apparently I am especially good at google searches.

All this information is available at hockey reference.com. It's a pretty good resource.

2009-10 NHL Skater Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Thanks. I wasn't aware that this website existed and had never looked at that page before.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So you want to re-arrange the value of scoring but ignore efficiency in scoring goals. It's beyond comical how you cherry pick numbers or studies to fit your agenda.

What about passing efficiency? According to the top 100 project Ovie doesn't even pass the puck, and yet he's top 10 in assists during his time in the NHL. He must be an infinitely efficient playmaker!

 

[ImporterExporter]

Can't wait until I get out of the office and home.

Year by year breakdown on why injuries robbed Sid of being a 4 time Hart winner (decent shot at 5) w/ 4 AR's and another rocket, another assist title, more AS nods, etc, etc.

Again, the only reasons there is a debate. Injuries. Most of which were either (borderline) deliberate or freak situations (getting hit by your own teammate with a slapshot in the face counts).

Thaaaaaaaaaat's it.

 

[ImporterExporter]

What about passing efficiency? According to the top 100 project Ovie doesn't even pass the puck, and yet he's top 10 in assists during his time in the NHL. He must be an infinitely efficient playmaker!

Context.

Just like him needing 200 more shots on net to best Drai by a single goal last year. And yet he gets to claim the Rocket and we're all supposed to act like it was a monumental achievement? Sid's career shooting % is much better, so what if he just shot the puck another 2-300 times a year?

OV is one of the most one dimensional scoring players in the league over the past decade. Prior to 2011? Sure, he was dynamic. No argument here but then you get a beer gut and stop working as hard as other superstars and you become a trigger man, mainly dependent on others to get you the puck. Sid doesn't have that problem. Never has.

Prior to 2011ish OV was a dynamic offensive force. His goal scoring titles since then are because he launches rubber none stop at the net. Largely off of passes by teammates. He's a trigger man. A really elite one, but he's a volume scorer.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It would be a respectable thing for the two of you to say "OK my bad, it's true Ovie could have had more hardware were it not for an injury."

Or you can maintain that extrapolations are afforded for Sid's injuries, but not for Ovie's.

 

[golfortennis]

Numbers? According to HR, Crosby had 49 games (not that it really matters, but if we're to quote numbers, might as well quote the right numbers).

Well, that's an interesting point. Playoff mileage is oft-mentionned as to why some great players became really old, really fast.

But then you realize Crosby's two biggest "wastes" didn't came after a "long" season. Then he had played just 5 games in 2007 (when losing many games to injuries in 07-08). Then you have the Steckel injury and the slapshot to the jaw that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever with high mileage. And then you realize that Crosby didn't get very old very fast either : I'm not sure Gretzky himself had a better season at Age 31+ (that's 91-92 onwards) than the season Crosby had in 18-19.

Crap. Think I had 24 twice rather than 20. Ok so 49 games.

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe I'm grabbing at straws. But as was mentioned earlier upthread, when Crosby needed 2 points on the last day to beat Benn for the AR, he didn't do it. Now maybe he sold out and it just didn't happen. Or maybe knowing what is required, he took the attitude that if it plays out that way great, but he wasn't selling out for it.

If anyone's training and S&C program would allow them to stay pretty close to full power, it would be Crosby.

 

[authentic]

Lol at trying to bring down Ovechkin's accomplishments because he takes so many shots. When you have a shot that good why would you not take so many shots? Him being a 700+ goal scorer in this era (no one else who started their career within 2 years before or after his is within 200+ goals of him) makes him the best goal scorer of all time, not just one of them. Acting like he's not top 5 because of GPG, not considering eras? Lol...

 

[blogofmike]

 

[Zuluss]

Sid's career shooting % is much better, so what if he just shot the puck another 2-300 times a year?

The shots Crosby did not take are low-percentage perimeter shots. Guys like Ovechkin or prime Kovalchuk or Stamkos can score from those shots too, that's why they shoot. Crosby does not have their shot and he is a better passer than shooter, so he passes instead of shooting.

If he decides to shoot more, his assists take a big dip, his shooting % takes a big dip, and the gains in goals will be marginal, at the very best he turns from a perennial 30-goal player into a perennial 40-goal player, if that. Still no extra Richards for him, just becoming something like a 40g+30a guy.
So Crosby does what is good for him and does not shoot as much.

You literally go around proclaiming that goals should count for more value than points which is ridiculous.

Well, this part is actually right - year after year, Ovechkin beats people with more points than him in Hart voting and All-star voting. He is not alone in doing that - both Hulls were similar, Richard was similar. All of them finished higher in Hart voting than in the points race many times over their careers.

I am not saying that leading the league in goals makes one the best player in the game. I am not saying that the place in the goals race is more informative than the place in the points race. I am just suggesting that an edge in goals matters. Many people would pick 60g+30a guy over 40g+60a guy.

OV hasn't scored more than 89 points in a season in a decade. Fact.

See above, with a sufficient amount of goals and physicality attached, 89 points may be better than 100 points. At least All-star team voters thought that last year, when they voted Ovechkin over Marchand, who had exactly 100 points.

Also, many of Ovechkin's "under 89 points" seasons came in very low-scoring seasons between 2010 and 2017, when 90 points was a serious bid for an Art Ross. So you are basically saying "post-peak Ovechkin was not winning Art Rosses". Duh.

OV has played in the weakest era for LW of all time. Fact.

Does not seem so. LWs not named Ovechkin combined for 2 Art Rosses and 2 Harts during Ovechkin's time in the league. In addition to those guys, players like Draisaitl, Giroux, Heatley had stints at LW, and Kovalchuk, Zetterberg, Nash, Marchand were regulars at LW. What might be lacking is a big name - but the best seasons of the mentioned folks were better than not-so-great seasons of many all-time greats.

 

[wetcoast]

You don't tear anything to shreds.

You literally go around proclaiming that goals should count for more value than points which is ridiculous.

And in the same breath refuse to acknowledge that scoring goals when taking more shots than other players in the league, inherently gives you a better chance to score goals.

So you want to re-arrange the value of scoring but ignore efficiency in scoring goals. It's beyond comical how you cherry pick numbers or studies to fit your agenda.

The reality is the only reason there is any debate here at all is injuries.

OV has never lost a single piece of hardware, definitively due to injures. Christ he never lost more than 10 games in a single season. There isn't remotely enough man games lost due to injury to claim what you're claiming but here we are.

I'd be willing to bet OV's lost as many games to suspension as he has injury. It's not far off, I know that much, but I'm sure you'll leave that out in your "tear your post to shreds" rebuttal.

I know he won a Hart in 2013 that he had no business winning. Thanks Brooks Orpik.

Just remember that when OV breaks Gretzky's goal scoring record he'll have needed thousands of more shots to do it. THOUSANDS.

His goals per game numbers aren't the greatest of all time (not even top 5) so trying to anoint him such simply because he breaks a single raw stat, is laughable. But it will happen. This sub forum and others will be run amok with 888 threads proclaiming OV the clear #5 player of all time with arguments he should squeeze past Mario and Howe and probably Orr. Book it.

OV hasn't scored more than 89 points in a season in a decade. Fact.

OV has played in the weakest era for LW of all time. Fact.

OV has played with better line mates than Sid. By a mile. Fact.

OV has played on superior teams than Sid (one only has to look at the standings and finishes) and yet consistently comes up empty when going head to head against Pitt and 87 and against other inferior opponents. I mean, you beat an expansion team for a Cup win. If ever there was a need for an * that'd be it. But those are just semantics of course.

I agree with alot here but 2 points.

1) While I agree that Ovechkin does get the benefit of a green light in taking alot of extra shots compared to pretty anyone else in history, one can overstate this point as well.

Being the best goal scorer of all time, or at worst in the top 3 does give Ovi a bit of leeway in keeping in shooting...at least up until last season.

2) Sure the competition at LW has been weak during Ovi's career but historically LW has been the weaker sister for all star spots as well.

There definitely is way more competition at center though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I agree with alot here but 2 points.

1) While I agree that Ovechkin does get the benefit of a green light in taking alot of extra shots compared to pretty anyone else in history, one can overstate this point as well.

Being the best goal scorer of all time, or at worst in the top 3 does give Ovi a bit of leeway in keeping in shooting...at least up until last season.

2) Sure the competition at LW has been weak during Ovi's career but historically LW has been the weaker sister for all star spots as well.

There definitely is way more competition at center though.

I don't care how many shots OV takes.

I just want people to look square into the computer and continue saying that him scoring 1 more goal than Draisaitl last year despite holding a 200+ shot advantage, is somehow impressive. Note, I'm not saying the total is not impressive. 50+ goals is always a nice benchmark for rocket winners.

But there is context in everything. Every sport, hockey included we talk about ratio's and relativity. We talk about per game totals, per 60 minutes, etc. You can go on and on and on.

But when it comes to goal scoring, the OV crowd clings to the:

1. Goals are more valuable than points. Yawn.

2. All goals are created equal and therefor should count for the same value whereas say secondary assists should be devalued because some of them are gift wrapped points (not even denying this, just comical someone would say this and not say the same thing about empty goals scored or goals scored where the player scoring does nothing more than tap the puck into a wide open net).

3. All shots are good.

-This is probably my favorite because it's born out of outdated thinking as it pertains to possession. I'd be more inclined to say that all shots ON NET are good but even that is ridiculous when you consider plenty of on goal shots are blocked and possession changes. And nobody misses the net more than OV.

How many times (thousands obviously) has OV missed the net with a shot that had little to zero chance of going in, smacks off the boards 10 feet wide and ends up with the other team. I'd consider that a turnover all things considered.

At the end of the day, OV's entire resume revolves around 1 stat. Yeah, he's really, really, really great at it, but strip that away and you're left with a guy who's been past the 2nd round of the postseason 1 time in 15 years and who's only Cup win came against an upstart expansion team.

His career is void of any sterling international acclaim at the biggest tournaments (Olympics, not watered down modern era WC's where even there he's not that great). He's one of the worst defensive players of this era. He doesn't take faceoffs. He's not protecting late leads. 3/4 of his career he's been a trigger man goal scorer rather than someone who can create time and space and goals on his own consistently.

Honestly the 2nd most impressive aspect to OV's career is probably his durability.

But we're talking about him as a top 10 and eventual top 5 player of all time because he's scored a lot of goals, needed vastly more shots just to pass the guys he's passing?

I'm not THAT impressed (putting him into the top 10).

 

[Zuluss]

I just want people to look square into the computer and continue saying that him scoring 1 more goal than Draisaitl last year despite holding a 200+ shot advantage, is somehow impressive.

Drai shot at 21.6% that year. His career shooting % is 16.6% - if he had shot at that rate in 18/19, he would not have scored even 40 goals. So Drai's 50 goals in 18/19 were a product of amazing luck that stuck for an entire season. This is why OV will repeat as a 50-goal scorer this season and Drai won't - and it looks like Drai will take more shots this season than in 18/19.

So an aging superstar beats a young star in peak goal-scoring years, who is insanely lucky and plays a lot on McDavid's wing. It is impressive even if the gap is 1 goal. The odds were heavily stacked against OV and he won regardless.

At the end of the day, OV's entire resume revolves around 1 stat. Yeah, he's really, really, really great at it, but strip that away and you're left with a guy who's been past the 2nd round of the postseason 1 time in 15 years and who's only Cup win came against an upstart expansion team.

Honestly the 2nd most impressive aspect to OV's career is probably his durability.

Ovechkin is top5 all-time in terms of number of seasons with a meaningful fraction of Hart vote - he is tied with players like Beliveau and Bobby Hull and ahead of players like Jagr and Brodeur, who were very good for a very long time.
Ovechkin is top5 all-time in cumulative Hart votes too, so he has both peak and longevity.

Ovechkin is on the brink of becoming top10 all-time in number of top20 finishes in points - and almost all guys ahead of him are from a six-team league, when finishing top20 in points did not take nearly as much. Remove them, and you have Gretzky with 18, Dionne with 16, Sakic with 14, Jagr and Ovechkin with 13, Francis with 12, Lemieux, Crosby, Yzerman with 11. If Ovechkin ekes out another top20 finish this year (he is 2 points back atm), it is only Dionne and Gretzky ahead in terms of longevity - as point producers.

 

[MXD]

The shots Crosby did not take are low-percentage perimeter shots. Guys like Ovechkin or prime Kovalchuk or Stamkos can score from those shots too, that's why they shoot. Crosby does not have their shot and he is a better passer than shooter, so he passes instead of shooting.

If he decides to shoot more, his assists take a big dip, his shooting % takes a big dip, and the gains in goals will be marginal, at the very best he turns from a perennial 30-goal player into a perennial 40-goal player, if that. Still no extra Richards for him, just becoming something like a 40g+30a guy.
So Crosby does what is good for him and does not shoot as much.

You know... Your argument made sense.
Then you typed that line.

 

[Zuluss]

You know... Your argument made sense.
Then you typed that line.

I was asked to imagine Crosby taking 200-300 extra shots on net (missed/blocked shots will be another 300-400 easily) every season. That's more than enormous amount of shots and a lot of passed by passing opportunities.
And in 2010-2017, 70 points were not even that bad. Crosby was nominated for Hart several times with 85 points or so. Don't you think if he really took that many shots foregoing that many passes, it could have cost him 15 points?

 

[Zuluss]

Again, the only reasons there is a debate. Injuries. Most of which were either (borderline) deliberate or freak situations (getting hit by your own teammate with a slapshot in the face counts).

The only reason why there is a debate is that people have always had unrealistic expectations of Crosby and they are still conflating these expectations with reality.

I had a well-respected poster in this subforum tell me that Crosby deserves to be top10 all-time, because TSN had him #1 in pre-season rankings for a decade straight. When I asked him if the fact that Crosby won 1 Hart and 1 Art Ross during that decade (I do not think Crosby was ranked #1 going into 2006/07) - whether this fact tells him this ranking is either crap or at least a crap shoot, he said "injuries".

Crosby has had enough of healthy or almost healthy seasons. Why did Malkin and Ovechkin leave him in the dust in 2008/09? Why Jagr won his Art Ross in 2000 having missed a quarter of the season, and Crosby lost his in 2013 to 35-year-old MSL? Why did Kane beat Crosby in 2015/16 by the same margin Crosby beat Getzlaf in Crosby's best season? Why did rookie McDavid have such a convincing win over Crosby in 16/17, which was one of the best Crosby's years? McDavid is not unbeatable, Kucherov was able to beat him last season, and Draisaitl will this season.

freak situations (getting hit by your own teammate with a slapshot in the face counts).

If your preferred way to score goals is to park in front of the net and score off redirections and rebounds, you will be hit by a puck every now and then. You cannot have the benefits without the costs.

If you do not want to be hit by a puck, park at the dot and fire one-timers - but Crosby's one-timer is not good enough, and if he had tried this strategy consistently, he would have had probably 100 career goals less. So it is an extra 100 goals in a career vs. one very good season cut short by a puck to the face. I do not see how Crosby got a bad deal here.

 

[MXD]

I was asked to imagine Crosby taking 200-300 extra shots on net (missed/blocked shots will be another 300-400 easily) every season. That's more than enormous amount of shots and a lot of passed by passing opportunities.
And in 2010-2017, 70 points were not even that bad. Crosby was nominated for Hart several times with 85 points or so. Don't you think if he really took that many shots foregoing that many passes, it could have cost him 15 points?

In a world where rebound assists aren't a thing, maybe.

 

[Zuluss]

In a world where rebound assists aren't a thing, maybe.

First of all, rebound assists are not that common. Look at Ovechkin this season: he is shooting a ton, he is shooting from good positions, his shot is still very hard, and he has 17 assists in 62 games. It is not like he is drowning in rebound assists.

Second, rebound assists are oftentimes not exactly free lunch. You need to unleash a wicked shot on a goaltender to make him leave a juicy rebound. At the very least, your shot has to be hard enough so that if it hits your teammate's leg in front of the net, the puck does not just float towards the net, but sneaks past the goaltender.

How many rebound assists would Crosby have if he started shooting from above the dots? I do not think all that many.
How many assists will Crosby lose if his teammates would start treating him like OV and give him the puck only when he is open for a shot? I think a whole lot.

All in all, I think it is reasonable to assume that players and coaches are smart and do what's best for them. So the answer to "what if Crosby shot more?" or "what if OV passed the puck more?" is the same, "they would be worse players than they are".

 

[lawrence]

the unnecessary hate against him, is what disappoints me. Sure it's fine to hate him as a rival player of your team, but the hate was uncalled for and unnecessary. That would be like bashing Labron James 2 months into his rookie season.

 

[The Panther]

This thread wasn't supposed to be about Ovechkin, just sayin'.