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

[VanIslander]

Just have an ELITE scoring season.

No explanations. No injury excuses.

This may be a huge difference between our generations.

It is what you DO that counts. No ifs ands or buts. Let's do it!

 

[Nick Hansen]

Not winning the Art Ross in 2015 is the one thing that bothers me a little. Granted, he missed a handful of games (due to injuries, I guess, because surely he's never been suspended?) but it was there for the taking. But alas, Benn and Tavares both overtook him...

 

[MXD]

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?

Knowledge of hockey prior to the 21st century is also (still) a valid reason.

 

[MXD]

On topic... well, having been injured WAS a disappointment, but being the best player born between Oct. 5th 1965 and Aug. 7th 1987 is nothing to scoff at.

 

[authentic]

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.

Sorry, I should've specified "Big 3". I think he dominated like Howe (per game anyway and for a shorter period of time), but I also think both him and Howe would've dominated more in the 70s/early 90s time frame (expansion era), and I don't mean that just their raw points would be higher which is a given, I mean their statistical dominance over their peers as a percentage would've been higher. Comparisons across eras are a lot more tricky than people think (in my opinion of course), but I don't really believe at all that Gretzky or Lemieux at their best today, and certainly not during Crosby's peak would be routinely getting 160. I can't say for certain what the numbers would be like but I feel comfortable saying the dominance would be clearly less, but still perhaps the best ever. There are a very large amount of factors to consider to be honest.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Injuries (hurt again this year btw).

That's it. The only thing that keeps him from already being firmly in the 5 hole all time.

He's literally done everything else you can do. Titles, stats, awards, etc.

 

[authentic]

Not winning the Art Ross in 2015 is the one thing that bothers me a little. Granted, he missed a handful of games (due to injuries, I guess, because surely he's never been suspended?) but it was there for the taking. But alas, Benn and Tavares both overtook him...

I believe there were talks of the coach stifling Pittsburghs offense during that time, but I still see your point that it was a letdown.

 

[MXD]

Injuries (hurt again this year btw).

That's it. The only thing that keeps him from already being firmly in the 5 hole all time.

He's literally done everything else you can do. Titles, stats, awards, etc.

That's one of the best auto-correct typos I'll read today

 

[daver]

Just have an ELITE scoring season.

No explanations. No injury excuses.

This may be a huge difference between our generations.

It is what you DO that counts. No ifs ands or buts. Let's do it!

OK, the best Art Ross finish in the last 27 years (includes two of Mario's Art Rosses). Beat 2nd place by over 20%.

Remember: No ifs ands or buts.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Half way through his second season he was pacing for nearly 140 points as a 19 year old. Many of us at that point thought he was the guy that was going to make the big 4 the big 5. He then had a couple injuries that hampered his speed (broken foot, high ankle sprain). Then around 2010 he regained his form and was ridiculously dominant until he got concussed. If he could have kept up his 2010-11 level of play for a few healthy years, nabbing a few more dominant art ross wins, he'd be a slam dunk #5 best player of all time.

Personally i'm not disappointed in his career though, even if his peak was cut short. He's been a leader and winner through and through, an example for the rest of the team in work ethic. Pens are so lucky to have him. Ending up on the Gretzky/Lemieux level was a longshot anyway.

 

[scott clam]

Not winning the Art Ross in 2015 is the one thing that bothers me a little. Granted, he missed a handful of games (due to injuries, I guess, because surely he's never been suspended?) but it was there for the taking. But alas, Benn and Tavares both overtook him...

He got the mumps 'round Christmas, just his luck.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

On just a trophy level yes, but that's a very superficial way to look at it. I think it's pretty much a given that he takes the 2011 and 2013 Art Ross and Hart trophies if healthy, and maybe 2012 but Malkin was so good that I'm not sure. I don't think that it does much for him compared to a Gretzky for instance unless he dominates to around a Gretzky-esque level.

Not winning the Art Ross in 2015 is the one thing that bothers me a little. Granted, he missed a handful of games (due to injuries, I guess, because surely he's never been suspended?) but it was there for the taking. But alas, Benn and Tavares both overtook him...

Yes that year was pretty disappointing. My memory is that Crosby had mono that year and it slowed him down but that may be incorrect. He also seemed like he didn't want to play for Johnston. Either way it's a lost opportunity for what should have been some pretty easy hardware.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

He got the mumps 'round Christmas, just his luck.

lol as soon as the mumps hit the league I KNEW he would get it lol.

 

[sr edler]

His injuries came with the territory of being a smallish engaging grinder playing style wise. In an earlier era, say the 90s, if he played that exact same way, it's very possible he would have had an even worse set of injuries and fizzled out perhaps not Lindros style, but quite possibly in a relatively similar way. His era was very nice to him (and his colleagues) in that regard. Dave Steckel is not Dale Hunter/Mark Messier and Victor Hedman is not Chris Chelios/Gary Suter/Ulf Samuelsson/Bryan Marchment/Chris Pronger.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

His injuries came with the territory of being a smallish engaging grinder playing style wise. In an earlier era, say the 90s, if he played that exact same way, it's very possible he would have had an even worse set of injuries and fizzled out perhaps not Lindros style, but quite possibly in a relatively similar way. His era was very nice to him (and his colleagues) in that regard. Dave Steckel is not Dale Hunter/Mark Messier and Victor Hedman is not Chris Chelios/Gary Suter/Ulf Samuelsson/Bryan Marchment/Chris Pronger.

Yup a blind side head shot and a slap shot to the mouth is due to his style

 

[quoipourquoi]

Probably just injuries, really. It doesn’t really matter that he narrowly missed 4 extra scoring titles by slim margins, but the generations before kinda spoiled us with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr always stealing it from close challengers - rain or shine.

Obviously McDavid missed one because Kucherov went insane and put up the most raw number of points in a year since Mario Lemieux, but if McDavid wins again... it might start to look a little off that Crosby wasn’t the safe bet to win like other post-WHA offensive stars.

Other than that, it’s basically just nitpicking small things like never being the playoff scoring leader when his teams won, but that’s one of those things where you need your teammates to score well to win (Malkin could have done better in 2008) but not so well that you aren’t the team leader (2009, 2016, 2017).

 

[Video Nasty]

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.

Of course they would have. Lemieux serves up quite a few examples. He hit 160 in 70 games in 1995-1996 in a league where the scoring average wasn’t astronomically higher than today (6.18 GPG vs 5.92 in 2019-2020). He came back at 35 after 4 years and all his injuries/maladies in 2000-2001 and hit 76 points in 43 games in a league where GPG was 5.41.

Gretzky played well enough at an advanced age and after all the mileage his career was at that point, including the Suter hit, deep runs in the playoffs, etc to prove he would have been just as magnificent if he was in his prime.

102 points in 80 games at age 35 in 1995-1996, 97 in 82 at age 36 in 1996-1997 and 90 in 82 at age 37 in 1997-1998, where GPG were 6.18, 5.72 and 5.17 respectively.

Even Jagr dropped 127 in 81 games in 1998-1999 where GPG was even lower than now (5.19 that season).

There’s no doubt in my mind that at the height of their powers, today, Gretzky and Lemieux score 160+ easy (maybe around 180ish, probably not 200) and even Jagr might hit 150.

As great as Crosby was/is, he never once played at this level. The closest we have is a half season where he played at a 130 point pace where given his and nearly almost every other players history shows the pace would not be maintained in the second half due to grind of the season, tightening up of play and the push into the playoffs.

There’s no shame in that. It’s a not a knock on him. He’s just the most forced legend status this game has seen in my opinion. He may have the better career than Jagr but he never hit his peak, and he’s miles away from anyone in the Big Four.

 

[authentic]

His injuries came with the territory of being a smallish engaging grinder playing style wise. In an earlier era, say the 90s, if he played that exact same way, it's very possible he would have had an even worse set of injuries and fizzled out perhaps not Lindros style, but quite possibly in a relatively similar way. His era was very nice to him (and his colleagues) in that regard. Dave Steckel is not Dale Hunter/Mark Messier and Victor Hedman is not Chris Chelios/Gary Suter/Ulf Samuelsson/Bryan Marchment/Chris Pronger.

The 2005-11 era of hockey was fast paced, hard hitting, full of cheapshots and concussions. Sure, it wasn't on 90s level for the pure brutality, but did we see Chelios go up and crack Gretzky in the head with a blindsided hit after the play? Also the flying puck to the jaw was pure bad luck. To be clear the league during Crosby's early years was far, far closer to the roughness of the 90s than what it is now, but his main injuries had nothing to do with his play style or the era he played in anyway.

 

[67Leafs67]

I don't think there is disappointment specifically in Crosby himself...but I think as a fan of hockey, I'm disappointed that much of his prime was robbed by injuries. As a general rule, NHL players peak at 24...Crosby turned 24 in August of 2011, pretty much right in the middle of the two seasons (2010-11 & 2011-12) that he missed the most time in. Obviously it's a small sample, but his numbers in those seasons, both raw production totals (103 points in 63 games, 1.63 p/g) and underlying numbers - check out this tweet: , show he definitely at his peak of dominance.

Obviously you can nitpick single games, playoff series, etc, that were disappointing for him on an individual level. But I think over larger sample sizes of entire seasons, there's never been a year that Crosby was disappointing. He's always been excellent, among the league's upper echelon, consistently hard working and improving his game.

 

[The Panther]

Injuries (hurt again this year btw).

That's it. The only thing that keeps him from already being firmly in the 5 hole all time.

He's literally done everything else you can do. Titles, stats, awards, etc.

Certainly his games missed is the main limitation to his career, yes, but I wouldn't say "that's it" keeping him from top-5 status. I mean, what has Crosby done that Beliveau, Lafleur, Esposito, Hasek, or Lidstrom didn't do?

I think it's a safe bet that Crosby would have had nine straight 100+ point seasons if not for injuries, from his rookie year through to his last scoring title, 2013-14. That's incredible in his era, and (would have been) a major feather in his cap. (But it's not even that amazing -- we could say the same of Peter Forsberg, in an even lower-scoring period.)

Besides the injuries, I think there are a couple of points about Crosby's resume that are a little -- I'm not saying "a lot" -- limiting to his chances of hitting the top-5, which, to be honest, is a ship that I think has long since sailed. One is his notable scoring decline from age 27 onward. It's not unusual for players to do so from, say, the late-20s, and Crosby of course has still been 'up there' near the top. But from age 27 through 31 (five seasons), he's third in PPG, and basically interchangeable with Kane, Kucherov, and his teammate, Malkin -- all fantastic players of their era, but none anywhere near the top 40 or 50. (This wouldn't matter a lot if Crosby's earlier peak had been played in full or been eye-poppingly dominant for long sustained periods, but it wasn't.) The second point that I think slightly limits him is that although he was superb in the '08, '09 (although even then the Pens won game 7 in '09 with him sidelined), and shorter '10 playoffs, he was kind of mediocre for years afterwards. From 2012 to 2016, his playoff stats are 54 points in 62 games, with a minus 11 rating. If this is happening now, I'd give him a pass, but this was right in the center of his prime years and includes a Stanley Cup team. Fortunately, he bounced back strongly with great performances in '17 and '18 (but then another no-show in '19).

I personally think the player with the best case for #5 in all-time rankings is Dominik Hasek, but whatever. A year ago, this board voted Crosby #12 all time, and though I don't vote on such things, I'd guess that's about right. He'd be higher, for sure, if he hadn't been seriously injured a few times, but #5...? I don't really see it. Of course, we're into speculation then, and we'll never know what would have happened.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Certainly his games missed is the main limitation to his career, yes, but I wouldn't say "that's it" keeping him from top-5 status. I mean, what has Crosby done that Beliveau, Lafleur, Esposito, Hasek, or Lidstrom didn't do?

I think it's a safe bet that Crosby would have had nine straight 100+ point seasons if not for injuries, from his rookie year through to his last scoring title, 2013-14. That's incredible in his era, and (would have been) a major feather in his cap. (But it's not even that amazing -- we could say the same of Peter Forsberg, in an even lower-scoring period.)

Besides the injuries, I think there are a couple of points about Crosby's resume that are a little -- I'm not saying "a lot" -- limiting to his chances of hitting the top-5, which, to be honest, is a ship that I think has long since sailed. One is his notable scoring decline from age 27 onward. It's not unusual for players to do so from, say, the late-20s, and Crosby of course has still been 'up there' near the top. But from age 27 through 31 (five seasons), he's third in PPG, and basically interchangeable with Kane, Kucherov, and his teammate, Malkin -- all fantastic players of their era, but none anywhere near the top 40 or 50. (This wouldn't matter a lot if Crosby's earlier peak had been played in full or been eye-poppingly dominant for long sustained periods, but it wasn't.) The second point that I think slightly limits him is that although he was superb in the '08, '09 (although even then the Pens won game 7 in '09 with him sidelined), and shorter '10 playoffs, he was kind of mediocre for years afterwards. From 2012 to 2016, his playoff stats are 54 points in 62 games, with a minus 11 rating. If this is happening now, I'd give him a pass, but this was right in the center of his prime years and includes a Stanley Cup team. Fortunately, he bounced back strongly with great performances in '17 and '18 (but then another no-show in '19).

I personally think the player with the best case for #5 in all-time rankings is Dominik Hasek, but whatever. A year ago, this board voted Crosby #12 all time, and though I don't vote on such things, I'd guess that's about right. He'd be higher, for sure, if he hadn't been seriously injured a few times, but #5...? I don't really see it. Of course, we're into speculation then, and we'll never know what would have happened.

Simple terms?

Crosby lost 2 surefire Hart/Ross trophies in 2010-11 and 2012-13 due to a very cheap hit by a slug and a freak slap shot to his jaw by his own teammate (Orpik...no wonder he missed the net by 15 feet). The prime of Crosby's career was largely impacted by injuries, yet he still possess one of the greatest resumes in the history of the sport.

If he plays even 65-70 games in 2010-11 he wins every award going away. That's how dominant he was that year. 64 goal/132 point pace through 41 games. The same can be said about 2012-13 although the season as a whole has an asterisk due to it being shortened.

Hypothetically, tacking on another 2 Hart and Ross trophies to his already impressive resume, what argument could be then made against Sid at 5?

4 Hart's, 4 Ross, 4 Lindsay's, 3 titles, 2 Conn Smythes and a slew of other impressive feats both domestically and internationally. There isn't anyone beyond the big 4 that would be able to compete with that head to head. Regardless I have him right around 10, just barely behind a few of the names you mentioned. His rise up the rankings will hinge on his postseason play from now until the end. That's where he's going to make any big moves.

Also, Hasek doesn't have near enough meat on his playoff bones to be in the convo for 5th overall. He's a regular season legend but to get that high (and above Roy for that matter) you had better have a damn impressive postseason resume IMHO.

 

[The Panther]

Simple terms?

Crosby lost 2 surefire Hart/Ross trophies in 2010-11 and 2012-13 due to a very cheap hit by a slug and a freak slap shot to his jaw by his own teammate (Orpik...no wonder he missed the net by 15 feet). The prime of Crosby's career was largely impacted by injuries, yet he still possess one of the greatest resumes in the history of the sport.

If he plays even 65-70 games in 2010-11 he wins every award going away. That's how dominant he was that year. 64 goal/132 point pace through 41 games. The same can be said about 2012-13 although the season as a whole has an asterisk due to it being shortened.

Hypothetically, tacking on another 2 Hart and Ross trophies to his already impressive resume, what argument could be then made against Sid at 5?

4 Hart's, 4 Ross, 4 Lindsay's, 3 titles, 2 Conn Smythes and a slew of other impressive feats both domestically and internationally. There isn't anyone beyond the big 4 that would be able to compete with that head to head. Regardless I have him right around 10, just barely behind a few of the names you mentioned. His rise up the rankings will hinge on his postseason play from now until the end. That's where he's going to make any big moves.

Fair enough, but I don't know if Crosby's getting two more Art Rosses necessarily moves him up the list much, if at all. There are still people like Jagr, Mikita, and Esposito ahead of him there. Full marks for one of his Conn Smythes (not the other), and there are several players outside the top-4 with better individual playoff resumes. I also don't think Crosby's international resume is anything special.

Also, Hasek doesn't have near enough meat on his playoff bones to be in the convo for 5th overall. He's a regular season legend but to get that high (and above Roy for that matter) you had better have a damn impressive postseason resume IMHO.

Fortunately, Hasek does have a damn impressive post-season resume. From when he became a starter in 1993, until the end of his 30s, his record in the playoffs is 53-37, with somewhere around a .930 save percentage, a Stanley Cup, and a trip to the 6th game of the Finals while backing a borderline AHL line-up. Roy's best save-percentage in the playoffs was bested by Hasek three times, including once in the high-scoring era. Hasek also won a Gold at the Olympics for the underdog Czech Republic.

 

[Video Nasty]

Simple terms?

Crosby lost 2 surefire Hart/Ross trophies in 2010-11 and 2012-13 due to a very cheap hit by a slug and a freak slap shot to his jaw by his own teammate (Orpik...no wonder he missed the net by 15 feet). The prime of Crosby's career was largely impacted by injuries, yet he still possess one of the greatest resumes in the history of the sport.

If he plays even 65-70 games in 2010-11 he wins every award going away. That's how dominant he was that year. 64 goal/132 point pace through 41 games. The same can be said about 2012-13 although the season as a whole has an asterisk due to it being shortened.

Hypothetically, tacking on another 2 Hart and Ross trophies to his already impressive resume, what argument could be then made against Sid at 5?

4 Hart's, 4 Ross, 4 Lindsay's, 3 titles, 2 Conn Smythes and a slew of other impressive feats both domestically and internationally. There isn't anyone beyond the big 4 that would be able to compete with that head to head. Regardless I have him right around 10, just barely behind a few of the names you mentioned. His rise up the rankings will hinge on his postseason play from now until the end. That's where he's going to make any big moves.

Also, Hasek doesn't have near enough meat on his playoff bones to be in the convo for 5th overall. He's a regular season legend but to get that high (and above Roy for that matter) you had better have a damn impressive postseason resume IMHO.

In the end, you have to go with what actually happened. I could go with the fantasy what if scenario if he didn’t get his career back on track after all the mishaps was forced to retire due to concussions, misdiagnosed or not.

Few listen, but I’ll keep saying it until I don’t post here anymore. Pace and projections are cute, but they almost never come to fruition. Even during the finest seasons of Gretzky and Lemieux, they had even more ridiculous paces than what they ended up with.

For instance, Gretzky opened 1983-1984 with his 51 game point streak where he piled up 153 points, exactly 3 points per game. He finished with 205 in 74, getting 52 in his final 23 games played. Still incredible but a far cry from 240 points.

There’s much more of a guarantee that Crosby would have done what nearly every player who sets a torrid pace in the first half of the season does, than actually following through and getting 64 goals and 132 points.

Crosby himself proved this in his sophomore season. He had 68 points in his first 41 games. Then he had 95 points through 56 games played. So surely he finished with 136-140points?

No, in actuality he finished with 120 and only missed 3 games. Not once did Crosby keep up of his higher level paces for an entire season. Sure, he scored 159 points in 99 games during his 3 years that he missed time but he has exactly zero seasons in his career that reflect this 1.61 ppg average (also known as a 130 or greater season).

It’s a disappointment to have to play any sort of what if game. When you only have as many trophies in reality as your supposed hypothetical ones, it’s something of a disappointment.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Fair enough, but I don't know if Crosby's getting two more Art Rosses necessarily moves him up the list much, if at all. There are still people like Jagr, Mikita, and Esposito ahead of him there. Full marks for one of his Conn Smythes (not the other), and there are several players outside the top-4 with better individual playoff resumes. I also don't think Crosby's international resume is anything special.

Fortunately, Hasek does have a damn impressive post-season resume. From when he became a starter in 1993, until the end of his 30s, his record in the playoffs is 53-37, with somewhere around a .930 save percentage, a Stanley Cup, and a trip to the 6th game of the Finals while backing a borderline AHL line-up. Roy's best save-percentage in the playoffs was bested by Hasek three times, including once in the high-scoring era. Hasek also won a Gold at the Olympics for the underdog Czech Republic.

Meh, Crosby's subpar first Smythe is corrected by his dominant runs in 08 and 09. He wins the Smythe in 08 had the Pens beat Detroit and Malkin was simply better in finals in 09 which is why he won the Smythe that year. But Sid's 09 run would have still won the Smythe most years.

As for the Ross trophies. I put a lot more stock into guys like Crosby winning them vs a guy like Jagr who didn't care about playing hockey outside 1 zone his entire career. That should matter in the grand scheme.

What player outside the big 4 would be able to match 4 Hart's, 4 Lindsay's, 4 Ross's, 3 Cups, 2 Smythe's, all while scoring at an elite all time rate (regular and postseasons), developing into a very strong 2 way player along the way? That's only giving him the 2nd half of 2011 and the last 6 weeks of 2013. Doesn't even look at the other time missed during his prime and beyond. Like i said before, injuries, to me are the only thing that has really put a damper on Sid's career. And some of those injuries were either very questionable hits by other players or freak shit that doesn't happen much.

I'm not going to go back and forth on his international resume but considering he hasn't had many opportunities compared to other players past and present he is still a STUD.

Scored, IMO the 2nd most important goal in the history of Canada (Henderson still gets the honor considering the political climate and dominance of Soviet hockey in the 70's). Canada vs USA on Canadian soil, especially after Canada's shit performance in 06, and Sid came through in OT of the gold medal game. Massive.

Youngest player ever to win a WC scoring title while also being the youngest ever to be named best forward. MVP and scoring leader at the WCOH a few years back. Only player in the triple gold club to captain all 3 squads. Ever. His scoring pace is stellar and the results for Canada in tournaments he played speaks for itself.

As Mike Babcock once said, "Sid's a serial winner".

Hasek won a single Cup, well past his prime, on a dynastic Red Wings team. He was a good playoff player in Buffalo but make no mistake, those Buffalo teams were much better than people remember. Yeah they weren't the Wings, Devils, etc but people make it out like Hasek carried a doormat to great heights. Buffalo was already a playoff team multiple years running before Hasek got to Buffalo. Yes, he took them to the next level (winning a playoff series here and there) but still never got them over the top. He had numerous deflating moments in his Buffalo tenure to go along with sterling performances.

BOTH of Roy's Cup runs in Montreal dwarf anything Hasek did in the NHL or beyond. Best tournament in the world, in the highest scoring era in history and Roy posted numbers that would have looked great in the dead puck era. Not to mention, neither one of those Habs teams were favored to win the Cup.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Certainly his games missed is the main limitation to his career, yes, but I wouldn't say "that's it" keeping him from top-5 status. I mean, what has Crosby done that Beliveau, Lafleur, Esposito, Hasek, or Lidstrom didn't do?

Let me throw out an idea here:

Crosby is generational, but generational in the same sense that Beliveau is. If you do a fantasy draft with hindsight for everyone 2005-2014 or so, Crosby will undoubtedly be your number one, but you cant make a serious argument for him over McDavid if we extend it to 2005-2020, and certainly not an ATD against Lemieux/Gretzky/Orr/Howe.

Its not like this is some all or nothing argument where Crosby is either trash or the GOAT, hes clearly very close behind the big Four, just not quite there. And his bad luck with injuries is definitely part of that