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

[quoipourquoi]

Roy's best save-percentage in the playoffs was bested by Hasek three times, including once in the high-scoring era.

You’re talking about the 7-game sample size in 1994? That’s like saying that because Theoren Fleury scored 2-points-per-game in the playoffs twice (once in 6 games, once in 7 games), he’s bested Sidney Crosby’s playoffs on multiple occasions.

 

[canucks4ever]

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

In an all time draft, many gms would take crosby over orr. I have noticed that on this forum it is a taboo/stigma to criticize Bobby orr, but in the real world he does get criticized.

 

[VanIslander]

Roy had HHOF skaters.
Hasek didn't.

Let's nix this nonsense.

 

[The Panther]

Back on topic: For me, I'd say the only disappointment for Cros is the games missed. I think if he had had 9-straight 100+ point seasons, plus the three Stanley Cups on top, I'd be really amazed at his career. His career is hugely impressive in any event, but only consistently elite seasons-in-a-row is slightly lacking.

 

[VanIslander]

He could have been a consensus top-5 all time player instead of a marginal top-10 all time player.

A pretty minor disappointment in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Sadekuuro]

In an all time draft, many gms would take crosby over orr.

Are we talking actual GMs here? Because if so, I'd be surprised.

 

[SML2]

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.

Sweet Jesus if Mario played today with no redlines and today's hooking and holding calls.

 

[VanIslander]

In an all time draft, many gms would take crosby over orr...

May you, your guys and I never be in the same ATD.

I just couldn't respect that pick.

It is like choosing Price over Roy. Nonsense.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Injury-prone players of the past may have been better served by the medical science of today. Current players have the best opportunity to actualize their potential. If anything, I would imagine people would be even more forgiving of Orr for this reason.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Injury-prone players of the past may have been better served by the medical science of today. Current players have the best opportunity to actualize their potential. If anything, I would imagine people would be even more forgiving of Orr for this reason.

IIRC the word is that Orrs knees were a lost cause in the late 70s, but could have been reliably fixed by modern medicine. He absolutely would have had a reasonable career length if he played in the modern era

 

[VanIslander]

Players any coach would put on the ice with a broken leg:

Howe, Orr, Yzerman... maybe Hasek.

Everyone else would probably be thrown off their game.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Players any coach would put on the ice with a broken leg:

Howe, Orr, Yzerman... maybe Hasek.

Everyone else would probably be thrown off their game.

Hasek was the opposite, he wouldn't play unless he was close to 100% (to much criticism from some ex-teammates).

 

[authentic]

You’re talking about the 7-game sample size in 1994? That’s like saying that because Theoren Fleury scored 2-points-per-game in the playoffs twice (once in 6 games, once in 7 games), he’s bested Sidney Crosby’s playoffs on multiple occasions.

His 1993 one would be comparable to Crosby's 2010 considering the scoring difference in eras, and his 1995 was great but it's literally not the same thing because Hasek was better when both were at their best pretty consistently. Also don't tell me Roy became a worse goalie in the late 90s/2000s, goalies got better and Hasek was the best.

Actually to make matters even better in Hasek's favour he was a pro goalie when Roy was like 14 or 15 and was an elite goalie a half decade after Roy retired in his 40s for Ottawa/Detroit.

 

[The Panther]

He could have been a consensus top-5 all time player instead of a marginal top-10 all time player.

Where would this "consensus" have been? Not on this forum.

 

[authentic]

Sweet Jesus if Mario played today with no redlines and today's hooking and holding calls.

There are far less powerplays today than what he received back then though. Also the goalies and all around defensive play are even better. There is literally no reason he would do better today, but he was the most talented player ever IMO.

 

[canucks4ever]

Injury-prone players of the past may have been better served by the medical science of today. Current players have the best opportunity to actualize their potential. If anything, I would imagine people would be even more forgiving of Orr for this reason.

The medecine of today did not give bure and forsberg longer careers.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

No he got the second cup later on. Compare that to my Bruins who have been the better franchise over the same span than Pitt Chicago LA but only have 1 Cup and choked (so they actually haven’t been better.). It’s hard to win.

 

[daver]

Where would this "consensus" have been? Not on this forum.

Since the OP is clearly opening the door to speculation, if Crosby won the two Rosses that were virtually guaranteed in 2011 and 2013, and likely won in arguably era-best fashion, what would be be lacking in his resume by this point to not make him the consensus #5 pick that couldn't also be applied to some of the "consensus" members of the Big 4?

And apropos to the OP, we are talking about him playing 40 to 50 more games; a mere 4% more in career games that seemingly would move him up significantly in the all-time rankings.

What other player can you say this about?

 

[scott clam]

People here put too much stock in trophy counting. Crosby is a much better player than his Hart-count indicates. Much like Jagr, although the latter's Art Ross count sortof makes up for that. In the imaginations of fans/historians anyways.

But speaking of Art Rosses, if Crosby scores two points on the last game of the worst forward season in recent memory, should that really alter his legacy?

FWIW I have Jagr higher than Crosby. I have Jagr higher than most people do though.

 

[wetcoast]

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!

He has had elite scoring seasons.

What you are looking for is an elite full season in scoring but as Authentic outlined that probably isn't possible in the modern context.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

You are trying way too hard to discredit what crosby has actually done though.

Sure he missed some time in his peak with injuries but even if you take his worst 10, 20, 30 game rate and apply it to the missed time there is no question about many more awards.

As has been pointed out is that Crosby has been extremely consistent and elite and you can count on a single hand the number of players with his impact from day 1 in the NHL up to the age of 31 which he is now.

Like I said upthread injuries have been the only real disappointment in his career, if you are looking for anything else there is something else going on.

 

[wetcoast]

He could have been a consensus top-5 all time player instead of a marginal top-10 all time player.

A pretty minor disappointment in the grand scheme of things.

Crosby is only 31, show me the guys in the 5-10 spots and it will be a ton of stuff done after the age of 31.

We don't know what will happen (injurywise) but even right now Crosby stacks up really well already with anyone you put in the 5-10 spots.

 

[VanIslander]

Bobby Hull at Crosby's age was a 9-time 1st team all star, 7-time Hart finalist (2 of them wins), 3-time Art Ross winner, 7-time leader in NHL goals, 3-time playoff goal leader.

 

[Video Nasty]

You are trying way too hard to discredit what crosby has actually done though.

Sure he missed some time in his peak with injuries but even if you take his worst 10, 20, 30 game rate and apply it to the missed time there is no question about many more awards.

As has been pointed out is that Crosby has been extremely consistent and elite and you can count on a single hand the number of players with his impact from day 1 in the NHL up to the age of 31 which he is now.

Like I said upthread injuries have been the only real disappointment in his career, if you are looking for anything else there is something else going on.

You feel like I’m reaching and trying to discredit and that’s fine. There is no shame in being ranked among the top 12 or so players out of a league that’s been around for over a 100 years.

I offered decent proof from some of the finest players this league has seen that pace is bullshit and a lazy way to retroactively hand players awards and accomplishments they don’t have.

I gave Crosby himself as an example, who scored at a rate higher than his truncated 2010-2011 season, for 41 and all the way through 56 games...then put up a pedestrian 25 points in his final 23 games.

I’d also like to say that the Butterfly Effect occurs as well...so it’s not as simple as looking at Sedin leading the league with 104 points that year and scoffing and saying that surely Crosby would put up another 39 points to take the Ross. Crosby playing that second half he missed changes absolutely everything about the league, because he would be in games that he actually wasn’t, positively or negatively affecting plays, and every other infinite ripple effects that would occur.

Which is why to be realistic, since we can never know how any of these scenarios would have actually went, you should go off based on what actually happened.

 

[authentic]

People here put too much stock in trophy counting. Crosby is a much better player than his Hart-count indicates. Much like Jagr, although the latter's Art Ross count sortof makes up for that. In the imaginations of fans/historians anyways.

But speaking of Art Rosses, if Crosby scores two points on the last game of the worst forward season in recent memory, should that really alter his legacy?

FWIW I have Jagr higher than Crosby. I have Jagr higher than most people do though.

Jagr and Hasek are generally underrated around here. The peak they had was better than any other than the big 4 and their longevity as an elite and/or very good player is better than anyones but Howe. They are even underrated in playoff success and being known as clutch/big game players due to the teams they were on for much of their careers. It's actually not hard to argue they are literally the 5th and 6th best of all time.