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

[authentic]

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.

I agree, but just to nitpick he's 32.

 

[authentic]

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.

Ah the wonderful 1st team all star comparison between a left winger in a 6 team era and a modern centerman. I'm also not sure how the rest of what you said here would put him clearly ahead of Crosby anyway.

 

[bobbyking]

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.

McDavid has 64 points in 42 games right now in a much higher scoring era(compared to the infamous 66 points in 41 by Crosby before the concussion) and just from watching you can clearly tell mcdavids vision is clearly a level below crosbys. too bad for injuries.

 

[bobbyking]

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.

Richard and Jean above sid is always a good laugh, Crosby has scoring finishes better then both and missed all of his peak those 2 are not in crosbys level. playoffs is the same thing, sid played in a 4 round playoff and he more then likely has a higher ppg not to mention sid has five 20 +point playoff runs (one is 19) do those other 2 have that many combined even if you pro rate?

 

[wetcoast]

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.

He was also a clear 2nd in points over that time period and didn't separate himself from the pack in PPG at all, in fact there was basically a 4 way tie for 1st place in PPG.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

He was also 2nd in points in the playoffs and in a huge mix for PPG during that time period.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Another point in separation between Crosby and Bobby Hull was that Hull didn't become elite until his 3rd full season and his level of play wasn't elite during his 4th and 6th seasons was very good but hardly elite.

The 1st team all star comparison is a bit misleading though as the competition for LWers during that time was quite a bit weaker than for centers during Crosby's era.

That being said Crosby has 8 seasons as a (4)1st or (4)2nd team all star center and 2 times finished in 3rd place.

Bobby Hull is one of the guys (Beliveau, Bourque and Lidstrom are the ther main contenders) that I have in the battle for 5th place all time (not going to include goalies here as it's difficult to place them with position players but Roy and Hasek are in the mix to be sure) and he is likely to have a better age 32 season than Crosby, due to crosby being injured.

Hull also had an excellent age 32 season and I for you do not discount his play in the WHA but it's hard not to say that Crosby has had a higher and more consistent level of elite play in the regular season and playoffs through the age of 31 and I think it will be the same after their age 32 seasons as well.

One telling point is they both have 11 top 10 scoring finishes in the NHL

Hull 1,1,1,2,2,2,4,5,6,7,9

Crosby 1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3,5,6,10

So taking out duplicates we are left with

Hull 1,1,2,4,7,9
Crosby 3,3,3,3,10

Given the size of their leagues and level of competition for top 10 in scoring, Hull was basically playing in a 6 team league the entire time as the new expansion teams didn't have any top 10 scorers in the years Hull was in the top 10 except several guys sprinkled in the 7-10 spots and usually only a single player.

I would take Crosby as being ahead due to his consistency and point production in the regular season and playoffs over Hull up to age 31.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I have no problem with people ranking Bobby Hull over Sidney Crosby. I did it myself in the project (in round 2 anyway IIRC). Bobby Hull was incredible. I was just watching a game of his this week, his weight transfert on his slapshots is ridiculous. I can see it visually, that he has a better slapshot than EVERYONE in the league today, and I'm a Montreal fan who saw Chara play for years and witnesses Weber every week, and I remember MacInnis very well. Hull was an animal. Lions are born, not made. For proof, see his son's slapshot. Hull's shot with current sticks would beat Chara's comfortably. He was a little strange, that Hull guy, he doesn't look human much on the ice.

Also, anyone who wants to downplay his accomplishments because of the era he played in is living in a fantasy world. Hull excelled in arguably the strongest era in hockey history, and certainly stronger than Crosby's.

 

[The Panther]

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.

Agree with all that. And Patrick Roy is somewhat over-rated on this forum, but it's just one of the characteristics of this forum...

 

[The Panther]

Richard and Jean above sid is always a good laugh, Crosby has scoring finishes better then both and missed all of his peak those 2 are not in crosbys level. playoffs is the same thing, sid played in a 4 round playoff and he more then likely has a higher ppg not to mention sid has five 20 +point playoff runs (one is 19) do those other 2 have that many combined even if you pro rate?

This is a very misinformed post.

 

[The Panther]

McDavid has 64 points in 42 games right now in a much higher scoring era

Exaggerate much...?

Also, who cares how many points someone has in 1/2 a season?

 

[daver]

I have no problem with people ranking Bobby Hull over Sidney Crosby. I did it myself in the project (in round 2 anyway IIRC). Bobby Hull was incredible. I was just watching a game of his this week, his weight transfert on his slapshots is ridiculous. I can see it visually, that he has a better slapshot than EVERYONE in the league today, and I'm a Montreal fan who saw Chara play for years and witnesses Weber every week, and I remember MacInnis very well. Hull was an animal. Lions are born, not made. For proof, see his son's slapshot. Hull's shot with current sticks would beat Chara's comfortably. He was a little strange, that Hull guy, he doesn't look human much on the ice.

Also, anyone who wants to downplay his accomplishments because of the era he played in is living in a fantasy world. Hull excelled in arguably the strongest era in hockey history, and certainly stronger than Crosby's.

No issue with Hull being rated above based on longevity.

It makes no statistical sense to compare top scoring finishes from a 6 team league to a 30 team league with no context. Crosby, through 15 seasons, is closer to Howe than to Hull in per game domination vs. his peers. This means their very similar point and Hart finishes can reasonably be viewed as being in Crosby's favour. It was statistically easier to accumulate top finishes in a league with five times less teams. This doesn't mean scoring and goalscoring titles are valued any less, rather the 2nds, 3rds, 4th places etc... need context. That Crosby, like Mario and Orr, clearly missed opportunities to improve upon his raw totals, should also be reasonably be viewed as being in Crosby's favour.

This has nothing to do with subjective opinion on which era was stronger or weaker. On that note, how does one objectively go about determining that the 1958/59 to 1972/72 era was definitively stronger than the 2005/06 to 2019/20 era?

 

[Ms Maggie]

Sure. Every player has disappointments in their career.

 

[daver]

Any doubts as to the separation between the Hull and Crosby given their similar regular season point finishes should be eliminated when looking closer at their playoff resumes:

Hull (1959 to 1972): NHL.com Stats

1st in points (clear leader), 1st in goals (by a lot), 3rd in PPG among Top Ten scorers

Highest point totals in that timeframe: #3, #16, #44, #44

Highest PPG in that timeframe (min. 4 game playoffs): #1, #18, #19, #39


Crosby (2007 to 2019): NHL.com Stats

1st in points (clear leader, by a lot over #3), 1st in goals, 1st in PPG among Top Ten scorers (clear leader)

Highest point totals in that timeframe: #3, #9, #9, #47

Highest PPG in that timeframe (min. 8 game playoffs): #1, #9, #14, #20


And this is not even considering the difference in league size and Crosby's Conn Smythe of 2016.

 

[TheGuiminator]

It all depends on your expectations toward him. I remember perfectly how hyped Sidney Crosby was before he stepped in the NHL, he was portrayed as a modern day Wayne Gretzky.

You could say that he kinda met those expectations the first two years of his career, but looking back at it he never really came close to the hype.

After Crosby’s sophomore year, I had huge expectations, I was expecting +130 points seasons for another 5 to 10 years. I was expecting him to win the Art Ross year after year after year (like Gretzky) and it never happened. Every season after 2007 felt like a disappointment to me. It’s only in 2010/11 that I felt he reached the level I was waiting for, but unfortunately we only got a taste of what he looked like at his best.

What bothers me the most about Crosby is that he never proved that he was the UNDISPUTED best of his generation. In every era, there was always an absolute best, from Howe to Orr, to Gretzky to Lemieux and now McDavid. The thing with Crosby is that he was never the absolute best for a long period of time. When he did, it was short living or it was by a slight. There was always a Ovechkin, a Malkin and now McDavid that would threat his « number one » spot. When you’re the undisputed best, you don’t lose Art Rosses to guys like Sedin, Benn, Kane, St-Louis, etc.

So am I disappointed? Well, if i strictly look at my expectations I could say yes.
I don’t think Crosby quite delivered to his true potential, cause he never had a modern Gretzky/Lemieux-ish type of career I was expecting. I knew he had what it takes to reach that level but it just never happened and it was frustrating to see as a fan. Do injuries and bad timing have something to do with that? We’ll never know.

That being said, I do think Crosby is the best player of his generation, so he kinda met expectations somewhere. But at the same time, he’s not in the « AINEC » territory, you can make an argument that he’s the second best player of his generation. Not having the undisputed player of his generation title is a knock I have on him.

Still my all time favorite player, he’s just not the modern day Gretzky I was expecting him to be.

 

[bobholly39]

I have no problem with people ranking Bobby Hull over Sidney Crosby. I did it myself in the project (in round 2 anyway IIRC). Bobby Hull was incredible. I was just watching a game of his this week, his weight transfert on his slapshots is ridiculous. I can see it visually, that he has a better slapshot than EVERYONE in the league today, and I'm a Montreal fan who saw Chara play for years and witnesses Weber every week, and I remember MacInnis very well. Hull was an animal. Lions are born, not made. For proof, see his son's slapshot. Hull's shot with current sticks would beat Chara's comfortably. He was a little strange, that Hull guy, he doesn't look human much on the ice.

Also, anyone who wants to downplay his accomplishments because of the era he played in is living in a fantasy world. Hull excelled in arguably the strongest era in hockey history, and certainly stronger than Crosby's.

I don't think it's about discrediting him because "his era sucks, it's easier". It's more about not saying "1AS at LW in the 60s is worth as much as 1AS at C in the 2000s". You have to apply proper context, and some awards/top 10 placements were just easier to accomplish in the 60s because of less teams/players to contend with. Another easy one is top 10 scoring in the 2010s is worth more than top 10 in the 60s, in a vacuum.

 

[daver]

What bothers me the most about Crosby is that he never proved that he was the UNDISPUTED best of his generation. In every era, there was always an absolute best, from Howe to Orr, to Gretzky to Lemieux and now McDavid. The thing with Crosby is that he was never the absolute best for a long period of time. When he did, it was short living or it was by a slight. There was always a Ovechkin, a Malkin and now McDavid that would threat his « number one » spot. When you’re the undisputed best, you don’t lose Art Rosses to guys like Sedin, Benn, Kane, St-Louis, etc..

Considering Crosby will most likely still be ahead of McDavid thru their first five seasons of their careers, not sure McDavid should be included with the Big Four, which is basically what your point is, he did not crack the Big Four.

It is safe to say he wasn't going to hit Wayne and Mario #'s; no other player in history could hit those including Howe. What is less obvious is how to compare his relative dominance vs. his peers with theirs; a relative dominance that is close to Howe's on a per game basis.

Due to untimely and unlucky injuries, he lost out on the chance to be neck and neck with Howe thru age 32/after fifteen seasons, at least offensively.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

It all depends on your expectations toward him. I remember perfectly how hyped Sidney Crosby was before he stepped in the NHL, he was portrayed as a modern day Wayne Gretzky.

You could say that he kinda met those expectations the first two years of his career, but looking back at it he never really came close to the hype.

After Crosby’s sophomore year, I had huge expectations, I was expecting +130 points seasons for another 5 to 10 years. I was expecting him to win the Art Ross year after year after year (like Gretzky) and it never happened. Every season after 2007 felt like a disappointment to me. It’s only in 2010/11 that I felt he reached the level I was waiting for, but unfortunately we only got a taste of what he looked like at his best.

What bothers me the most about Crosby is that he never proved that he was the UNDISPUTED best of his generation. In every era, there was always an absolute best, from Howe to Orr, to Gretzky to Lemieux and now McDavid. The thing with Crosby is that he was never the absolute best for a long period of time. When he did, it was short living or it was by a slight. There was always a Ovechkin, a Malkin and now McDavid that would threat his « number one » spot. When you’re the undisputed best, you don’t lose Art Rosses to guys like Sedin, Benn, Kane, St-Louis, etc.

So am I disappointed? Well, if i strictly look at my expectations I could say yes.
I don’t think Crosby quite delivered to his true potential, cause he never had a modern Gretzky/Lemieux-ish type of career I was expecting. I knew he had what it takes to reach that level but it just never happened and it was frustrating to see as a fan. Do injuries and bad timing have something to do with that? We’ll never know.

That being said, I do think Crosby is the best player of his generation, so he kinda met expectations somewhere. But at the same time, he’s not in the « AINEC » territory, you can make an argument that he’s the second best player of his generation. Not having the undisputed player of his generation title is a knock I have on him.

Still my all time favorite player, he’s just not the modern day Gretzky I was expecting him to be.

Save for capitals fans nobody disputes it.

 

[TheGuiminator]

Considering Crosby will most likely still be ahead of McDavid thru their first five seasons of their careers, not sure McDavid should be included with the Big Four, which is basically what your point is, he did not crack the Big Four.

It is safe to say he wasn't going to hit Wayne and Mario #'s; no other player in history could hit those including Howe. What is less obvious is how to compare his relative dominance vs. his peers with theirs; a relative dominance that is close to Howe's on a per game basis.

Due to untimely and unlucky injuries, he lost out on the chance to be neck and neck with Howe thru age 32/after fifteen seasons, at least offensively.

After their first 5 regular seasons, McDavid has been better. Crosby has been better in the playoffs.

If McDavid keeps on winning scoring titles and gets some good playoff runs throughout his career, he has a big shot to pass Crosby when it’s all said and done.

 

[solidmotion]

It all depends on your expectations toward him. I remember perfectly how hyped Sidney Crosby was before he stepped in the NHL, he was portrayed as a modern day Wayne Gretzky.

You could say that he kinda met those expectations the first two years of his career, but looking back at it he never really came close to the hype.

After Crosby’s sophomore year, I had huge expectations, I was expecting +130 points seasons for another 5 to 10 years. I was expecting him to win the Art Ross year after year after year (like Gretzky) and it never happened. Every season after 2007 felt like a disappointment to me. It’s only in 2010/11 that I felt he reached the level I was waiting for, but unfortunately we only got a taste of what he looked like at his best.

What bothers me the most about Crosby is that he never proved that he was the UNDISPUTED best of his generation. In every era, there was always an absolute best, from Howe to Orr, to Gretzky to Lemieux and now McDavid. The thing with Crosby is that he was never the absolute best for a long period of time. When he did, it was short living or it was by a slight. There was always a Ovechkin, a Malkin and now McDavid that would threat his « number one » spot. When you’re the undisputed best, you don’t lose Art Rosses to guys like Sedin, Benn, Kane, St-Louis, etc.

So am I disappointed? Well, if i strictly look at my expectations I could say yes.
I don’t think Crosby quite delivered to his true potential, cause he never had a modern Gretzky/Lemieux-ish type of career I was expecting. I knew he had what it takes to reach that level but it just never happened and it was frustrating to see as a fan. Do injuries and bad timing have something to do with that? We’ll never know.

That being said, I do think Crosby is the best player of his generation, so he kinda met expectations somewhere. But at the same time, he’s not in the « AINEC » territory, you can make an argument that he’s the second best player of his generation. Not having the undisputed player of his generation title is a knock I have on him.

Still my all time favorite player, he’s just not the modern day Gretzky I was expecting him to be.

i think this is fair, and yet again i think the best historical comparison is beliveau. beliveau broke into the league as maybe the most hyped prospect ever, and though he obviously delivered and had one of the greatest careers ever, he also has a weirdly sparse trophy cabinet because of some poorly timed injuries and frankly not putting together a top-four style peak even on a per-game basis.

maybe when crosby's career is over and the hype that he entered the league with is a more distant memory things will become clearer and he'll be appreciated as being the beliveau he is rather than criticized for being the lemieux he isn't.

as to mcdavid—he's doing great but honestly struggling to match crosby's peak 11-14 pace in this higher scoring era just makes crosby look better in my eyes. and with the oilers going nowhere fast he's going to have big gaps in his resume. not his fault but it's how it is.

 

[wetcoast]

No issue with Hull being rated above based on longevity.

It makes no statistical sense to compare top scoring finishes from a 6 team league to a 30 team league with no context. Crosby, through 15 seasons, is closer to Howe than to Hull in per game domination vs. his peers. This means their very similar point and Hart finishes can reasonably be viewed as being in Crosby's favour. It was statistically easier to accumulate top finishes in a league with five times less teams. This doesn't mean scoring and goalscoring titles are valued any less, rather the 2nds, 3rds, 4th places etc... need context. That Crosby, like Mario and Orr, clearly missed opportunities to improve upon his raw totals, should also be reasonably be viewed as being in Crosby's favour.

This has nothing to do with subjective opinion on which era was stronger or weaker. On that note, how does one objectively go about determining that the 1958/59 to 1972/72 era was definitively stronger than the 2005/06 to 2019/20 era?

One simply doesn't determine this objectively.

It is an entirely subjective exercise but if one looks at the quality of Dmen challenging for Norris year in year out it's hard to argue that the 06 era was "better"

Even if one takes the POV that the 06 era was better how then to view the fact that many non Canadians are now elite NHL players?

Did the quality of Canadian hockey players somehow decline then?

Like I said it's hard to have a definitive "objective" view on these things but many things point to the NHL getting better over time in terms of overall quality and skill set of the players.

I think part of the problem is that in an overall better league it's harder to stand out statistically than in a league with larger gaps in talent levels and somehow this has been equated with less quality or talent.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Pretty absurd question. The only disappointment was availability and missing some games

 

[wetcoast]

After their first 5 regular seasons, McDavid has been better. Crosby has been better in the playoffs.

If McDavid keeps on winning scoring titles and gets some good playoff runs throughout his career, he has a big shot to pass Crosby when it’s all said and done.

I agree on the regular season stuff McDavid has a good chance of passing Crosby offensively if he stays healthy but he has a big hill to climb in terms of the playoffs.

In Crosby's first 45 years he made the SC finals twice and has an excellent line.

Let's compare them after 4 years

McDavid might make the playoffs this year and we will see how he does then but Crosby in his 5th year added this line

Crosby 49-24-39-63 +16

McDavid 13-5-4-9 +3

McDavid might make the playoffs this year and we will see how he does then but Crosby in his 5th year added this line

13-6-13-19 +6

This might be a hot take but I doubt that McDavid is ever seen as a better playoff performer than Crosby.

Crosby simply has built up such an important playoff resume already.

 

[TheGuiminator]

I agree on the regular season stuff McDavid has a good chance of passing Crosby offensively if he stays healthy but he has a big hill to climb in terms of the playoffs.

In Crosby's first 45 years he made the SC finals twice and has an excellent line.

Let's compare them after 4 years

McDavid might make the playoffs this year and we will see how he does then but Crosby in his 5th year added this line

Crosby 49-24-39-63 +16

McDavid 13-5-4-9 +3

McDavid might make the playoffs this year and we will see how he does then but Crosby in his 5th year added this line

13-6-13-19 +6

This might be a hot take but I doubt that McDavid is ever seen as a better playoff performer than Crosby.

Crosby simply has built up such an important playoff resume already.

Crosby is right there among the best playoff performers of all time

here’s how I see it after 5 seasons (Crosby vs McDavid) :

Regular season : McDavid > Crosby

Playoffs : Crosby > McDavid (AINEC)

Overall, it’s close, but i like when the resume of a player is balanced. So Crosby has the edge for me as of right now

 

[daver]

After their first 5 regular seasons, McDavid has been better. Crosby has been better in the playoffs.

If McDavid keeps on winning scoring titles and gets some good playoff runs throughout his career, he has a big shot to pass Crosby when it’s all said and done.

This isn't backed up statistically. Is this just a subjective assessment?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Agree with all that. And Patrick Roy is somewhat over-rated on this forum, but it's just one of the characteristics of this forum...

HOH has kinda caught up to where ESPN (2004; 8th best player of all-time), THN (2004; #1 goaltender), THN (2007; 5th best player since 1967), the Beckett Goaltender Poll (2015; #1 goaltender), and the NHLPA Player Poll (2018; #1 goaltender) have ranked him, but HFBoards as a whole often ranks him noticeably lower.

Certainly a gap in perception; the main board - and even HOH about a decade ago - leaned heavily towards Hasek as the best goaltender and Roy more in the pack with players like Guy Lafleur and Stan Mikita. It wasn’t until substantial work was done by people like Hockey Outsider to normalize save percentage across scoring eras that Roy’s reputation on HOH has ascended to where the media and players have often ranked him.

If we’re looking at goaltenders, I think there’s a stronger divide on Hasek/Brodeur (HFBoards leans Hasek, media/players lean Brodeur) and Sawchuk/Plante (HFBoards leans Plante, media/players lean Sawchuk).

I think the lowest I’ve seen Roy recently was 17th on TSN’s list (Sawchuk at #10, Plante at #15, Hall at #20, Hasek at #21, Brodeur at #25). But even then, that list was just TSN moving newer players into the old THN list, and I think people are only comfortable with so many goaltenders up at the very top. Like, I don’t think people have an issue with Crosby and Hull or Morenz or Beliveau (for instance) being back-to-back if they’re seen as near equals, but goaltenders being by far the least represented of F/D/G seem to punish each other’s perceived standing with their success.

For what it’s worth, TSN had Crosby at #8, so they think he’s better than literally every goaltender.

 

[daver]

I think part of the problem is that in an overall better league it's harder to stand out statistically than in a league with larger gaps in talent levels and somehow this has been equated with less quality or talent.

This presumes that dominant talent from the current era, whenever in time that may be, will always be superior to dominant talent in the past.

That is not reasonable, IMO, as unreasonable as it is to declare an era being better than another to the extent of using it to rate a player higher than another.