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

[The Macho King]

To me the thing that is tough to stomach is Crosby having his career derailed by a dirty hit from a nothing player right in the midst of his best season. That is just hard to swallow. Ditto Cooke on Marc Savard. Kariya from Gary Suter. Brandon Manning and McDavid. Even Niskanen on Crosby in the 2017 playoffs.

My Best-Carey

Not to re-litigate this a dozen times, but the Steckel hit really seemed like an incidental collision, and also he didn't even miss time (except the rest of that game) with that hit. It was the second concussion that he got from a nothing play against the Lightning that ended up with him out for an extended period (I think Hedman got a two minute boarding call on the play).

The real issue is he should not have been on the ice for the second game to allow for what was basically a borderline two minute penalty to derail his prime.

 

[DanM]

Frankly, the thing that hurts Crosby's legacy the most are Bylsma and Johnston.

Also the injuries. He had a lot of prime time taken away form him. If that doesn't happen, he would have been at an even higher level.

 

[billybudd]

Crosby's raw counting numbers will end up lower than the talent would have dictated due to losing half of what should have been his peak to injuries. On the other hand, he's done so much winning that a lot of that will be overlooked. Some of winning is excellence, but some of that is luck that will be credited as excellence (which is true of every player with a resume that includes a lot of championships).

So you could say he's been both lucky and unlucky with where his career ends up. If he never has these injuries, posts gaudy numbers from 2010-14--but never gets the breaks to win any Cups or Olympic golds in his career--would he be remembered as better than he will be in the real world now as a championship player with lesser numbers than the scenario I laid out? I'm not so sure.

Look at McDavid. He's been durable, he's posted slightly better statistics than Crosby had at this point, but his team consistently goes nowhere and questions are beginning to get asked. By this point in his career, Crosby had made it impossible to ask these questions.

 

[billybudd]

Not to re-litigate this a dozen times, but the Steckel hit really seemed like an incidental collision

I'm a Pens fan and I agree with you. At the time, I'd been watching Washington as a bridesmaid team for a few years (as well as watching a lot of Hershey) and I'd seen enough of Steckel to know he was an uncoordinated mutant with tunnel vision. A few months before that, I saw him obliterate Backstrom (? think it was Backstrom, but it might have been someone else) in the process of trying to make a routine line change. The only reason he'd have done that is if he didn't see him. There was another occasion where Steckel was just trying to hustle to get his stick in a lane and ended up torching a Devil with a vicious knee on knee because he couldn't control where he was going.

 

[Bustedprospect]

Not really. His international career is very solid. Playoffs are sold an alltiime great.

Lack maybe one or two mvp/ross in the regular seasons. Competition was hard in his era though. So the tiebreaker will be how good Sid was as an overall package and in my opinion this was VERY high.

Again overall case wont change that much i would say.

 

[Maestro84]

His injuries were probably his biggest "disappointment." With all due respect to Ovie, Sid is clearly the much "better" all around player yet their individual accolades and stats are really not that far off due to a lot of these injuries.

With that said, he's won the 3 cups for Pittsburgh, 2 Olympic Golds, and he'll be a HOFer when it's all said and done, so I think that's really all he cares about.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The lack of any great individual seasons hurts Crosby's case. Since the lockout, his absolute best season (2009-2010) is arguably near the bottom of the top 10, but it doesn't look good that Sid's absolute best season was the third best season that year in terms of Hart voting, and inferior to Ovechkin's 3rd best season (which was the same year) despite Ovie missing 10 games.

Among the top 15 forwards in history, Sid probably has the weakest peak/best season by a pretty wide margin. Relative to the players he's being compared to, getting outclassed by 6 or 7 players from his own generation is a big problem, especially when one of those players has 3 peak seasons that are all clearly superior to any season Crosby has had.

 

[wetcoast]

The lack of any great individual seasons hurts Crosby's case. Since the lockout, his absolute best season (2009-2010) is arguably near the bottom of the top 10, but it doesn't look good that Sid's absolute best season was the third best season that year in terms of Hart voting, and inferior to Ovechkin's 3rd best season (which was the same year) despite Ovie missing 10 games.

Among the top 15 forwards in history, Sid probably has the weakest peak/best season by a pretty wide margin. Relative to the players he's being compared to, getting outclassed by 6 or 7 players from his own generation is a big problem, especially when one of those players has 3 peak seasons that are all clearly superior to any season Crosby has had.

Why don't you save us all time and directly link to the weak argument of a seasons of polls on the main boards section that "proves" your point.

Crosby has had plenty of great season in his career even with the injuries.

If his absolute peak seasons don't impress enough though, his elite consistency as an elite player is extremely rare and iconic.

 

[MadLuke]

I think it is fair to say that missing a string of great season in is peak is a disappointment, just add a 120pts+ season + an other playoff run instead of is superbe half season that 2010-2011 and it change is career quite a bit, (3 art ross make him the clear #1 of is era in the regular season, 3 rocket put him in an elite group of goal scorer and so on)

 

[Boxscore]

I am torn and conflicted when it comes to Crosby. When he entered the NHL, he was way over-hyped and I don't think he lived up to that hype, as great as he was. Yes, he was a great player, but there were times that Ovechkin, Malkin and even Kane were just as great or better for a stretch. In fact, one could say that--media bias aside--Ovechkin has been the more dominant player throughout their careers, based on career accomplishments. Young Crosby was also a big-time diver and was a whiny brat. I didn't like him as a player, although I respected him.

All of that said, about 3-4 seasons ago, my perception of Crosby changed drastically. He matured into one of the best leaders and all-around players on the planet. His dedication, work ethic and preparation was unmatched, and he was a true game-changer. I think Sid literally carried the Pens on his back for the last two Cups--definitely one of them. I think he was a good part of the 2nd Cup, although there were some Pens who played equally well or better. The last Cup, Sid was a complete beast. He wasn't playing with tons of star power and he was elevating his team regardless. Sid's intangibles have grown tremendously over his career.

Because of this all, I think Crosby has "realistically" cemented himself in the top 10-15... but, due to today's media, he'll be in the top-10. I certainly do not have him in the top-5, but I could buy top-10. And, the book isn't fully closed on Crosby yet. I think if he somehow has a resurgence late in his career and wins another Cup or two, he definitely belongs in the "5th best all-time" discussion. However, it's more likely that Ovechkin breaks Gretzky's all-time goal record and ends up the best player of his generation--a hair ahead of Crosby.

I will say this--it took me a while--but I do have Crosby ahead of Yzerman and Sakic on my all-time list right now--and he still has about 4 great years left... and a couple more good ones, if he stays healthy.

For a player who drove me nuts early on, Sid converted me. I have a ton of respect for him as a player and a person, even more so. He really is the type of professional and role model you would want your kids to look up to. His dedication and consistency is phenomenal. And all this is coming from a Flyers fan.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Why don't you save us all time and directly link to the weak argument of a seasons of polls on the main boards section that "proves" your point.

Hfboards is is dominated by Canadians and Pens fans. Even with that huge amount of bias, Crosby could barely pierce the top ten in that poll series whereas Ovie has 3 of the top 5 seasons.

I'm not relying on that series though, because I don't agree with how some people rate seasons - equating secondary assists with goals or even powerplay secondary assists with goals, etc. It's the only way to put Sid's 2007 season above his 2010 season, and it's obviously pretty dumb.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think Sid literally carried the Pens on his back for the last two Cups--definitely one of them. I think he was a good part of the 2nd Cup, although there were some Pens who played equally well or better.

Eh, Sid produced at a 65 point / 21 goal pace and was a minus player in the 2016 playoffs. He had two secondary assists (1 even strength point) as a minus 3 against the Capitals in 6 games.

Agree with much of the rest of your post, but this part had me scratching my head.

 

[Pantokrator]

I am torn and conflicted when it comes to Crosby. When he entered the NHL, he was way over-hyped and I don't think he lived up to that hype, as great as he was. Yes, he was a great player, but there were times that Ovechkin, Malkin and even Kane were just as great or better for a stretch. In fact, one could say that--media bias aside--Ovechkin has been the more dominant player throughout their careers, based on career accomplishments. Young Crosby was also a big-time diver and was a whiny brat. I didn't like him as a player, although I respected him.

All of that said, about 3-4 seasons ago, my perception of Crosby changed drastically. He matured into one of the best leaders and all-around players on the planet. His dedication, work ethic and preparation was unmatched, and he was a true game-changer. I think Sid literally carried the Pens on his back for the last two Cups--definitely one of them. I think he was a good part of the 2nd Cup, although there were some Pens who played equally well or better. The last Cup, Sid was a complete beast. He wasn't playing with tons of star power and he was elevating his team regardless. Sid's intangibles have grown tremendously over his career.

Because of this all, I think Crosby has "realistically" cemented himself in the top 10-15... but, due to today's media, he'll be in the top-10. I certainly do not have him in the top-5, but I could buy top-10. And, the book isn't fully closed on Crosby yet. I think if he somehow has a resurgence late in his career and wins another Cup or two, he definitely belongs in the "5th best all-time" discussion. However, it's more likely that Ovechkin breaks Gretzky's all-time goal record and ends up the best player of his generation--a hair ahead of Crosby.

I will say this--it took me a while--but I do have Crosby ahead of Yzerman and Sakic on my all-time list right now--and he still has about 4 great years left... and a couple more good ones, if he stays healthy.

For a player who drove me nuts early on, Sid converted me. I have a ton of respect for him as a player and a person, even more so. He really is the type of professional and role model you would want your kids to look up to. His dedication and consistency is phenomenal. And all this is coming from a Flyers fan.

This is me - a Flyers fan who hated the hype that Crosby got only to become one of his defenders because so many people seem to hate him. I think one of the problems Sid has is that he is so efficient, he doesn't do a lot of fancy things that get typical notice. That assist he had a month ago, the goal off of Lundqvist's mask, the one-handed goal vs. the Sabres all came in the last few years. These are plays that he could make much more often (or at least attempt), but he doesn't because they are not high percentage plays. If he were Alexei Kovalev, who would do this stuff for fun, efficient or not, Crosby would get a lot more "oohs and ahhs". But the fact he makes the efficient play is what I think makes him such an attractive player. He is always about the team.

 

[Beau Knows]

Eh, Sid produced at a 65 point / 21 goal pace and was a minus player in the 2016 playoffs. He had two secondary assists (1 even strength point) as a minus 3 against the Capitals in 6 games.

Agree with much of the rest of your post, but this part had me scratching my head.

It's really strange to see you bringing up +/-...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Eh, Sid produced at a 65 point / 21 goal pace and was a minus player in the 2016 playoffs. He had two secondary assists (1 even strength point) as a minus 3 against the Capitals in 6 games.

Even saying he carried them in 2017 would be a huge stretch.

Marc-Andre Fleury was quite obviously the team’s most important player through rounds 1 and 2, while Pittsburgh was outshot 194-170 and 229-160 against 108-point Columbus and 118-point Washington.

Then Matt Murray comes into the Conference Finals when the team is down 2-1 and steamrolls Ottawa and Nashville with a .946 and a .931.

When a team’s goaltending stops a cumulative 494/516 (.957) in its 16 victories while allowing 31 shots-per-60 in those same 16 games, saying the team was “carried” by their #2 scorer is ignoring what was the major story of that Spring: what was happening in their own net.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

From an individual perspective, you're probably only disappointed if you truly believed that another Gretzky or Lemieux level player was going to emerge. Not realistic expectations of any prospect. If you were more measured in your expectations (personally, I figured Crosby would be a Sakic or Yzerman level player), he may well have exceeded your projections.

Team-wise, the 2010-2015 stretch has to be seen as disappointing, at least at the time. Crosby and Malkin both in their primes, already with a Cup win under their belts, no real juggernaut opponent in the same division/conference, yet the Penguins didn't even reach a single final in that stretch. It was looking like they might be a modern version of the Hull/Mikita Blackhawks. But then they suddenly won in 2016 and 17 after it looked like teams like Washington and Tampa had perhaps surpassed them as the top teams in the East. So maybe it didn't happen in the years it was most expected to, but I think it's pretty much impossible to be disappointed with three Cups in nine years. Many great teams and players have done and will do far worse.

 

[Midnight Judges]

From an individual perspective, you're probably only disappointed if you truly believed that another Gretzky or Lemieux level player was going to emerge. Not realistic expectations of any prospect.

I don't even think it's possible in today's NHL to separate the way it was back in the 8-goals-per-game 80's.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't even think it's possible in today's NHL to separate the way it was back in the 8-goals-per-game 80's.

Maybe not statistically, but there's no cap on how great a player can be. The odds are just extremely small that any particular player is going to hit that level. Another Gretzky could emerge five years from now, but perhaps not even in this century. It has been literally a century since Babe Ruth emerged, still no baseball player who has come along and surpassed him (in most people's opinions). Hockey could follow the same path. I guess it's not too late to completely discount the possibility of McDavid hitting another gear and turning in some seasons comparable to Gretzky/Lemieux, but I'd say it's highly doubtful.

 

[The Panther]

Crosby's raw counting numbers will end up lower than the talent would have dictated due to losing half of what should have been his peak to injuries. On the other hand, he's done so much winning that a lot of that will be overlooked. Some of winning is excellence, but some of that is luck that will be credited as excellence (which is true of every player with a resume that includes a lot of championships).

So you could say he's been both lucky and unlucky with where his career ends up. If he never has these injuries, posts gaudy numbers from 2010-14--but never gets the breaks to win any Cups or Olympic golds in his career--would he be remembered as better than he will be in the real world now as a championship player with lesser numbers than the scenario I laid out? I'm not so sure.

Look at McDavid. He's been durable, he's posted slightly better statistics than Crosby had at this point, but his team consistently goes nowhere and questions are beginning to get asked. By this point in his career, Crosby had made it impossible to ask these questions.

I think this is a good post, and yes, it seems to be the case (mistakenly, I think) that players get individual credit on their legacies for simply being members of championship teams.

Now, obviously a Crosby-level player is a bigger contributor than an average player is to a championship team, but even so I would say Crosby's individual-level contribution to his three Stanley Cups (four Conference championships) and two (?) Olympic Golds is... "solid", "good"... but not particularly great.

I find that the older I get, the less I believe in individual hockey players' abilities to drive winning or championships. If you'd asked me when I was 13, I'd have said "50% player, 50% circumstances". At 25, I might have said "35% player, 65% circumstances". Now, at 44, I'd probably say "5% player, 95% circumstances".

There are some very rare exceptions in hockey history: Gordie Howe, maybe, in the early 50s; Bobby Orr c.1968 to 1975; Wayne Gretzky c.1980 to 1989; maybe Hasek c.1997-1999 (though this didn't result in a Stanley Cup, but he did win a Gold medal). That's about it, bar random one-off kind of superior playoff runs from a star player or a goalie that lasted a few weeks. So, there are probably only about 4 players since WWII who could -- and only in their primes, not their whole careers -- consistently improve the level of winning and championship-potential of their hockey teams.

But, basically, individual players don't do this. Never have, never will. And yet, players like Crosby will get their legacies enhanced by the simple fact that their teams succeeded in winning it all a few times. At my age now, when looking at Crosby's (or anyone's) contribution to a championship, I try to break it down to what that individual really brought, consistently. Crosby is not exactly lacking here (he was consistently strong in '08, mostly strong in '09 though not quite as good as his teammate; good-ish at the '10 Olympics; okay at the '14 Olympics; so-so in '16; good in '17), but nor is he blowing us away with his level of consistent play in these big moments.

I think it's clear by now that mature-Crosby has been a very great and steadying leader on his team, who brings a calming and teammate-relaxing presence in the locker-room and on ice. Players look up to him and he fulfills this role well. But I don't think -- as top-20 all time players go -- that he's been in any way exceptional in his on-ice performance in his championship runs. He's been quite good, but not excellent.

So, aside from his missed games and injuries (esp. in mid-prime, unfortunately), for me this is the limitation of Crosby's career accomplishments. It's not a huge limitation, but it's a limitation.

 

[The Panther]

I don't even think it's possible in today's NHL to separate the way it was back in the 8-goals-per-game 80's.

Goals-per-game in the 1980s reached '8' only once, and that very early in the decade (1981-82). Goals-per-game so far this season is 6. In 1979-80 it was 7, in 1982-83 it was 7.7, in 1986-87 it was 7.35. When you then factor in how much less 2nd and 3rd-line players score now (not in raw numbers, but rather as percentage of teams' total goals), it becomes even less a factor in how much 1st-line players can score. (Not to mention today's top players regularly see 3-on-3 overtime, when it's far any easier to pick up points than any situation in hockey history.)

Removing Gretzky as an obvious outlier (well, obvious to those of us who saw him play in Edmonton), this is how select seasons' top-5 point-scorers compare:
1972-73
130
104
101
100
95

1977-78
132
123
117
97
94

1982-83
124
121
118
107
107

1986-87
108
107
107
105
103

1993-94
120
112
111
107
107

2005-06
125
123
106
103
103

2018-19
128
116
110
105
100

Not seeing any differences here...

Nevertheless, my tendency is to agree with you that it's harder for players to separate themselves in "visual dominance" and in scoring-points today compared to eras of the past... but the evidence for the point-scoring part doesn't really support this.

In the 1950s, scoring was lower than today, but we saw Gordie Howe win 4 scoring titles in a row (which nobody has done now for 19 years) with 33% more points than the second-best guy, and 46% more points than the next guy who wasn't his linemate. The same holds true of Bobby Hull's goals' domination in the mid-1960s... but it isn't fantastically greater than, say, Ovechkin's goals-domination in select seasons of his career.

Even in the first half of the 1980s (1980-81 to 1984-85), if we remove Gretzky the scoring domination by leading players isn't any greater than today's scoring domination. Here's how it was then...
619
591
577
514
513

And here's how it's been the past five years (counting this season, so these raw numbers will get a bit higher 20 games from now):
458
456
454
409
404

The raw numbers are higher in that very-high scoring period of 1980-1985, but the degree of peer domination looks to me almost exactly the same... as long as we remove Gretzky from the numbers.

**********

So, then, why does it indeed seem harder for today's players to dominate at the levels players of the past could, occasionally? I think the answer is less to do with scoring levels and more to do with the revenue-sharing NHL, and the big-business the League is today. The salary-cap means there's a certain talent-leveling off across all teams. The better-managed teams will still get the better talent through development, but not to the degree they did in the past. Like, Edmonton was an extremely well-managed team in the 1980s (despite its horrendous drafts post-1981), while a team like Hartford or Vancouver or Los Angeles had extremely incompetent management for a decade or more, to a degree that would never occur today. Or, look at Montreal's system of player-development from the 1940s through 1970s -- it was heads-and-shoulders better than any other franchise's system, and that's exactly why Montreal dominated the League to an unprecedented degree in those years. Compare with the management of a club like Chicago in those years, or, obviously, the unstable franchises of the 1970s like California or Cleveland.

And why did this across-the-board organizational competence level improve so much after the mid-80s or so, continuing to the millennial era? Answer: money. There is so much more money at stake now -- for players, coaches, management, investors, team-owners -- than at any time before the 1990s, that franchises cannot afford to be incompetent (which they could before -- the Maple Leafs were an incompetent franchise in the 1980s, often playing at AHL level, but sold out the building every night and probably generated more revenue than any other club). Not every team had that luxury -- the Canucks of the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s frequently failed to sell out the building, but since there was no revenue-sharing, nobody cared, as long as the franchise paid its dues and went to the meetings. That can't happen today. Teams have to be competitive to survive, so they can't afford to be incompetent.

So, I think that's why it's "visually" difficult to see players dominate as much today as in the past, and perhaps why it actually is more difficult. Although, as shown above, I don't think scoring levels have much to do with it. There are other reasons.

 

[daver]

I think this is a good post, and yes, it seems to be the case (mistakenly, I think) that players get individual credit on their legacies for simply being members of championship teams.

Now, obviously a Crosby-level player is a bigger contributor than an average player is to a championship team, but even so I would say Crosby's individual-level contribution to his three Stanley Cups (four Conference championships) and two (?) Olympic Golds is... "solid", "good"... but not particularly great.

I find that the older I get, the less I believe in individual hockey players' abilities to drive winning or championships. If you'd asked me when I was 13, I'd have said "50% player, 50% circumstances". At 25, I might have said "35% player, 65% circumstances". Now, at 44, I'd probably say "5% player, 95% circumstances".

There are some very rare exceptions in hockey history: Gordie Howe, maybe, in the early 50s; Bobby Orr c.1968 to 1975; Wayne Gretzky c.1980 to 1989; maybe Hasek c.1997-1999 (though this didn't result in a Stanley Cup, but he did win a Gold medal). That's about it, bar random one-off kind of superior playoff runs from a star player or a goalie that lasted a few weeks. So, there are probably only about 4 players since WWII who could -- and only in their primes, not their whole careers -- consistently improve the level of winning and championship-potential of their hockey teams.

But, basically, individual players don't do this. Never have, never will. And yet, players like Crosby will get their legacies enhanced by the simple fact that their teams succeeded in winning it all a few times. At my age now, when looking at Crosby's (or anyone's) contribution to a championship, I try to break it down to what that individual really brought, consistently. Crosby is not exactly lacking here (he was consistently strong in '08, mostly strong in '09 though not quite as good as his teammate; good-ish at the '10 Olympics; okay at the '14 Olympics; so-so in '16; good in '17), but nor is he blowing us away with his level of consistent play in these big moments.

I think it's clear by now that mature-Crosby has been a very great and steadying leader on his team, who brings a calming and teammate-relaxing presence in the locker-room and on ice. Players look up to him and he fulfills this role well. But I don't think -- as top-20 all time players go -- that he's been in any way exceptional in his on-ice performance in his championship runs. He's been quite good, but not excellent.

So, aside from his missed games and injuries (esp. in mid-prime, unfortunately), for me this is the limitation of Crosby's career accomplishments. It's not a huge limitation, but it's a limitation.

That you exclude Mario from your list of game changers and Crosby's World Cup performance makes one question the validity of your post.

The bigger issue is the OP allows for completely subjective levels of "expectations" that opens the door to "disappointments".

The facts are Crosby is lacking nothing on his playoff resume that makes on question his stature as the best playoff performer of his era with numbers that are befitting his stature as the best player of his era in the regular season (on a per game basis).

If anyone is going to be noted as the biggest "winner" of his era, and deservedly placed with other noted "winners" among the all-time greats, Crosby is easily the most deserving of that title. He has the offensive resume to back this up along with a very good 2-way game and leadership qualities.

As the other posted noted, if you want to say he was lucky to play on the teams he did then you have to consider how unlucky he was with injuries and appropriately give him a significant boost in his regular season resume that would place him clearly ahead of Hull and Beliveau for #5 player.

 

[Melrose Munch]

The lack of individual awards
No 130 points seasons
No 140 points seasons
No 60 goals.
No 90 asissts

About 300 points missing from his career imo.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Goals-per-game in the 1980s reached '8' only once, and that very early in the decade (1981-82). Goals-per-game so far this season is 6. In 1979-80 it was 7, in 1982-83 it was 7.7, in 1986-87 it was 7.35. When you then factor in how much less 2nd and 3rd-line players score now (not in raw numbers, but rather as percentage of teams' total goals), it becomes even less a factor in how much 1st-line players can score. (Not to mention today's top players regularly see 3-on-3 overtime, when it's far any easier to pick up points than any situation in hockey history.)

Removing Gretzky as an obvious outlier (well, obvious to those of us who saw him play in Edmonton), this is how select seasons' top-5 point-scorers compare:
1972-73
130
104
101
100
95

1977-78
132
123
117
97
94

1982-83
124
121
118
107
107

1986-87
108
107
107
105
103

1993-94
120
112
111
107
107

2005-06
125
123
106
103
103

2018-19
128
116
110
105
100

Not seeing any differences here...

Nevertheless, my tendency is to agree with you that it's harder for players to separate themselves in "visual dominance" and in scoring-points today compared to eras of the past... but the evidence for the point-scoring part doesn't really support this.

In the 1950s, scoring was lower than today, but we saw Gordie Howe win 4 scoring titles in a row (which nobody has done now for 19 years) with 33% more points than the second-best guy, and 46% more points than the next guy who wasn't his linemate. The same holds true of Bobby Hull's goals' domination in the mid-1960s... but it isn't fantastically greater than, say, Ovechkin's goals-domination in select seasons of his career.

Even in the first half of the 1980s (1980-81 to 1984-85), if we remove Gretzky the scoring domination by leading players isn't any greater than today's scoring domination. Here's how it was then...
619
591
577
514
513

And here's how it's been the past five years (counting this season, so these raw numbers will get a bit higher 20 games from now):
458
456
454
409
404

The raw numbers are higher in that very-high scoring period of 1980-1985, but the degree of peer domination looks to me almost exactly the same... as long as we remove Gretzky from the numbers.

**********

So, then, why does it indeed seem harder for today's players to dominate at the levels players of the past could, occasionally? I think the answer is less to do with scoring levels and more to do with the revenue-sharing NHL, and the big-business the League is today. The salary-cap means there's a certain talent-leveling off across all teams. The better-managed teams will still get the better talent through development, but not to the degree they did in the past. Like, Edmonton was an extremely well-managed team in the 1980s (despite its horrendous drafts post-1981), while a team like Hartford or Vancouver or Los Angeles had extremely incompetent management for a decade or more, to a degree that would never occur today. Or, look at Montreal's system of player-development from the 1940s through 1970s -- it was heads-and-shoulders better than any other franchise's system, and that's exactly why Montreal dominated the League to an unprecedented degree in those years. Compare with the management of a club like Chicago in those years, or, obviously, the unstable franchises of the 1970s like California or Cleveland.

And why did this across-the-board organizational competence level improve so much after the mid-80s or so, continuing to the millennial era? Answer: money. There is so much more money at stake now -- for players, coaches, management, investors, team-owners -- than at any time before the 1990s, that franchises cannot afford to be incompetent (which they could before -- the Maple Leafs were an incompetent franchise in the 1980s, often playing at AHL level, but sold out the building every night and probably generated more revenue than any other club). Not every team had that luxury -- the Canucks of the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s frequently failed to sell out the building, but since there was no revenue-sharing, nobody cared, as long as the franchise paid its dues and went to the meetings. That can't happen today. Teams have to be competitive to survive, so they can't afford to be incompetent.

So, I think that's why it's "visually" difficult to see players dominate as much today as in the past, and perhaps why it actually is more difficult. Although, as shown above, I don't think scoring levels have much to do with it. There are other reasons.

You make some good points, but you also did some world class cherry-picking.

From 80-81 to 92-93 (13 full seasons), there were 158 one hundred point seasons. There were 97 fifty goal seasons.

From 05-06 through 18-19 (13 full seasons), there were 37 one hundred point seasons. There were 22 fifty goal seasons.

^^^ They are not the same.

What is motivating you to wildly misrepresent the truth?

 

[Midnight Judges]

The facts are Crosby is lacking nothing on his playoff resume that makes on question his stature as the best playoff performer of his era....

Crosby has only led his team in points in the playoffs 4 times in 12 appearances. There are other contemporary players who have greater dominance in this regard. For example Ovechkin has led his team in points 8 times in 11 appearances.

Ovechkin also has a far superior playoff goals per game, equaling Crosby's production in 36 fewer games.

Crosby also has poor point production in the finals - a paltry 4 goals in 25 games and well under a PPG, whereas Ovechkin is a point per game in the finals with .6 GPG.

If anyone is going to be noted as the biggest "winner" of his era, and deservedly placed with other noted "winners" among the all-time greats, Crosby is easily the most deserving of that title. He has the offensive resume to back this up along with a very good 2-way game and leadership qualities.

This is just plain false. Crosby's defensive statistics in the playoffs are downright pathetic. Sidney Crosby is easily among the very worst defensive playoff performers of this generation:

09/10 through 18/19 Playoffs
Player	Crosby	Bergeron	Ovechkin	Toews	Kopitar	Datsyuk
EV GA	98	58	76	70	36	27
EV TOI	1912	1789	1768	1900	1293	931
Total EV GA/60	3.075	1.945	2.579	2.211	1.671	1.740

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[tony d]

Yes, his injuries from 2011-2013 really impacted him. The guy's still the best player in the league right now but you got to wonder how many more points he would have had had he not been injured from 2011-2013.