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

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

Abou4 300 points missing imo.

Lack of individual awards?

2 Art Ross Trophies
2 Hart
2 Richard
2 Conn Smythe
3 Lindsay

 

[Melrose Munch]

Lack of individual awards?

2 Art Ross Trophies
2 Hart
2 Richard
2 Conn Smythe
3 Lindsay

He should have 4 harts and 4 Art Rosses.

 

[Midnight Judges]

He should have 4 harts and 4 Art Rosses.

Actually Crosby is lucky to have the Harts he's got.

His 2007 season was preceded by Jagr having a superior season in 06 and succeeded by Ovechkin having a superior season in 08.

His 2014 season was vastly inferior to Malkin's 2012 or Kane's 2016.

Sid could very easily have zero Harts.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He should have 4 harts and 4 Art Rosses.

Why is that?

 

[Melrose Munch]

Why is that?

Because he was injured the years he was the best player.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Actually Crosby is lucky to have the Harts he's got.

His 2007 season was preceded by Jagr having a superior season in 06 and succeeded by Ovechkin having a superior season in 08.

His 2014 season was vastly inferior to Malkin's 2012 or Kane's 2016.

Sid could very easily have zero Harts.

That's a stretch.

He won both Hart trophies by a landslide.

 

[MXD]

Why is that?

Injuries, I suppose.
I mean, Crosby DID win the Pearson in 2013, so saying he should've won the Hart isn't a complete stretch (and is also partially due to injuries).

Other than that, his best case might've been 2010 (despite finishing 3rd) or 2016, but neither strike me as a situation where Crosby should've won. He could have won? Sure. But he absolutely didn't get the award stolen from him.

So, it can be either.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Because he was injured the years he was the best players.

OK, I got it now.

Disappointing because of injuries.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Injuries, I suppose.
I mean, Crosby DID win the Pearson in 2013, so saying he should've won the Hart isn't a complete stretch (and is also partially due to injuries).

Other than that, his best case might've been 2010 (despite finishing 3rd) or 2016.

So, it can be either.

As usual, I'm late to the party.

I get it now.

 

[Midnight Judges]

That's a stretch.

He won both Hart trophies by a landslide.

Neither of those two seasons are anywhere near being among the best of the past 15 years.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I can't imagine anyone does more for Crosby's stature here than MJ...what an amazing reverse hatchet job he routinely engages in...

 

[Midnight Judges]

I can't imagine anyone does more for Crosby's stature here than MJ...what an amazing reverse hatchet job he routinely engages in...

You type lies sometimes in efforts to further Crosby or slander Ovechkin.

I know it. You know it. Doesn't really matter if others know it. It is our little understanding.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, now the cats out of the bag...way to go...

 

[scott clam]

Only disappointment seems to be that he got injured/sick at the worst times. With regards to his trophy case anyways.

Rating players based on how many awards they have is shallow analysis anyways.

 

[shello]

He's one of the best to ever do it. The only disappointing thing about his career imo is his injuries

 

[bobbyking]

Injuries, I suppose.
I mean, Crosby DID win the Pearson in 2013, so saying he should've won the Hart isn't a complete stretch (and is also partially due to injuries).

Other than that, his best case might've been 2010 (despite finishing 3rd) or 2016, but neither strike me as a situation where Crosby should've won. He could have won? Sure. But he absolutely didn't get the award stolen from him.

So, it can be either.

2010 and 2012 he was a runaway for the hart and Ross, very strong possibility of the 2010 rocket as well. this is not the same Crosby we've seen since 2014 or 2015 were he was clearly a step slower and still won the Ross by 20 even though the competion was weak. injuries literally coincided with his absolute peak. sort of how lafleur had a ridiculous 5 or 6 year run. in 2012 he could've won the Ross on assists alone. 2010 he was leading the Ross by 11 at game 41 which is very impressive considering the gpg was probably 5.25

 

[blogofmike]

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

It's also strange that Pittsburgh is good and Crosby is almost at the bottom of his team at - 6. Same with Ovechkin at a -14 at the bottom of the Caps who are also good.

 

[PurpleMouse]

Crosby is the rare case of someone who, depending on your perspective, is at the same time a living legend, a top 5 player of all time yet still somewhat fell short of the absolute highest expectations.

That sounds ridiculous to say, but the hype around Crosby was that he could be Gretzky-esque, ie, the world's best player by a wide margin.

There's no question that Crosby has been the best player in the world at different points of his career... but he was never way ahead of the pack, never truly in a league of his own, which some people may have expected based on the hype. He may have got there if not for the injury in the 2010-11 season because he was leading the scoring race by a ridiculous margin when he was hurt if I recall correctly.

 

[The Panther]

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.

How many 100-point seasons there are has absolutely nothing to do with degree of scoring domination.

What is motivating you to wildly misrepresent the truth?

Give an example of how I misrepresented the truth.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I don’t like to use the word disappointment after a career like Crosby’s. But his first 2 years weren’t all that far off of Wayne and Mario’s first 2 seasons. It really amazes me any 18 year old can come in and dominate a game played by mid to late 20’s men who have 7-10 years of NHL experience. I really thought Crosby would hit another gear after his 2nd year and we would be looking at 6-8 years of 130-150 points.

He did hit that gear. It was just ravished by injuries.

 

[Boxscore]

There's no question that Crosby has been the best player in the world at different points of his career... but he was never way ahead of the pack, never truly in a league of his own, which some people may have expected based on the hype.

This is it.

And, other than Eric Lindros, I've never seen a superstar in the NHL as polarizing as Sid. You have the group who think he's undoubtedly the greatest (and a Gretzky rival) and you have the group that just don't like him (and think he's severely overrated). When you look at the other all-time greats, there's usually more of a "general consensus" or atleast a "universal respect." I mean, some fans in Calgary probably couldn't stand Gretzky, yet they all probably loved him as a player when push came to shove--and regardless of who you cheered for--you agreed that Gretzky was the greatest. There was no debate. Same with guys like Orr, Mario... and I'm sure Hull Sr., Beliveau and Howe back in the day. Even Ovechkin is universally regarded as one of the greatest (or "the greatest") goalscorers of all-time by fans. With Sid I've found there is definitely more gray area, especially until recent.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Babe Ruth is a poor comparison as he played in a segregated league and his record in the exhibition games against touring black teams wasn't all that great.

Also his dominance in HR's is exaggerated as some of the top players of the time period preferred to hit for average instead of the deep ball.

Don't get me wrong Ruth was a great player just not as iconic as his legend would have it.

 

[Midnight Judges]

How many 100-point seasons there are has absolutely nothing to do with degree of scoring domination.

Give an example of how I misrepresented the truth.

You selected the seasons with the fewest 100 point scorers from the high scoring era and selected the seasons with the most 100 point scorers from the low scoring modern era.

Then you concluded with "Not seeing any differences here..."

 

[The Panther]

You selected the seasons with the fewest 100 point scorers from the high scoring era and selected the seasons with the most 100 point scorers from the low scoring modern era.

No, I didn't. I picked some seasons from different eras of the past (I didn't check how many 100 point scorers there were in any of those seasons, because, as I already explained, that's entirely irrelevant to our discussion) to show that the degree of separation between today's top-five scorers and the top-five scorers of different periods of the past is very comparable. The reason I did this is to suggest that higher-scoring eras don't necessarily means it's easier for players to dominate scoring.

Let me simplify it for you, since I suspect you're still confused. Let's say in Season A, goals-per-game was 13 and the top-five scorers had 350, 341, 325, 315, and 306 points. Then, in Season B, goals-per-game was 5, and the top-five scorers had 90, 87, 85, 81, and 79 points. So, my point is, if this were the case (of say, historically high-scoring season finishes and historically low-scoring season finishes, respectively), it would show that higher-scoring eras aren't necessarily easier for players to dominate scoring in.

Do you get it now, at last?

 

[MXD]

2010 and 2012 he was a runaway for the hart and Ross, very strong possibility of the 2010 rocket as well. this is not the same Crosby we've seen since 2014 or 2015 were he was clearly a step slower and still won the Ross by 20 even though the competion was weak. injuries literally coincided with his absolute peak. sort of how lafleur had a ridiculous 5 or 6 year run. in 2012 he could've won the Ross on assists alone. 2010 he was leading the Ross by 11 at game 41 which is very impressive considering the gpg was probably 5.25

First of all, you're surely talking about 2011, as opposed to 2010, as Crosby did play a full season (81 games) in 2010 (well, 09-10), and did win the Rocket as well.

Second, while this is Sidney Crosby, a player with an established track record of offensive consistency, we really can't assume for as many games as a half-season (2011), let alone two-thirds of a season (2012), especially since those two seasons would've been career years had he kept the same pace.