Orr says Crosby is a top-5 player of all time, McDavid has the potential to be the best ever

[Scandale du Jour]

Trophy cases? Where each finished each season they didn't win a trophy?

All you did was compare career PPG and say "here's proof" without additional information/context.

To be fair to him, I am the one who said Forsberg was not close to Crosby at all.

He said yes and provided career PPG and adjusted career PPG to show it was close. I argued it was not close and provided much more info.

He said he was not trying to evaluate full careers, but peak ability and he thinks Forsberg's peak ability are at least very close to Crosby's if not better. That's honestly a defensible position. Career-wise, no argument though.

 

[bobholly39]

That there are reasons why some people downplay Gretzky's accomplishments.

Fourth best point total in the 1990s, but its not much of an accomplishment when the opponents are scoring even more when Gretzky is on the ice.

Greatest offensive player ever. Not the greatest player.

From age 18 to 27:

Gretzky + 553, Orr + 574

Seems pretty comparable to me. If you want to focus on best 5 consecutive years, it's even advantage Gretzky:

82-86 Gretzky is + 459, Orr is + 426 from 71 to 75 (or +400 if you go 70-74)

 

[The S5]

Not sure if sarcastic, but the difference between "best" and "greatest" is pretty important. Lots of people think Mario was better but Wayne was greater.

Dripping in sarcasm.
What separates greatest from best ever?
FWIW, Gretzky was the best ever and greatest and any other accolade you want to add.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Dripping in sarcasm.
What separates greatest from best ever?
FWIW, Gretzky was the best ever and greatest and any other accolade you want to add.

Player A can be a better hockey player than Player B. But if Player A is always injured, plays on a terrible team, and never really wins anything, whereas Player B is always healthy, plays on a great team, and wins a lot more hardware, it is completely reasonable to say Player B was the greater player.

Whether Gretzky was better than Lemieux is a matter of subjective opinion. Gretzky being greater than Lemieux is a consensus truth.

 

[nowhereman]

He is if you have any hockey knowledge. I would take Forsberg any day of the week before Crosby. He was as great in more difficult times to play hockey. He was the full package as far as grit and skills. Forsberg was a gamer and a beast in the playoffs. He was stronger and more creative than Crosby. In 2009, when the Pens won the Cup, it was all Gino. In the Vancouver Olympics when he scored the golden goal, the rest of the tournament, Sid had been invisible. Sid won his last two cups, it was probably the least he had to work to get them, problably the easiest times to play hockey in history.

This post is all kinds of dumb and one of the more uninformed rants I've ever read on this forum, almost to the point where I question if you even watch or follow hockey.

 

[strattonius]

I don't know what is happening (I'm too lazy to read back). But this isn't an arguable point at all.
Forsberg is significantly better defensively than Crosby has ever dreamed of being

Disagree. Crosby's defensive game is what won his 2nd Conn Smythe over Malkin and Letang. It was simply impossible to gloss over the fact that Crosby was matching up against the top lines night in and night out and still producing a ppg.

Crosby's two way game is what separates himself from a guy like Ovechkin.

 

[M88K]

Disagree. Crosby's defensive game is what won his 2nd Conn Smythe over Malkin and Letang. It was simply impossible to gloss over the fact that Crosby was matching up against the top lines night in and night out and still producing a ppg.

Crosby's two way game is what separates himself from a guy like Ovechkin.

When compared to Ovechkin sure but forsberg? No way.
Anyone who thinks Crosby is at a similar level of forsberg defensively either never watched forsberg or is severely overrating Crosby's prowess

 

[strattonius]

When compared to Ovechkin sure but forsberg? No way.
Anyone who thinks Crosby is at a similar level of forsberg defensively either never watched forsberg or is severely overeating Crosby's prowess

"hey you disagree with me therefore you never watched Forsberg play"...that's almost as bad as 'you're over-rating Crosby'

Do you have any facts that support Forsberg's supposed superior defensive play? Because all we have at this point is 'you must not watch' when anyone thinks to refute your point.

 

[Kimota]

This post is all kinds of dumb and one of the more uninformed rants I've ever read on this forum, almost to the point where I question if you even watch or follow hockey.

Right back at you. Those 09 series was pretty much Gino. Especially the final. I remember commentators plainly mentioning that Sid was invisible. Also hockey in the last few years has been far easier to play than everybody. So someone like Sid who used to have a harder time, I think it has been far easier for him. No one can dispute that hockey is easier to play now without all the hitting and intimidation. The Pens teams from 09 would cream the two Pens teams that recently won the cups.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That’s kind of what happens when said player plays almost as many games as Orr and Lemieux combined.

It’s not a coincidence that at 30.5 years old and just before the beginning of the 1991-1992 season, Gretzky was +606 in 935 regular season games. Cue the Suter hit. No more 40+ goal seasons, 2.0+ ppg and -86 over his final 552 NHL games. It’s not a coincidence and yes, it is an accomplishment to still score as much as he did with a hit that negatively transformed him, the natural effects of being on the wrong side of 30 and actually playing the games.

I’m guessing you’re talking about Orr? Trust me, if he played more than 36 games past the age of 26, some of his mystique in the plus/minus department would have rubbed off as well.

Lemieux also only played a grand total 328 games past the age of 27 and cumulatively was + 7 (-43 in his last 103 games).

No slight on them, plus/minus isn’t exactly an argument I like having, but it’s ludicrous to cite Gretzky’s after the Suter hit as some sort of hidden proof that he was actually not as great as he was from 1979-1991.

It is a huge accomplishment to be where he was in his career and finish out the 90s way up there in scoring.

Yes, age is a factor.

So why the Suter hit excuse? Orr had his first knee surgery his rookie season (age 18). Gordie Howe had a fractured skull, broken nose and cheekbone when he fell head first into the boards when he was 21. Mario had a back surgery when he was 24. Almost everyone who played past 30 had injuries.

Actually, I rank Orr and Howe ahead of Gretzky. And I can claim just as easily that if Orr was healthy enough to play into his 30s there is no way he would have been a minus player.

Again, I'd rank Gretzky as the greatest offensive player ever. But the second half of his career was not a great accomplishment when his teams were bleeding goals with him on the ice. As the numbers show, of the top 70 scorers on the 90s, his plus/minus ranks 68th among them.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

From age 18 to 27:

Gretzky + 553, Orr + 574

Seems pretty comparable to me. If you want to focus on best 5 consecutive years, it's even advantage Gretzky:

82-86 Gretzky is + 459, Orr is + 426 from 71 to 75 (or +400 if you go 70-74)

It is comparable.

But I was responding to someone who used Gretzky's scoring totals (4th) in the 90s as a great accomplishment. Being a -56 in that time period makes it not so great, at least to me.

Did I mention Orr in my original post?

 

[nowhereman]

Right back at you. Those 09 series was pretty much Gino. Especially the final. I remember commentators plainly mentioning that Sid was invisible. Also hockey in the last few years has been far easier to play than everybody. So someone like Sid who used to have a harder time, I think it has been far easier for him. No one can dispute that hockey is easier to play now without all the hitting and intimidation. The Pens teams from 09 would cream the two Pens teams that recently won the cups.

There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, you don't score 15 goals and put up 31 points in a playoff run while being a passenger. Hell, the Penguins don't even get out of the second round that year, if Crosby doesn't go God-mode against the Capitals. Crosby didn't put up big numbers in the Finals because he was matched up against Zetterberg, Lidstrom and Rafalski, while Malkin took on inferior match-ups (including an injured Datsyuk). But, based on adjusted stats, that post-season is the second most impressive offensive playoff run in the last 20 years (and probably only behind Malkin, Thomas and Giguere overall). And that's not really up for debate, given what the Penguins had to work with in 2009.

Which brings me to your concept that the 2009 Penguins would somehow "cream" the last two Cup-winning rosters. In 2009, Crosby and Malkin more than doubled the production of the third/fourth highest scoring player on that roster, Ruslan Fedetenko and 39 year old Bill Guerin. Crosby, himself, was lined up with Guerin and Chris Kunitz, neither of whom would be first liners on a contender. Their two best defenders were an aging, past-his-prime Gonchar and a sophomore Kris Letang (who was still several years away from becoming a #1 defender). The rest of the team was all depth players and journeymen. It's probably one of the more underwhelming Cup-winning rosters in recent memory. The reason the Penguins had success in the mid-2010s was because they finally had the depth to insulate Crosby and Malkin. The 2009 Penguins would only be able to compete with the 2016 and 2017 versions of the Penguins because of a prime Crosby/Malkin.

And where are you getting this notion that hockey is easier to play than it was 10 years ago? Or that Crosby used to have a "harder time", even though he tore the league a new one in his early days and captained his team to multiple Finals? Scoring was actually lower when the Penguins won their back-to-back Cups than it was in 2009.

Honestly, you're just so offbase that it's kind of odd...

 

[Gurglesons]

There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, you don't score 15 goals and put up 31 points in a playoff run while being a passenger. Hell, the Penguins don't even get out of the second round that year, if Crosby doesn't go God-mode against the Capitals. Crosby didn't put up big numbers in the Finals because he was matched up against Zetterberg, Lidstrom and Rafalski, while Malkin took on inferior match-ups (including an injured Datsyuk). But, based on adjusted stats, that post-season is the second most impressive offensive playoff run in the last 20 years (and probably only behind Malkin, Thomas and Giguere overall). And that's not really up for debate, given what the Penguins had to work with in 2009.

Which brings me to your concept that the 2009 Penguins would somehow "cream" the last two Cup-winning rosters. In 2009, Crosby and Malkin more than doubled the production of the third/fourth highest scoring player on that roster, which was a two-way tie between Ruslan Fedetenko and 39 year old Bill Guerin. Crosby, himself, was lined up with Pascal Dupuis and Chris Kunitz, neither of whom would be first liners on a contender (Dupuis might not even be a 2nd liner on some teams). Their two best defenders were an aging, past-his-prime Gonchar and a sophomore Kris Letang (who was still several years away from becoming a #1 defender). The rest of the team was all depth players and journeymen. It's probably one of the more underwhelming Cup-winning rosters in recent memory. The reason the Penguins had success in the mid-2010s was because they finally had the depth to insulate Crosby and Malkin. The 2009 Penguins would only be able to compete with the 2016 and 2017 versions of the Penguins because of a prime Crosby/Malkin.

And where are you getting this notion that hockey is easier play than it was 10 years ago? Or that Crosby used to have a "harder time", even though he tore the league a new one in his early days and captained his team to multiple Finals? Scoring was actually lower when the Penguins won their back-to-back Cups than it was in 2009.

Honestly, you're just so offbase that it's kind of odd...

All this is true. Just two things.

# 1 Crosby had a huge impact on G3 and G4 in the SCF. Malkin was involved more in G7 (when Crosby was hurt), but Crosby was involved in the GWGs in both G3 and G4. This was a huge deal as a Pens fan for that squad because they almost went down the same way they did the year before. Crosby's goal in G4 I'd argue was the turning point in the series although I think you could go with Malkin's fight or Staal's SH.

# 2. Top line was Kunitz - Crosby - Guerin. Dupuis was somewhere on L4 if playing in 09. He was with Crosby in 08 tho' with Hossa.

 

[Minar]

Yes, age is a factor.

So why the Suter hit excuse? Orr had his first knee surgery his rookie season (age 18). Gordie Howe had a fractured skull, broken nose and cheekbone when he fell head first into the boards when he was 21. Mario had a back surgery when he was 24. Almost everyone who played past 30 had injuries.

Actually, I rank Orr and Howe ahead of Gretzky. And I can claim just as easily that if Orr was healthy enough to play into his 30s there is no way he would have been a minus player.

Again, I'd rank Gretzky as the greatest offensive player ever. But the second half of his career was not a great accomplishment when his teams were bleeding goals with him on the ice. As the numbers show, of the top 70 scorers on the 90s, his plus/minus ranks 68th among them.

Gretzky had 8 seasons where he was a minus player. Lemieux had 7. Gretzky played more seasons and many more games. I don't think these stats take much away from them as players. It just shows that injuries, age and not always having good supporting casts play a factor. Some of those LA King teams of the mid 90s were notorious for being horrid at defense.

 

[nowhereman]

All this is true. Just two things.

# 1 Crosby had a huge impact on G3 and G4 in the SCF. Malkin was involved more in G7 (when Crosby was hurt), but Crosby was involved in the GWGs in both G3 and G4. This was a huge deal as a Pens fan for that squad because they almost went down the same way they did the year before. Crosby's goal in G4 I'd argue was the turning point in the series although I think you could go with Malkin's fight or Staal's SH.

# 2. Top line was Kunitz - Crosby - Guerin. Dupuis was somewhere on L4 if playing in 09. He was with Crosby in 08 tho' with Hossa.

Ahh, yes, good catch on Dupuis. If anything, it makes Crosby (and Malkin) look even better, in that their linemates only finished 3rd and 4th because of who they were playing with (Guerin had more points in 2009 than in his 5 previous trips to the playoffs combined).

I think it's easy to say Crosby didn't show up in the SCF, if all you're doing is stat-watching, but he was massive for the Pens the entire playoffs. The offense wasn't coming as easily in the Finals but it came at key times and he was playing in every situation: penalty kill, last minute of the game, took all of the important draws, etc.

 

[Hank Plank]

Isn't Kane balding?

Like Michael Bolton, Kane is bald and has a full head of hair at the same time.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Crosby seemed to love finishing third in scoring (4 times) while mcdavid looks to be developing a home with second place.