Both of them include the playoffs, so I'm not going to pick against the guy with an absurd amount of playoff success coming off a playoff run with 21 points in 12 games.
This is a classic "mystery box" question. You know Crosby is amazing in the playoffs, McDavid might be as good (or better) than Crosby in the playoffs. If your team is good, whether you have McDavid or Crosby for the regular season won't matter that much. In the playoffs, it doesn't make sense to take an unproven guy over an elite proven guy.
But at the same time, is it fair to discount the “unproven” guy? It’s not that he hasn’t proved anything, he just hasn’t had a solid team around him overall to challenge for the playoffs and gain more experience.
We aren’t talking about Stamkos here who has consistently underachieved in the playoffs despite having one of the top teams in the league with some of the top teammates. McDavid is doing the most with much less, especially compared to Crosby.
Crosby is an obvious proven playoff performer, so naturally your going to pick him. But the logic behind it falls short when your using it against McDavid. It’s not his fault he hasn’t made more runs.
6 games, 0 goals, 4 assists.....a negative player through out most of the series....what’s impressive about that? Enlighten me?
Or is it because it’s Crosby, he does nothing wrong
0 goals apparently is ok for the best player in the world and playoff MVP. I’m sure if Ovechkin played how he did and won the snythe, A lot of Pens fans would have a field day.