So uh.. this year Crosby put himself in elite company..

[Heat McManus]

22 actually....he'll be 23 on August 7th.

damnit!

 

[Trottier]

I've been saying it for awhile now; anyone who has watched the kid the past two post-seasons and doesn't think he is the greatest player in the world is watching the wrong sport.

Not even disputable for me and hasn't been for some time. I tend to keep that opinion to myself on the main board, where flash, "personality," and goal scoring alone trump a supremely cerebral and complete game.

All of the individual milestones cited here are exceedingly impressive. More impressive: they have led to team success. The guy is a leader and winner. He is the best player on the best teams...at a ridiculously young age. That is the highest achievement and compliment.

As a sidenote: the Espo/leech idea is misguided, to be kind.

 

[Jedi Pengu*]

He's definitely already elite. On pace to be 2nd ALL-TIME in points. If he can stay healthy, he'll break into the Top 3 in my opinion.

1. Lemieux = Gretzky = Crosby = Orr
2. Everyone else.......

 

[Hyperkookeez*]

What Crosby wouldn't give to have Shutt and Lemaire to work with instead of Kunitz and Guerin. Not that Kunitz hasn't been an asset to the line.

The only star player in the league that has less to work with at even strength is Malkin.

And Iginla, although I'm not sure if people around here still consider him a star or not

As for OP, Crosby's been in elite company for a while now

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with one of the top 5 careers for a forward.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

On pace to be 2nd ALL-TIME in points.

Can we see the calculations behind this claim?

 

[lextune]

He's definitely already elite. On pace to be 2nd ALL-TIME in points. If he can stay healthy, he'll break into the Top 3 in my opinion.

1. Lemieux = Gretzky = Crosby = Orr
2. Everyone else.......

Gordie Howe says hi.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I've been saying it for awhile now; anyone who has watched the kid the past two post-seasons and doesn't think he is the greatest player in the world is watching the wrong sport.

Full agreement here. The whole way Crosby carries himself, the way he thinks the game, and the way he elevates the other 22 guys on the roster and leads them to glory is downright Gretzky-like. Obviously he's a far cry from #99 (like pretty much every other player in history), but I can't help but note the similarities. I think at the worst Crosby projects to have a Sakic/Yzerman-like career, and it's not out of the question that he could find himself in that Beliveau/Mikita territory when it's all said and done.

 

[matnor]

In my opinion if everything goes his way he may very well be a top 10 player all time when all is said and done. Just look at his ppg finishes his first five years in the league: 6,1,2,3,4. His worst ppg finish is 6th (in his rookie season). Only Wayne Gretzky (1,1,1,1,1) and Syl Apps (sr) (3,2,4,1,2) has a more consistent record. Notable players he beats are

Lemieux (9,2,2,2,1)
Beliveau (6,3,1,2,7)
Morenz (9,4,6,4,1)
Richard (Maurice) (18,2,9,2,2)
Lindros (23,4,1,3,2)
Ovechkin (5,16,1,1,1)
Bossy (6,4,15,7,2)
Stastny (8,3,2,7,11)
Forsberg (18,6,6,3,5)

Some all-time greats with a significantly slower starts

Hull (Bobby) (23,26,4,14,1)
Orr (24,46,15,1,2)
Howe (58,17,4,3,1)
Mikita (62,16,3,2,1)
Lafleur (28,56,50,1,2)

Obviously we can't expect him to beat out players such as Orr and Howe over his career but his start is truly impressive.

Not even disputable for me and hasn't been for some time. I tend to keep that opinion to myself on the main board, where flash, "personality," and goal scoring alone trump a supremely cerebral and complete game.

All of the individual milestones cited here are exceedingly impressive. More impressive: they have led to team success. The guy is a leader and winner. He is the best player on the best teams...at a ridiculously young age. That is the highest achievement and compliment.

Let's not start a comparison with that "other flashy guy" as we see way to many of those but I'm not too comfortable to rely so much on a few single games to determine if a player is great. Even great players can have poor games once in a while and let's say, for instance, that Pittsburgh had lost game 7 in the quarter finals last year. Would that really have made Crosby a lesser player? While great players elevate their game in important situations on average that may not be true for any particular game. The truth is that previous regular season performance is a better predictor of playoff performance then previous playoff performance (I can show you some numbers of that if you like). Not because those games are more important but because there are so many more games that can be used to evaluate a player. When we have an entire career we may be able to say that a player like Dionne is a poor clutch performer and that a player like Roy is the opposite but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on clutch performance after just a few seasons. In my opinion Crosby is a great player because he is great in the regular season and playoffs, not because he is clutch or a great leader. However, I'm sure you have a different opinion so I guess we have to agree to disagree

 

[Trottier]

However, I'm sure you have a different opinion so I guess we have to agree to disagree

I take a player's entire body of work into consideration.

The very best excel in the regular season...and then are even larger when the GAMES MATTER MOST. Not all do both. Crosby is doing so at a very young age.

If he were simply accumulating regular season points at a wicked pace and not winning anything, some might be equally impressed. Not me. He's scoring...and leading...and his team is winning. Which ultimately, is why an NHL hockey player exists: To help win.

The great ones disproportionaltely contribute to their team's success.

***
Likewise, the numerical listing in your previous posts suggests that personal offensive points (ppg) alone determine the greatest players of alltime. I respectfully disagree.

 

[matnor]

I take a player's entire body of work into consideration.

The very best excel in the regular season...and then are even larger when the GAMES MATTER MOST. Not all do.

Crosby is a leader. If he were simply accumulating regular season points at a wicked pace and not winning anything, you might be equally impressed. Not me. He'ds scorong...and leading and his team is winning. Which ultimately, is why an NHL hockey player exists: To help win.

Likewise, your numerical listing in your previous posts suggests that personal offensive points (ppg) alone determine the greatest players of alltime. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that offensive points single-handedly determine greatness. I just put them there to put his first seasons in a historical context. However, I have been watching Crosby during the last seasons playoffs and to me he has been about as good as he is during the regular season. He had a absolutely fantastic second round against Washington last year (so had the flashy player too) and has been on fire against Ottawa this season. He also had two sub-par series versus Detroit in the last two Stanley Cup finals. Taken together with the rest of his playoff career I say he has been about as good in the postseason as in the regular season. He has been the biggest factor (together with Malkin) for the success of Pittsburgh but he hasn't single-handedly given them the cup. If the evaluation of him as a player rests largely on his team beating Washington in game 7 than I think you put too much emphasis on a single game.

 

[Giroux tha Damaja]

As a Flyer fan I am so tired of this kid. I always root against him and hope for him to stumble and he always lets me down. It's exhausting rooting against somebody like him it really is. Anymore I just shake my head and mutter "f***n' Crosby".

 

[Trottier]

No, I don't mean that offensive points single-handedly determine greatness. I just put them there to put his first seasons in a historical context. However, I have been watching Crosby during the last seasons playoffs and to me he has been about as good as he is during the regular season.

And for me, a player who excels (dominates) in the postseason is a player producing in the greatest caliber of hockey on earth...greater than the regular season. To be sure, the stat folks will talk about larger sample size (82 games), and I do not discount that; it's not an "either/or" proposition. However, I do not equate postseason games with regular season games. As such, I'm more impressed with a player who can maintain (or better yet, exceed) his regular season level of play come the playoffs.

He had a absolutely fantastic second round against Washington last year (so had the flashy player too) and has been on fire against Ottawa this season. He also had two sub-par series versus Detroit in the last two Stanley Cup finals. Taken together with the rest of his playoff career I say he has been about as good in the postseason as in the regular season. He has been the biggest factor (together with Malkin) for the success of Pittsburgh but he hasn't single-handedly given them the cup. If the evaluation of him as a player rests largely on his team beating Washington in game 7 than I think you put too much emphasis on a single game.

First, no player "single-handedly" carries a team for two months in spring and we realllly do not need to fall into that silly main board meme about "he has good players around him." Of course he does.

As for the flashy guy: it's a zero sum game. Last spring, one guy had a great series and his team won. The other had a great series and his team lost. That is all that matters to me.

I'm not emphasizing any one game. #87 has led his Pens team to two straight Cup Finals, by virtue of his play over the last two seasons...at age 22! He may do same again this spring, on the heels of a superb regular season. That's impressive enough for me.

 

[matnor]

And for me, a player who excels (dominates) in the postseason is a player producing in the greatest caliber of hockey on earth...greater than the regular season. To be sure, the stat folks will talk about larger sample size (82 games), and I do not discount that; it's not an "either/or" proposition. However, I do not equate postseason games with regular season games. As such, I'm more impressed with a player who can maintain (or better yet, exceed) his regular season level of play come the playoffs.

Oh, let me be absolutely clear, I also value postseason games over regular season games. All I'm saying is regular season performance tend to be a better predictor of how you perform in the postseason because there is so much more games you can get information from. However, some players play a game which may be unsuitable for the postseason but give them a lot of points in the regular season and their contributions should be weighed down accordingly.

First, no player "single-handedly" carries a team for two months in spring and we realllly do not need to fall into that silly main board meme about "he has good players around him." Of course he does.

As for the flashy guy: it's a zero sum game. Last spring, one guy had a great series and his team won. The other had a great series and his team lost. That is all that matters to me.

Well, I think you put too much emphasis on how the team plays instead on how the individual player plays here.

I'm not emphasizing any one game. #87 has led his Pens team to two straight Cup Finals, by virtue of his play over the last two seasons. He may do same again this spring. That's impressive enough for me.

That's true and that is definately something that is to his advantage. I just don't think he raised his game. It was more a case of him playing at the ridiculously high level that he plays in both the regular season and playoffs. What we can say is that he definately isn't the type of guy who disappears in the playoffs.

 

[LaFan1967]

Being ahead of one's peer's seperates the truly " Elite " .

Crosby hasn't matched that yet. When Gretzy and Lemieux led the league there was no question who was the best . Crosby has OV - Malkin - Sedin - Stamkos being
considered his equal in some circles . Until he can pull away he'll allways be a step
below them .

 

[SidGenoMario]

Being ahead of one's peer's seperates the truly " Elite " .

Crosby hasn't matched that yet. When Gretzy and Lemieux led the league there was no question who was the best . Crosby has OV - Malkin - Sedin - Stamkos being
considered his equal in some circles . Until he can pull away he'll allways be a step
below them .

Everyone here knows he's a step below them. He'll always be a step below them. That's not a knock against him, that's a complement. Being just a step below some of the most dominant athletes in sports history is quite a complement. And no one with half a mind considers Sedin or Stamkos to be near Crosby. Malkin on some nights, maybe.

When it's all said and done, Crosby & Ovechkin will both be considered legends, and just because 2 generational talents stepped into the frame at the same time and stole awards & #1 finishes away from each other, doesn't diminish their achievements.

 

[Big Phil]

Well, I think you put too much emphasis on how the team plays instead on how the individual player plays here.

Game #7 in Washington last year. The ultimate Crosby vs. Ovechkin showdown. Ovechkin is stopped on a breakaway. Crosby scores on the powerplay early. He sets up Letang for a 3-0 lead. Ovechkin finally scores when the game is out of reach to make it 5-1. Later Crosby steals the puck from Ovy and goes in and scores on a breakaway against Theodore. 6-2 final.

Same can be said for the Olympics. You know you are a great player when you score 7 points in as many games and people consider it to be ordinary. And then the gold medal game, the true clutch players come through. Until we stop seeing Crosby constantly step up when the games matter most then I'll stop emphasizing it

 

[Big Phil]

Everyone here knows he's a step below them. He'll always be a step below them. That's not a knock against him, that's a complement. Being just a step below some of the most dominant athletes in sports history is quite a complement. And no one with half a mind considers Sedin or Stamkos to be near Crosby. Malkin on some nights, maybe.

When it's all said and done, Crosby & Ovechkin will both be considered legends, and just because 2 generational talents stepped into the frame at the same time and stole awards & #1 finishes away from each other, doesn't diminish their achievements.

Agreed with that. Stamkos is a fine talent and will have a great career but he's a sophomore and has a lot of ground to make up to round his game. Sedin outpointed Crosby for the first time in his life in the regular season. That's fine, but all around no one in the NHL would pass Crosby to take him and the postseason is another example of how much better Crosby is than Sedin.

Malkin I will agree with. If he wants to, he can be downright dominant. He suffers from consistency issues at times which makes him less valuable than Crosby game in and game out

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

And Iginla, although I'm not sure if people around here still consider him a star or not

As for OP, Crosby's been in elite company for a while now

Short tourney. He's played with Hossa too, but again, that's hardly a season-long thing where chemistry can be established.

 

[Trottier]

Oh, let me be absolutely clear, I also value postseason games over regular season games. All I'm saying is regular season performance tend to be a better predictor of how you perform in the postseason because there is so much more games you can get information from. However, some players play a game which may be unsuitable for the postseason but give them a lot of points in the regular season and their contributions should be weighed down accordingly.

That's cool. No disagreement.

Well, I think you put too much emphasis on how the team plays instead on how the individual player plays here.

Actually I place a ton of emphasis on how the truly great players can lead their teams. Not single-handedly, of course, but lead indeed. And I know when I see it: Mario, spring 1991/92, Scott Stevens during the Devils runs, Forsberg elevating his already world-class games in the spring for the Avs. And so on.

That's true and that is definately something that is to his advantage. I just don't think he raised his game. It was more a case of him playing at the ridiculously high level that he plays in both the regular season and playoffs. What we can say is that he definately isn't the type of guy who disappears in the playoffs.

But here's why it (playoff performance) is a matter of raising his level. Over a long 82 games schedule, oppoenents are not playing at the same level across the board (or even across a single team). It simply is impossible. On the other hand, in the playoffs, no player, no team (no opponent) takes a shift or night off, as our eyes tell us. Everyone is at their best, all the time and the tempo reflects it. Hence, if a player stands out, he is doing so at the highest level of competition. As I like to say, an intra-conference game on the road in November in Nashville isn't a best of seven vs. the Caps in May.

Regardless, fun discussion.

 

[matnor]

Game #7 in Washington last year. The ultimate Crosby vs. Ovechkin showdown. Ovechkin is stopped on a breakaway. Crosby scores on the powerplay early. He sets up Letang for a 3-0 lead. Ovechkin finally scores when the game is out of reach to make it 5-1. Later Crosby steals the puck from Ovy and goes in and scores on a breakaway against Theodore. 6-2 final.

And in the ultimate showdown in the most heated rivalry last two decades Red Wings and Avalanche squared off in game 7 of the western conference final. One of the most clutch player of all time, Patrick Roy, gets pulled, two days after his infamous "statue of liberty". Is it fair to judge him based on that game? Of course not. One game is just one game even if it is an important one.

Until we stop seeing Crosby constantly step up when the games matter most then I'll stop emphasizing it

Well, most of us would consider the Stanley Cup finals to be the most important games and while he wasn't bad he certainly wasn't the guy who stepped it up. So far, he has played a lot of important games in his career, in some he has been amazing and in others not so much. Just as any great player.

Anyway, I don't want to play down his achievments as he is an amazing player to watch that has a shot at being a top-10 player of all time. I just don't think it is his clutch ability that makes him great.

 

[matnor]

Regardless, fun discussion.

Agreed In the end hockey is a team game and it is impossible to truly know the value of each of the individual players. Which doesn't stop us from arguing over it...

 

[Big Phil]

And in the ultimate showdown in the most heated rivalry last two decades Red Wings and Avalanche squared off in game 7 of the western conference final. One of the most clutch player of all time, Patrick Roy, gets pulled, two days after his infamous "statue of liberty". Is it fair to judge him based on that game? Of course not. One game is just one game even if it is an important one.

Big difference though. At that time it was 2002 and Roy's legacy was cemented in hockey history. He was only adding to it after that. Was it fair to judge him at that point? Yes. It is common knowledge that the last two years in the playoffs Roy was not himself and that's something I think he even knew which is why he packed it up in 2003. Hotdogging a glove save that results in a goal and then allowing 7 the next night allows people to judge your play. Especially being a goalie. But he had done so much in his career then............

Well, most of us would consider the Stanley Cup finals to be the most important games and while he wasn't bad he certainly wasn't the guy who stepped it up. So far, he has played a lot of important games in his career, in some he has been amazing and in others not so much. Just as any great player.

Mike Babcock made a decision prior to the 2009 final. He chose Crosby over Malkin to shadow. Crosby couldn't go anywhere on the ice without Zetterberg following him adn the shutdown pair of Lidstrom and Rafalski was always against him. Their whole plan was to shut him down to the point their most offensive player was shadowing him. He had 3 points in 7 games but still made some good plays and set up his (cough) linemates who did what they always did.

In the 2008 final vs. Detroit he did his part but Malkin did not. But in the end a guy who went to two finals and had 27 and 31 points respectively including 14 points already in the 2010 first round, well, all I can say is when do we start noticing the common denominator and reward him for being a big game player?

 

[Pantokrator]

Exactly. Those players had a season or maybe more when they were the best but that's it. Espo always had Orr ahead of him and save for 1969 there wasn't a year where he was best in the game. Mikita and Hull flip flopped a lot in the 1960s and even Howe was ahead of them at times. Richard almost always was behind Howe and has the mid to late '40s where he can claim to be the best. Beliveau has 1956 and maybe another one or two years.

The main thing each of them had was that if they weren't the best player in the game they were the 2nd best, or maybe 3rd best. They also won a lot, were always high in the scoring race and have a lot of individual hardware. All were stellar in the playoffs, some better than others, but all were still great.

Not sure how we can't lump Crosby into that mix based on projection at least.

I think the key to being in the top 10 company is not so much being the undisputed best player each year, but to consistenly be in the top 3 or 5. I don't think he'll have much trouble doing that, assuming he is healthy. I mean, if you look at straight stats, Henrik Sedin is not a better player than Crosby, but he had more points. I think each year there will be a player or 2 who spike while Crosby will consistenly be there.

Yzerman and Sakic were rarely the top player of the year, but were so consistent that they are considered great. I don't see how Crosby will not do at least that. So I don't think it is important to be the best player year in year out, but to consistently be in the running is what is important. Which also means that Ovechkin will be up there as well, barring injury.

 

[matnor]

Big difference though. At that time it was 2002 and Roy's legacy was cemented in hockey history. He was only adding to it after that. Was it fair to judge him at that point? Yes. It is common knowledge that the last two years in the playoffs Roy was not himself and that's something I think he even knew which is why he packed it up in 2003. Hotdogging a glove save that results in a goal and then allowing 7 the next night allows people to judge your play. Especially being a goalie. But he had done so much in his career then............

Fair points, but I still think it shows that one game is just one game.

In the 2008 final vs. Detroit he did his part but Malkin did not. But in the end a guy who went to two finals and had 27 and 31 points respectively including 14 points already in the 2010 first round, well, all I can say is when do we start noticing the common denominator and reward him for being a big game player?

Again, I agree he is a dominant playoff performer. But, just as with other all time greats it's more a case of him continuing his dominant regular season performance with a dominating playoff performance rather than raising his play.

Anyway, I shall try and stop derailing this thread...