What Crosby has to do to be the consensus #5 Official All Time player?

[Cursed Lemon]

He can add best international player of his era to best playoff performer of his era.

I don't see that this means much, considering that in his era there have been very few, if any, standout international performers. All of the big names in hockey over the past ten years have been decidedly average in international play; no prime Selannes, no Sundins, no Jagrs, no Lidstroms, etc.

Crosby's international performance can be described as "above average" - if that's the best of his era, well that's great I guess...

 

[puckyeah]

If Crosby is the best in the league right now, isn't he the best of all time considering that the players in 2016 are much better than players of past generations?

Players of today just bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I don't see that this means much, considering that in his era there have been very few, if any, standout international performers. All of the big names in hockey over the past ten years have been decidedly average in international play; no prime Selannes, no Sundins, no Jagrs, no Lidstroms, etc.

Crosby's international performance can be described as "above average" - if that's the best of his era, well that's great I guess...

How was Jagr a standout compared to Crosby's "above average" in international play?

 

[Cursed Lemon]

How was Jagr a standout compared to Crosby's "above average" in international play?

Well you know what, now that I look at Jagr's international history, he's actually done his best work since the lockout, oddly enough.

 

[Plural]

How was Jagr a standout compared to Crosby's "above average" in international play?

Definitely wasn't. I don't think Jagr has any real "standout" performances in a best on best tournament. I'd say that at this point, Crosby is actually comfrotably ahead of Jagr in individual performances on the biggest world stage, IE Olympics and World Cup.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

If Crosby is the best in the league right now, isn't he the best of all time considering that the players in 2016 are much better than players of past generations?

Players of today just bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled.

Well yea, but when comparing historical athletes you have to take their circumstances into consideration as they didn't have the same tools to develop with (diet, workout etc)

 

[bobholly39]

Benn finished with 89 points, Crosby 85. Benn got way less Hart votes, so your theory is wrong.

I knew someone would say that.

Extenuating circumstances. Kane ran away with #1.

Crosby had a horrible start, and came back storming, which coincided with Pittsburgh rising up in rankings.

The horrible start + return to form is a pretty easy story to vote for MVP.

If both players had been consistent from the start of the year, and both of their teams done well all year, Benn has more Hart votes than Crosby. Which is what i was suggesting in my example. I don't think the logic is wrong either, as I feel pretty confident in saying that

 

[daver]

I don't see that this means much, considering that in his era there have been very few, if any, standout international performers. All of the big names in hockey over the past ten years have been decidedly average in international play; no prime Selannes, no Sundins, no Jagrs, no Lidstroms, etc.

Crosby's international performance can be described as "above average" - if that's the best of his era, well that's great I guess...

[mod]


Crosby's performance is stand out because it stands out from his peers but Crosby's standout performance is not standout because no one else stood out. Repeat this over and over to self induce a brain meltdown.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't see that this means much, considering that in his era there have been very few, if any, standout international performers. All of the big names in hockey over the past ten years have been decidedly average in international play; no prime Selannes, no Sundins, no Jagrs, no Lidstroms, etc.

Crosby's international performance can be described as "above average" - if that's the best of his era, well that's great I guess...

I agree that Crosbys international resume - while quite strong - is certainly not fantastic by any means.

HE always competes strong - so he's not the type to have bad games
He also always finds a way to contribute in big games (gold winning goal, goal in 2014 final)
He also captained teams to important victories

So all of that is a pretty strong resume but also not necessarily fantastic. Up until this world cup he had never truly dominated a tournament. Which is why I think if he can do so here and finish helping Canada win gold it will count for a lot. Him dominating a best on best was lacking. It won't be anymore

 

[ikzu]

Behind those 4 legends, there is this second tier with big group of players. Guys like Sakic, Bourque, Lidström, Yzerman, Messier, Hasek, Jagr... In my opinion Crosby already belongs to this group. Not putting them in any kind of order though.

 

[daver]

I agree that Crosbys international resume - while quite strong - is certainly not fantastic by any means.

HE always competes strong - so he's not the type to have bad games
He also always finds a way to contribute in big games (gold winning goal, goal in 2014 final)
He also captained teams to important victories

So all of that is a pretty strong resume but also not necessarily fantastic. Up until this world cup he had never truly dominated a tournament. Which is why I think if he can do so here and finish helping Canada win gold it will count for a lot. Him dominating a best on best was lacking. It won't be anymore

You seem to be missing Lemon's point.

Because the other league's best players like Kane and OV, or anyone else for that matter, didn't also dominate that diminishes Crosby's performance. He needed to be more in the pack in order to be viewed as dominant.

 

[bobholly39]

You seem to be missing Lemon's point.

Because the other league's best players like Kane and OV, or anyone else for that matter, didn't also dominate that diminishes Crosby's performance. He needed to be more in the pack in order to be viewed as dominant.

That's not what he's saying at all.....


he's saying there are no truly dominating international player in Crosby's era. No one that truly separates themselves from the pack. He's saying Crosby dominates a weak field of international players. In contrast, he's saying top international players from past eras performed better, so even if Crosby is best of his era doesn't necessarily mean much from an all-time perspective as other players from other eras might still be above him.

Which is kind of true.


Honestly - until you made a post a couple of pages back stating that Crosby is the best International player of his era - which is probably true - i never would have considered it, as his international resume isn't particularly fantastic. He wasn't the best player in 2010, nor in 2014, nor at the Worlds a year ago....If he truly is the best it's not untrue that in large part that's due to a weaker field of standouts than in past eras.

Him actually dominating a tournament this time around at the World Cup counts for a lot and will help his legacy. It would be kind of underwhelming to be seen as the best international player of his era without a truly dominating performance

 

[Plural]

That's not what he's saying at all.....


he's saying there are no truly dominating international player in Crosby's era. No one that truly separates themselves from the pack. He's saying Crosby dominates a weak field of international players. In contrast, he's saying top international players from past eras performed better, so even if Crosby is best of his era doesn't necessarily mean much from an all-time perspective as other players from other eras might still be above him.

Which is kind of true.


Honestly - until you made a post a couple of pages back stating that Crosby is the best International player of his era - which is probably true - i never would have considered it, as his international resume isn't particularly fantastic. He wasn't the best player in 2010, nor in 2014, nor at the Worlds a year ago....If he truly is the best it's not untrue that in large part that's due to a weaker field of standouts than in past eras.

Him actually dominating a tournament this time around at the World Cup counts for a lot and will help his legacy. It would be kind of underwhelming to be seen as the best international player of his era without a truly dominating performance

I agree with you. We haven't really seen a truly dominant international player in a while. Was Hasek in 1998 the last one? I know Selanne was great in 2006 but I wouldn't really call it dominant in the same sense.

 

[Internet Explorer]

I'd say a hart, lidsey and art Ross is needed. If he were to add a selke to his resume I think it makes him even more competitive. But I don't think he will will ever have enough of an impact at this point in his career to change hockey history into a "top-5" best players ever discussion. Perhaps if he didn't have his injuries the discussion would be different.

 

[daver]

That's not what he's saying at all.....


he's saying there are no truly dominating international player in Crosby's era. No one that truly separates themselves from the pack. He's saying Crosby dominates a weak field of international players. In contrast, he's saying top international players from past eras performed better, so even if Crosby is best of his era doesn't necessarily mean much from an all-time perspective as other players from other eras might still be above him.

Which is kind of true.

If one needs to conclude an era is weaker or stronger than another, why can't we conclude that this is a stronger era because it's harder for the world's best to stand out. It's no shock that Lemon would make the same "weaker era" argument for international play that he does for the NHL.

It's baseless and biased speculation.

 

[Plural]

If one needs to conclude an era is weaker or stronger than another, why can't we conclude that this is a stronger era because it's harder for the world's best to stand out. It's no shock that Lemon would make the same "weaker era" argument for international play that he does for the NHL.

It's baseless and biased speculation.

It's not necessarily that. NHL seasons are 82+playoff games long and take place every single year. Best on best international tournaments are 8 or so games every 4 years. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be variation in terms of how dominant tournaments stars have.

Even if we take all the international major tournaments in to equation, Crosby has played 43 games in Canada uniform. (That includes his WJC appearances two times) That's 43 games since 2003-2004 season.

We are talking about sample sizes that are small and might have really big variance in them. Crosby has played three times more NHL playoff games than he has international games.

I don't buy the idea that this era is significantly weaker than, say the 90's or the 80's. Sure, we are missing Lemieux and Gretzky, but top-level talent is still very good.

But the idea that international play doesn't have high fluctuation in performances is just silly. By the very nature of the games played, there will be big variation.

 

[Laineux]

Erik Karlsson is building a very impressive international resume.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

It's not necessarily that. NHL seasons are 82+playoff games long and take place every single year. Best on best international tournaments are 8 or so games every 4 years. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be variation in terms of how dominant tournaments stars have.

Even if we take all the international major tournaments in to equation, Crosby has played 43 games in Canada uniform. (That includes his WJC appearances two times) That's 43 games since 2003-2004 season.

We are talking about sample sizes that are small and might have really big variance in them. Crosby has played three times more NHL playoff games than he has international games.

I don't buy the idea that this era is significantly weaker than, say the 90's or the 80's. Sure, we are missing Lemieux and Gretzky, but top-level talent is still very good.

But the idea that international play doesn't have high fluctuation in performances is just silly. By the very nature of the games played, there will be big variation.

The most reasonable conclusion to come to is that this era is definitely stronger. Harder to stand out = stronger. What could be more reasonable? lol

 

[Plural]

The most reasonable conclusion to come to is that this era is definitely stronger. Harder to stand out = stronger. What could be more reasonable? lol

One could argue that the collection of star-players today are less impressive than the collection of star-players from the 90's (for example). I don't agree with the idea, but I can understand if someone makes the argument.

As of now, I think the NHL has a great depth of stars. We have Crosby, Ovechkin, Benn, Seguin, Kane, Toews, Giroux, Malkin, Getzlaf, etc. and we have McDavid, Matthews, Laine, Pulju, etc. up and coming future stars.

Is it stronger than the A-list from the 90's? I don't know. But it's not a lot weaker that's for sure.

The reason it's harder to stand out these days is probably not because the league is so much stronger (although the 4th liner from today is better than from the 80's, no doubt) but because the way the game has developed. Obstruction is maybe at an all-time high level (maybe even higher than in the DPE) and the game is more structured and defensive orientated than ever. It's not like we don't have 100pt. talent in the league. We do. But the way the game is coached today doesn't support high offensive numbers.

The league has a lot of talent and I hope the NHL has the brains to cut down on obstruction and encourage offensive minded hockey again. Not that structured defensive game-plan can't be appealing. But I just personally enjoy more free-flowing creativity and the kind of atmosphere that encourages players to try offensive moves instead of playing safe all the time.

 

[daver]

It's not necessarily that. NHL seasons are 82+playoff games long and take place every single year. Best on best international tournaments are 8 or so games every 4 years. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be variation in terms of how dominant tournaments stars have.

Even if we take all the international major tournaments in to equation, Crosby has played 43 games in Canada uniform. (That includes his WJC appearances two times) That's 43 games since 2003-2004 season.

We are talking about sample sizes that are small and might have really big variance in them. Crosby has played three times more NHL playoff games than he has international games.

I don't buy the idea that this era is significantly weaker than, say the 90's or the 80's. Sure, we are missing Lemieux and Gretzky, but top-level talent is still very good.

But the idea that international play doesn't have high fluctuation in performances is just silly. By the very nature of the games played, there will be big variation.

I don't get your point. Lemon is diminishing Crosby's performance with the usual baseless claims of weaker era while you are pointing out how small a sample size the tourneys are.

I don't get the connection between the two.

 

[Plural]

I don't get your point. Lemon is diminishing Crosby's performance with the usual baseless claims of weaker era while you are pointing out how small a sample size the tourneys are.

I don't get the connection between the two.

I'm not agreeing with the idea that current era is weaker than the 90's. I'm just pointing out that it's perfectly understandable if sometimes there are no standout performances in these tournaments. So, even if Crosby has been arguably the best of this era in international tournaments, it's not necessarily as great of an accomplishment as someone else being the greatest in pervious era. Because the sample size is so small that variation happens.

So, even if this current era is as good as previous one, international tournaments are a different animal. There might or might not be great performances. Some tournaments might see 3 different forwards breaking the bank and some tournaments doesn't really have a big standout performance at all. It is possible that Crosby has been the tallest midget when it comes to international performances.

I'm not arguing one way or another about his performances. Just pointing out the difficulties in trying to evaluate international play in a vacuum. It's takes different approach than judging 10-20 seasons worth of NHL careers.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The most reasonable conclusion to come to is that this era is definitely stronger. Harder to stand out = stronger. What could be more reasonable? lol

Completely ignores the impact of coaching, systems on the effectiveness of players, roster size on the number of roles any particular player has to develop skills for, and the way rules/officials have changed the landscape along the way.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Completely ignores the impact of coaching, systems on the effectiveness of players, roster size on the number of roles any particular player has to develop skills for, and the way rules/officials have changed the landscape along the way.

Agree 100%

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I'm really excited for this season. Hope crosby adds some hardware.

Also hope he can add another top 10 goals finish.

So far he has 1, 7, 7 a couple more and it will balance out his finishes IMO

 

[Son Goku]

Erik Karlsson is building a very impressive international resume.

Hall of famer no doubt.