Who needed to play a full season the most? Lemieux (92-93) or Crosby (10-11)

[daver]

I also said, far more frequently, that Crosby is not going to catch Howe. That is the main point I am making. You are attempting to lay a foundation for Crosby to surpass Howe but Howe's incredible longevity as an elite player (in addition to Crosby's inferior peak) make that extremely unlikely.

How many f***ing times do I have to state that is not my intention?

I could care less that it is very unlikely that Crosby has a career after 14 seasons that matches or better Howe's, and even if it did, it still may not be enough to surpass Howe given the dramatic difference in their peaks due to Crosby's injuries.

What I do care about is the fact that Crosby's stint as being at the very top of the league through a combination of high RS scoring and/or PPG finishes, and dominant playoff performances is beginning to rival Howe's. You call this convoluted but there is a HOH thread that discusses this very topic. As the thousands and thousands of posts in the HOH will attest to, their is a ton of context to apply to the numbers that I am interested in discussing.

If don't want to participate in the discussion in this context, then I would appreciate you not trying to shut it down with baseless assumptions.

 

[JackSlater]

How many ****ing times do I have to state that is not my intention?

I could care less that it is very unlikely that Crosby has a career after 14 seasons that matches or better Howe's, and even if it did, it still may not be enough to surpass Howe given the dramatic difference in their peaks due to Crosby's injuries.

What I do care about is the fact that Crosby's stint as being at the very top of the league through a combination of high RS scoring and/or PPG finishes, and dominant playoff performances is beginning to rival Howe's. You call this convoluted but there is a HOH thread that discusses this very topic. As the thousands and thousands of posts in the HOH will attest to, their is a ton of context to apply to the numbers that I am interested in discussing.

If don't want to participate in the discussion in this context, then I would appreciate you not trying to shut it down with baseless assumptions.

Your intention is obvious, and it is as I said. Crosby isn't going to pass Howe - Howe peaked higher and almost certainly will have superior longevity. It isn't going to happen. Your opinion on Crosby's run as the top player in your opinion, which is already certainly far past what Orr did for instance, doesn't change that. I will also continue to discuss Crosby/Howe in a reasonable context as oppose to one designed to artificially boost Crosby.

Crosby should be compared to players in the tier that he belongs in, like Beliveau/Hull/Jagr etc. Comparing Crosby to Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux is fruitless as he is never going to reach their level.

 

[daver]

The contexts are so different in the playoffs that it makes comparisons very awkward. The closest comparison would probably be to compare Howe's playoffs with Crosby's performances in the final two rounds of the playoffs, but even that isn't a very good comparison. The regular season is a large sample size in which most top players perform in a similar context. Comparisons are pretty easy. The playoffs feature tiny sample sizes and wildly different contexts for players.

But not so awkward that you were able to declare originally that Howe was better?

There doesn't seem to be an issue with Beliveau and Roy being rated higher all-time than their RS resumes would dictate based on objective evaluation of their playoff performances. Or do you personally rank them below other players with superior RS resumes?

As for the bolded, why do we need to qualify their numbers? Crosby has played 160 playoff games, Howe played 95 games. If you think that is too small of a sample, why then shouldn't we look at Howe's 52/53 season where he played 70 games as a statistical anomaly since he never repeated that level of dominance again?

Statistically speaking, the most logical comparison for comparing an O6 playoff Cup run with a Cup run from a 30 team league is for Rounds 2 and 3 but of course, rating them vs. their respective peers should be the clearest metric. Howe did not separate himself from his peers thru 14 seasons as much as his RS resume would have dictated he should. Crosby did.

The Wings won their first Cup with Howe contributing zero points. His two other Cup runs would be on par with Crosby's 2016 run. Crosby has two other Cup runs (2008 and 2017) that are superior to those and his 2009 run should be on the same level as Howe's signature run in 1955.

 

[daver]

Your intention is obvious.

Yes, it should be because I have stated multiple times. We are done here.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Howe has 6 harts. Crosby isn’t catching him. It’s a shame for the injuries or this would be a great discussion.

Right now it’s 6 harts and 6 art ross vs 2 art and 2 ross

 

[bobholly39]

Howe has 6 harts. Crosby isn’t catching him. It’s a shame for the injuries or this would be a great discussion.

Right now it’s 6 harts and 6 art ross vs 2 art and 2 ross

I think realistically - conservatively even - if Crosby hadn't missed any major stretches to injuries, he would have minimum 4 of each. With a strong possibility of a 5th Ross, a small chance at a 6th one. And a possibility of a 5th hart.

2013. 100% Hart + Ross, he was running away with it with 12 games to go. He almost still won both with 25% of season missed
2011. Let's say 90% chance at both. Only half games played - but he was well ahead of others and playing better than any.

That's 4 eacg,

2012. I'd say 75% at art Ross - and maybe 30-50% chance at hart. I think Crosby was better than Malkin at this point, so likely outscores him in a full year. Hart - well assuming both Malkin/Crosby have great seasons, it might take away from both their hart chances as voters dont like to vote for players who have good teammates for some reason.

2008 - Art Ross is somewhat plausible if he doesn't miss major time. He's pacing behind Ovechkin over full year, but not by much. If he plays full season it's a possibility he wins the Ross. Let's say 20-25%.

I'm only looking at seasons where he missed major time. Not interested in 2015 or 2017 - nobody has perfect health and he played most games both years already.

I think a stronger combination of Harts/Ross/Smythes (which he has - 2 smythes) would have certainly made for an interesting comparison with Howe.

Unlike Mario Lemieux - it's less of a hypothetical with Crosby. With Lemieux the hypothetical is "how much better would he have been if healthy". With Crosby it's more "if he hadn't missed major time, and played at his expected/slightly lesser level" - so it's really just about games played mostly.

 

[TheGuiminator]

I think realistically - conservatively even - if Crosby hadn't missed any major stretches to injuries, he would have minimum 4 of each. With a strong possibility of a 5th Ross, a small chance at a 6th one. And a possibility of a 5th hart.

2013. 100% Hart + Ross, he was running away with it with 12 games to go. He almost still won both with 25% of season missed
2011. Let's say 90% chance at both. Only half games played - but he was well ahead of others and playing better than any.

That's 4 eacg,

2012. I'd say 75% at art Ross - and maybe 30-50% chance at hart. I think Crosby was better than Malkin at this point, so likely outscores him in a full year. Hart - well assuming both Malkin/Crosby have great seasons, it might take away from both their hart chances as voters dont like to vote for players who have good teammates for some reason.

2008 - Art Ross is somewhat plausible if he doesn't miss major time. He's pacing behind Ovechkin over full year, but not by much. If he plays full season it's a possibility he wins the Ross. Let's say 20-25%.

I'm only looking at seasons where he missed major time. Not interested in 2015 or 2017 - nobody has perfect health and he played most games both years already.

I think a stronger combination of Harts/Ross/Smythes (which he has - 2 smythes) would have certainly made for an interesting comparison with Howe.

Unlike Mario Lemieux - it's less of a hypothetical with Crosby. With Lemieux the hypothetical is "how much better would he have been if healthy". With Crosby it's more "if he hadn't missed major time, and played at his expected/slightly lesser level" - so it's really just about games played mostly.

The 07/08 season is pretty interesting, cause right before the ankle injury, Crosby was leading the league with a 115 points pace ( http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...meType=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points ). Plus, if you add the Hossa trade in late February, that would had probably helped Crosby's point production considering the good chemistry they had in the spring of 08. That said, I think it's more like 75% he wins the Art Ross, however the Hart trophy still goes to Ovechkin that season.

 

[bobholly39]

The 07/08 season is pretty interesting, cause right before the ankle injury, Crosby was leading the league with a 115 points pace ( http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...meType=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points ). Plus, if you add the Hossa trade in late February, that would had probably helped Crosby's point production considering the good chemistry they had in the spring of 08. That said, I think it's more like 75% he wins the Art Ross, however the Hart trophy still goes to Ovechkin that season.

2008 is definitely a possibility but it's not 75%, a lot less. Less than 50%

After 46 games (your link) Crosby was on pace for 114 points. But so were about 3-4 more guys - all of them fell off quite a bit.
Ovechkin - barely on pace for 101 points - finished super strong with 112.
Saying Crosby finishes above 112 is giving him the absolute best case scenario with no room for error. Don't think that's fair considering how strong Ovechkin finished. I'd say 25% chance.

If you contrast that to 2011.
Crosby was on pace for ~130 well ahead. Art Ross won at 104. No one came close. That's over 75% (i said 90%). Saying 2008 is 75% is an exaggeration.

 

[TheGuiminator]

2008 is definitely a possibility but it's not 75%, a lot less. Less than 50%

After 46 games (your link) Crosby was on pace for 114 points. But so were about 3-4 more guys - all of them fell off quite a bit.
Ovechkin - barely on pace for 101 points - finished super strong with 112.
Saying Crosby finishes above 112 is giving him the absolute best case scenario with no room for error. Don't think that's fair considering how strong Ovechkin finished. I'd say 25% chance.

If you contrast that to 2011.
Crosby was on pace for ~130 well ahead. Art Ross won at 104. No one came close. That's over 75% (i said 90%). Saying 2008 is 75% is an exaggeration.

By midway in the 07/08 season, Crosby was tie leader in points (with 2-3 games in hands), so It’s more than likely that a 20 y/o Crosby scores 50 points in the last 37 games, especially with the arrival of Hossa and the emergence of Malkin as a 100 points player. That would lead him at 113 points at worst (good enough for the Art Ross).

So by that point (mid season), Crosby had a relatively good advantage over Ovy. So i’d reverse the odds here, 70-75 % Crosby and 25-30% Ovechkin

Don’t get me wrong, Ovy still wins the Hart with 65 goals and 112 points, but I think he falls short to Crosby in the Art Ross race.

 

[bobholly39]

By midway in the 07/08 season, Crosby was tie leader in points (with 2-3 games in hands), so It’s more than likely that a 20 y/o Crosby scores 50 points in the last 37 games, especially with the arrival of Hossa and the emergence of Malkin as a 100 points player. That would lead him at 113 points at worst (good enough for the Art Ross).

So by that point (mid season), Crosby had a relatively good advantage over Ovy. So i’d reverse the odds here, 70-75 % Crosby and 25-30% Ovechkin

Don’t get me wrong, Ovy still wins the Hart with 65 goals and 112 points, but I think he falls short to Crosby in the Art Ross race.

Crosby is pacing for 114 points. With almost half the games to go.
Ovechkin won with 112.

To have Crosby win - you have to give him the benefit of the doubt he doesn't dip at ALL for half the season. I don't think that's fair. More games = bigger sample size = harder to do. Doesn't mean i'm going to say I expect Crosby to go from ~114 point pace to 90 in 82 games or something stupid. But considering he was barely pacing to beat Ovechkin and with half the games to go - not fair to say he'd have won it almost for sure (ie 75%). I'd say below 50%.

I get the Hossa trade also but even with Hossa in the final stretch his pace over the last 8 games was 105 points.

Rantanen was pacing for ~140 points after 30-40 games this year. And Kucherov for a lot less. Now near the end of year Ranta probably won't hit 100, and Kucherov will go to ~120-130. It's ok to pace out, especially for Crosby who's pretty consistent - but to assume there is 0 dip over more games seems unfair.

 

[TheGuiminator]

Crosby is pacing for 114 points. With almost half the games to go.
Ovechkin won with 112.

To have Crosby win - you have to give him the benefit of the doubt he doesn't dip at ALL for half the season. I don't think that's fair. More games = bigger sample size = harder to do. Doesn't mean i'm going to say I expect Crosby to go from ~114 point pace to 90 in 82 games or something stupid. But considering he was barely pacing to beat Ovechkin and with half the games to go - not fair to say he'd have won it almost for sure (ie 75%). I'd say below 50%.

I get the Hossa trade also but even with Hossa in the final stretch his pace over the last 8 games was 105 points.

Rantanen was pacing for ~140 points after 30-40 games this year. And Kucherov for a lot less. Now near the end of year Ranta probably won't hit 100, and Kucherov will go to ~120-130. It's ok to pace out, especially for Crosby who's pretty consistent - but to assume there is 0 dip over more games seems unfair.

Everyone knew Rantanen wouldn’t maintain his pace, so no big deal here. But, we’re talking about a 20 y/o Crosby who was the reigning Art Ross winner at the time. Considering his offensive standards at 20 y/o , it’s hard to imagine him pacing under 1,30 points per game the rest of the way with all things considered.

 

[bobholly39]

Everyone knew Rantanen wouldn’t maintain his pace, so no big deal here. But, we’re talking about a 20 y/o Crosby who was the reigning Art Ross winner at the time. Considering his offensive standards at 20 y/o , it’s hard to imagine him pacing under 1,30 points per game the rest of the way with all things considered.

Which is why i said 2008 is possible

Most people talk 2011 2012 2013 maybe even 2015 for potential ross for Crosby. Not many mention 2008

I think 2008 is a possibility but you still favor the guy who did it over a full season vs the guy who did it over 46 games considering their paces were comparable. Dont forget ovechkins ppg in full season is higher than Crosbys over partial season

Advantage Ovechkin
Possibility - Crosby

 

[Merya]

I hate these would've should've could've things. Staying healthy is part of the career. Teemu Selänne would've/could've/should've scored 300 more goals if he was perfectly healthy.

 

[FinProspects]

I hate these would've should've could've things. Staying healthy is part of the career. Teemu Selänne would've/could've/should've scored 300 more goals if he was perfectly healthy.

If you look Crosbys stats more closely, you can see that he has been extremely durable during his career. For example Malkin is way more shoulda/coulda/woulda type of thing, since he has been constantly injured.

It just happened, that the timing of the injuries was the worst you can really think of (thinking about his hardware) and on top of that the injuries during his peak were something that no player could have prepared for (collision with Steckel, puck to the face). It has absolutely nothing to do being unfit or anything like that, like some of the more injury prone players can be accussed for.

Sid's peak can be thought of:
09-10 51 goals and all that.
10-11 missed 50% of the season
11-12 missed 75% of the season
12-13 missed 25% of the season, which was on top of that a lockout season, i.e. 12 missed games have an huge effect compared to 82 game season. Still Lindsay to prove.
13-14 Hart, Art, Lindsay.

Despite missing majority of his peak he is a clear cut top10 player ever, even if he retired today. There's really no "what could have been" for Sid, and almost everybody here get that. Of course it would be nice that he had got few more Hart+Art's for the seasons he was injured, but it really isnt a big thing anymore as the years have gone by.

And at 31y old he is going for another top5 finish, 100point season, being Hart candidate and possible even Selke candidate. I mean, there's not a single person in this planet who can anymore deny the greatness of Sid. Then its another story, where you put him in all time rankings. I'd say that he is comfortably already a top10 player, with good changes locking up the #5 spot once its all said and done.