"Who Was Better, Crosby or MacKinnon?" Has Become A Valid Question

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Except Alfie really was in the 4 years leading up to the lockout he was an even PPG and 13th overall in scoring.

Among the top 13 in scoring over that time period only the 1,2,3 scorers were above a PPG and then Thorton at 5th and Alfie at 13th who were both 1.00

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

spezza was too young and then too injured but was considered offensively excellent just his skating and effort level weren't elite.



Giroux does suffer from sometimes not having the production but his offensive skillset was better overall and he didn't play with excellent players like Heatley did and was also a much different players after the injury than before it.

To put it another way, Alfredsson was PPG in 3 of 4 seasons, only scoring 71 in 78 games the 4th year. Therefore, he wasn't consistently PPG+ over those 4 seasons, only the last two of them. Yes, he did it three more times after the lockout with Heatley and Spezza getting tons of PP play time, putting up the 3 highest scoring seasons of his career. Did he not benefit from playing on the best line in hockey just as much as Heatley and Spezza did? Those were also Spezza's three career best seasons, as injuries and his skating took their toll.

And why exactly are you looking at the PPG of guys with the 3 highest raw scoring totals? Are you trying to figure out who was healthy enough to play more games? In the 4 years leading up to the lockout, Lemieux put up 207 in 144 games (1.44 PPG), despite missing the previous 4 years fighting cancer. Forsberg put up 250 in 187 (1.34), despite losing a full season due to a reptured spleen and his chronic ankle issues. Jagr was 1.116 PPG. Sakic, Naslund, and Ziggy Palfy were all 1.10 or higher too. Alfredsson being 13th at 0.99 is pretty clearly a step down to a different tier of player, right?

After the lockout, Mario was 40 and only played 26 games. Forsberg was another year older and skating on 1 foot. Everyone else above 1.0 PPG or higher in those 4 years before the lockout, other than Thornton, was into their 30s by 2005-06 and on the downturn of their careers. Bure retired the year before the lockout. Palffy and Allison retired after playing one more year. Only Jagr played and Thornton played a game after 2011.

Crosby, OV and Malkin were the only elite scorers added immediately after the lockout, and over the next 4 years, were comfortably in the top 4 in PPG rate (200 games minimum), along with Thornton. But they were at least competing amongst themselves. Beyond them, it was a "young" 32-35 year Jagr in 5th, Spezza and Alfredsson in 6/7, then Datsyuk, Heatley and Savard. One legged Forsberg put up the same PPG as Heatley, but only played 126 games and doesn't make the cut as a result. Top talent was very clearly lost in the lockout, even if PP rates artificially inflated scoring rates significantly.

After the lockout, the depth guys also started getting better, so the scoring averages didn't completely tank when PP opportunities dropped back down. And by that time, even more of the formerly elite guys had retired or passed their prime, and only Stamkos and Kane were added as elite scorers. OV also started having down seasons, and Malkin and Crosby struggled with injuries. So, over the next few years, the Ross went to whichever of the top guys could stay healthy, with the 2nd tier player who had the best season finishing a distant 2nd. When all the elite guys had down seasons, Benn won.

To me, an elite guy significantly outscoring 2nd tier players is expected, not impressive. And it certainly doesn't suggest that the elite guy who did it is definitely better than the elite guys today who are competing with 10 other elite guys (including McDavid) instead of beating up on 2nd tier talent.

 

[daver]

A bunch of people seem to want to pretend that me saying that raw scoring ranks and trophy counts are meaningless because of of the differences in competition is somehow wrong because scoring averages went up, and that Giroux is the same caliber of offensive player that we see in the top 5 of the scoring race today.

It's still going because you keep contradicting yourself and its fun to call you out on it.

For example:

"Raw scoring ranks are meaningless, elite scorers hit 100 points, period"

"A '100 points in 17/18' Giroux wasn't an elite scorer because he finished 6th in PPG"

"Heatley is elite because he hit 90 points"

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

To put it another way, Alfredsson was PPG in 3 of 4 seasons, only scoring 71 in 78 games the 4th year. Therefore, he wasn't consistently PPG+ over those 4 seasons, only the last two of them. Yes, he did it three more times after the lockout with Heatley and Spezza getting tons of PP play time, putting up the 3 highest scoring seasons of his career. Did he not benefit from playing on the best line in hockey just as much as Heatley and Spezza did? Those were also Spezza's three career best seasons, as injuries and his skating took their toll.

And why exactly are you looking at the PPG of guys with the 3 highest raw scoring totals? Are you trying to figure out who was healthy enough to play more games? In the 4 years leading up to the lockout, Lemieux put up 207 in 144 games (1.44 PPG), despite missing the previous 4 years fighting cancer. Forsberg put up 250 in 187 (1.34), despite losing a full season due to a reptured spleen and his chronic ankle issues. Jagr was 1.116 PPG. Sakic, Naslund, and Ziggy Palfy were all 1.10 or higher too. Alfredsson being 13th at 0.99 is pretty clearly a step down to a different tier of player, right?

After the lockout, Mario was 40 and only played 26 games. Forsberg was another year older and skating on 1 foot. Everyone else above 1.0 PPG or higher in those 4 years before the lockout, other than Thornton, was into their 30s by 2005-06 and on the downturn of their careers. Bure retired the year before the lockout. Palffy and Allison retired after playing one more year. Only Jagr played and Thornton played a game after 2011.

Crosby, OV and Malkin were the only elite scorers added immediately after the lockout, and over the next 4 years, were comfortably in the top 4 in PPG rate (200 games minimum), along with Thornton. But they were at least competing amongst themselves. Beyond them, it was a "young" 32-35 year Jagr in 5th, Spezza and Alfredsson in 6/7, then Datsyuk, Heatley and Savard. One legged Forsberg put up the same PPG as Heatley, but only played 126 games and doesn't make the cut as a result. Top talent was very clearly lost in the lockout, even if PP rates artificially inflated scoring rates significantly.

After the lockout, the depth guys also started getting better, so the scoring averages didn't completely tank when PP opportunities dropped back down. And by that time, even more of the formerly elite guys had retired or passed their prime, and only Stamkos and Kane were added as elite scorers. OV also started having down seasons, and Malkin and Crosby struggled with injuries. So, over the next few years, the Ross went to whichever of the top guys could stay healthy, with the 2nd tier player who had the best season finishing a distant 2nd. When all the elite guys had down seasons, Benn won.

To me, an elite guy significantly outscoring 2nd tier players is expected, not impressive. And it certainly doesn't suggest that the elite guy who did it is definitely better than the elite guys today who are competing with 10 other elite guys (including McDavid) instead of beating up on 2nd tier talent.

Lol. Datsyuk is barkov on steriods. Savard is easily hitting 90 plus assists in this laughably offensive era.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Lol. No, it has not become a valid question.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

It's still going because you keep contradicting yourself and its fun to call you out on it.

For example:

"Raw scoring ranks are meaningless, elite scorers hit 100 points, period"

"A '100 points in 17/18' Giroux wasn't an elite scorer because he finished 6th in PPG"

"Heatley is elite because he hit 90 points"

Or it keeps going because people like you keep insisting on putting words into my mouth.

For example:

Your claim of what you think I'm saying vs Raw scoring ranks are meaningless because caliber of competition at the top changes so much from year to year. It's not about 100 points, it's about how the guys who replaced elite players in the top 10 were obviously and demonstrably worse than the guys they replaced.

Your claim vs Giroux having a couple of great seasons doesn't make him an elite scorer. Very good players having an elite season or 2 over their career doesn't make them elite.

Your claim vs Heatley had much better offensive talent than someone like Getzlaf, based on the fact that he put up better numbers prior to the lockout than Getzlaf ever did afterwards, so Crosby outscoring Heatley by 15 is more impressive than beating Getzlaf by 17. Heatley was literally the only NHL player to score 50 goals in each of the two seasons after the lockout and led all players in goals scored with 100 (OV was 2nd with 98) and one of only 4 players to break 200 points (along with elite guys like Jagr, Thornton and Crosby). In 2006-07, when Crosby beat him handily to win the Ross, he absolutely was one of the elite scorers in the league, no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Lol. Datsyuk is barkov on steriods. Savard is easily hitting 90 plus assists in this laughably offensive era.

I don't disagree at all that Datsyuk was awesome, and easily one of the most complete players we've seen since Fedorov. But, he very clearly wasn't the same caliber of scorer as someone like Fedorov or Sakic or Naslund or Forsberg or Jagr or Lemieux or Bure or Crosby or Malkin, so he was still a step down in offensive talent.

And which era do you think Savard is "easily hitting 90 plus assists", exactly? His career high was 74, the 2nd year after the lockout, with 39 of them coming on the PP where he spent 4+ minutes per game, and he was still 18 assists behind Thornton and 10 behind Crosby. How exactly would he get more assists than either of them were able to achieve in any other year? Or more than McDavid's single best assist season? Is he a better passer than Thornton, Crosby and McDavid, in your opinion?

 

[DearDiary]

Amazing how this thread devolved to Giroux vs Heatley

 

[daver]

It's not about 100 points, it's about how the guys who replaced elite players in the top 10 were obviously and demonstrably worse than the guys they replaced.

"Raw scoring ranks are meaningless"

"It's not about 100 points"

How does one demonstrate a change in the caliber of competition if not by scoring finishes and/or by point totals?

 

[Maple Leaf]

Aren't these two from the same neighbourhood in the bronx?

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

How does one demonstrate a change in the caliber of competition if not by scoring finishes and/or by point totals?

Through gut feeling about the top players of each era!

 

[dirtydanglez]

i never would have guessed that mackinnon's numbers are identical to crosbys during their primes.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

"Raw scoring ranks are meaningless"

"It's not about 100 points"

How does one demonstrate a change in the caliber of competition if not by scoring finishes and/or by point totals?

Well, to start, I don't do it by only looking at how many time a guy finished in the top 10 in scoring, or how many total trophies they won, or even what they did in their career best season, because not every season/trophy win/scoring rank is exactly the same. To write it out logically, the three statements A > B > C, A > D > E and X > Y > Z all being true doesn't mean that A > Z is true. You actually need to figure out the value of A and Z before you can make that determination, which, unfortunately, is usually very difficult when talking about something subjective like "which hockey player is actually better".

The way I try to do it is by using the context that seems to be relevant, including how individual players performed relative to their peers in different eras to try to use them as a measuring stick.

As an example of my method, Alfredsson went from 12th in PPG during the 4 years before the lockout, to 6th best in the 4 years afterwards. What makes more sense to explain his jump in the scoring ranks - 33 year old Alfredsson getting more talented or there being fewer elite guys ahead of him, in large part because 9 of the 11 better scorers from Alfredsson's "prime" fell off or retired, leaving only a 33 year old Jagr and 26 year old Thornton, and only Crosby/Malkin/OV as new elite players? Or do you think it was mostly due to playing on the best line in hockey and Alfredsson wasn't really the 6th best scorer over those 4 seasons, making his ranking inaccurate? I'm pretty sure he didn't get more talented and it was really a combination of the other two reasons, making his ranking pretty meaningless.

As another example, Getzlaf was 15th in PPG between 2010-11 and 2012-13, and 13th from 2014-15 through 2017-18. Did he get more talented during the 2013-14 season to finish 2nd for the Ross, or did he move that far up the scoring ranks because he had his career best season in a season when half the guys above him on the list the previous 3 years were in their 30s and on the decline, and most of the rest of them were injured and/or had down seasons, leaving Crosby alone at the top and the rest of the top 10 wide open for the next tier of guys like him? Again, I'm pretty sure it wasn't talent.

Through gut feeling about the top players of each era!

Is that why you think there's zero different in caliber of competition between eras? Because you feel it in your gut?

 

[daver]

Well, to start, I don't do it by only looking at how many time a guy finished in the top 10 in scoring, or how many total trophies they won, or even what they did in their career best season, because not every season/trophy win/scoring rank is exactly the same. To write it out logically, the three statements A > B > C, A > D > E and X > Y > Z all being true doesn't mean that A > Z is true. You actually need to figure out the value of A and Z before you can make that determination, which, unfortunately, is usually very difficult when talking about something subjective like "which hockey player is actually better".

The way I try to do it is by using the context that seems to be relevant, including how individual players performed relative to their peers in different eras to try to use them as a measuring stick.

As an example of my method, Alfredsson went from 12th in PPG during the 4 years before the lockout, to 6th best in the 4 years afterwards. What makes more sense to explain his jump in the scoring ranks - 33 year old Alfredsson getting more talented or there being fewer elite guys ahead of him, in large part because 9 of the 11 better scorers from Alfredsson's "prime" fell off or retired, leaving only a 33 year old Jagr and 26 year old Thornton, and only Crosby/Malkin/OV as new elite players? Or do you think it was mostly due to playing on the best line in hockey and Alfredsson wasn't really the 6th best scorer over those 4 seasons, making his ranking inaccurate? I'm pretty sure he didn't get more talented and it was really a combination of the other two reasons, making his ranking pretty meaningless.

As another example, Getzlaf was 15th in PPG between 2010-11 and 2012-13, and 13th from 2014-15 through 2017-18. Did he get more talented during the 2013-14 season to finish 2nd for the Ross, or did he move that far up the scoring ranks because he had his career best season in a season when half the guys above him on the list the previous 3 years were in their 30s and on the decline, and most of the rest of them were injured and/or had down seasons, leaving Crosby alone at the top and the rest of the top 10 wide open for the next tier of guys like him? Again, I'm pretty sure it wasn't talent.

Those are not examples, they are outliers you have picked to fit your narrative.

Generally speaking, there is no reason to believe that the quality of the Top 50 scorers/Top 6 forwards scorers of the league took a significant drop or rise from one year to the next to the extent that we question the relative dominance (i.e. vs. the Top 20/50 scorers) of the Ross winner.

The league GPG and the point totals of the leading scorers did not lower from 1996 to 2004 because of lower overall talent. After 2001, it seemed like only Forsberg was playing at superstar level as Jagr and Sakic regressed and Mario did not play enough games. The Art Ross and the Richard were won with low totals and noone seemed to be able to pull away from the pack as we had seen as recent as 00/01. But one or two players not playing at "superstar" level has no affect on the league GPG.

Agreed?

I would add that with the lower scoring and tighter hockey being played parity comes into play where it is harder for the elite talent to separate themselves and a hot streak by a Top 20/30 player at the right time can elevate them into the Top 5/10 in scoring. This does not happen when higher scoring, looser hockey is being played.

Here are the # of PPG scorers (min. 60 games) starting in 95/96:

95/96 - 39
96/97 - 22
97/98 - 14
98/99 - 14
90/00 - 17
00/01 - 27
01/02 - 10
02/03 - 16
03/04 - 9
05/06 - 30

Here is the league GPG and PP opportunities: NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

EVERY TOP 50 scorer was affected by the drop in scoring and this is tempered a bit in seasons where PP opportunities take a jump up or down. There is a clear correlation between league scoring levels and the "elite seasons" being put up.

And EVERY Top 50 was affected by the massive jump in PPs being called in 05/06. There is zero reason to believe there was a wholesale drop in talent and one outlier like Alfie doesn't change this.

Starting in 06/07, league scoring started going down as less PPs were being called each season. There is zero reason to believe that the '12 to '16 timeframe is any different from the DPE and to question Crosby's relative dominance vs. the Top 50 scorers.

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

Crosby AINEC.

 

[HolyHagelin]

@IWantSakicAsMyGM a lot more than 4 guys are disagreeing with you, most of us are just eating popcorn on this thread at this point

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Those are not examples, they are outliers you have picked to fit your narrative.

Generally speaking, there is no reason to believe that the quality of the Top 50 scorers/Top 6 forwards scorers of the league took a significant drop or rise from one year to the next to the extent that we question the relative dominance (i.e. vs. the Top 20/50 scorers) of the Ross winner.

The league GPG and the point totals of the leading scorers did not lower from 1996 to 2004 because of lower overall talent. After 2001, it seemed like only Forsberg was playing at superstar level as Jagr and Sakic regressed and Mario did not play enough games. The Art Ross and the Richard were won with low totals and noone seemed to be able to pull away from the pack as we had seen as recent as 00/01. But one or two players not playing at "superstar" level has no affect on the league GPG.

Agreed?

I would add that with the lower scoring and tighter hockey being played parity comes into play where it is harder for the elite talent to separate themselves and a hot streak by a Top 20/30 player at the right time can elevate them into the Top 5/10 in scoring. This does not happen when higher scoring, looser hockey is being played.

Here are the # of PPG scorers (min. 60 games) starting in 95/96:

95/96 - 39
96/97 - 22
97/98 - 14
98/99 - 14
90/00 - 17
00/01 - 27
01/02 - 10
02/03 - 16
03/04 - 9
05/06 - 30

Here is the league GPG and PP opportunities: NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

EVERY TOP 50 scorer was affected by the drop in scoring and this is tempered a bit in seasons where PP opportunities take a jump up or down. There is a clear correlation between league scoring levels and the "elite seasons" being put up.

And EVERY Top 50 was affected by the massive jump in PPs being called in 05/06. There is zero reason to believe there was a wholesale drop in talent and one outlier like Alfie doesn't change this.

Starting in 06/07, league scoring started going down as less PPs were being called each season. There is zero reason to believe that the '12 to '16 timeframe is any different from the DPE and to question Crosby's relative dominance vs. the Top 50 scorers.

To me, they are perfect examples of how conditions to be a top 10 scorer can change from era to era, just like so many other things in the league.

I generally agree with that "there is no reason to believe that the quality of the Top 50 scorers/Top 6 forwards scorers of the league took a significant drop or rise from one year to the next". But, once again, you're arguing against something I'm not saying.

I'm only talking about the number of the actually elite guys who could consistently outscore the next group of scorers by 8-10 points, or more, per season, and could be expected to be in the top 10 every single year, barring injury. I'm not talking about the quality of the top 50 scorers, or top 6 forwards and agree that if we look at a much larger sample of players, overall talent is roughly the same between eras. But it's clear to me that's because there was more talent from 20-50. and not because the number of guys that were actually elite at the very top stayed the same.

I would also absolutely say that the loss of Gretzky and Lemieux and Jagr as the top scorers why we didn't see guys walking away with the Ross after they retired, and guys like Sakic and Forsberg and Naslund and Palffry and Lindros getting older, more injured, and/or retiring, also made it that much easier to win the Ross and finish in the top 10 going forward, and both of these significantly contributed to league scoring rates dropping. When you take away outliers at the top that are so far above the average and replace them with guys closer to the middle of the top 50, that's exactly what I expect to happen to the average, so I'm confused why you think it happening proves me wrong.

I also agree that the conditions for scoring in the NHL changes from era to era. But EVERY TOP 50 scorer in each those years played under the same conditions, so it doesn't explain how Alfredsson went from 12th best PPG in the 4 years prior to the lockout to 6th best in the 4 years afterward. He was still clearly a step below Thornton, just like before the lockout, but now looked that much better compared to his new group of peers in the top 20 scorers. Was it that he got more PPs than other guys playing under the exact same conditions in those years? Or was league scoring higher for Alfredsson than other players during those 4 years? Or was it all due to playing on the best line in hockey, even though that didn't really change his production relative to Thornton? To me, the most logical reason is that there were fewer guys who were significantly better than Alfredsson in the league.

And, then the comparable guys who weren't better than Alfredsson in those first 4 years moved up the ranks in the next few years as he and his peers in the top 10 fell off and/or retired. and the number of guys at the very top stayed at Crosby/Malkin/OV for a while, with only Stamkos and Kane joining the league through 2013. Beyond them, there weren't many scorers who were even on the same level as the guys who couldn't consistently put up comparable numbers to Alfredsson with the same rules, so the gap between the few elite guys and the next tier grew. Then there were a couple of years when most of that handful of elite guys in the league were injured and missed games, so the healthy elite guy left standing walked away with Ross, and guys who should have been in the 6-10 range were coming in a distant 2nd. Did Crosby/Malkin/Kane even have to have a great season, by their standards, to win the years they walked away with it? Or did they just have to stay healthy?

 

[Despote]

It's fair to point out that whatever metric you use - league average gpg, dominance over other top scorers, raw points, MacKinnon is quite clearly having a superior season than Crosby ever did.

There's nearly a 25% gap between the field (outside Kuch/Mcs) and MacKinnon. They're all over 1.7 p/gp and the 4th highest is only at 1.39 p/gp. That's lapping the field level dominance, exhibited by three players in the same season.

 

[wetcoast]

To put it another way, Alfredsson was PPG in 3 of 4 seasons, only scoring 71 in 78 games the 4th year. Therefore, he wasn't consistently PPG+ over those 4 seasons, only the last two of them. Yes, he did it three more times after the lockout with Heatley and Spezza getting tons of PP play time, putting up the 3 highest scoring seasons of his career. Did he not benefit from playing on the best line in hockey just as much as Heatley and Spezza did? Those were also Spezza's three career best seasons, as injuries and his skating took their toll.

And why exactly are you looking at the PPG of guys with the 3 highest raw scoring totals? Are you trying to figure out who was healthy enough to play more games? In the 4 years leading up to the lockout, Lemieux put up 207 in 144 games (1.44 PPG), despite missing the previous 4 years fighting cancer. Forsberg put up 250 in 187 (1.34), despite losing a full season due to a reptured spleen and his chronic ankle issues. Jagr was 1.116 PPG. Sakic, Naslund, and Ziggy Palfy were all 1.10 or higher too. Alfredsson being 13th at 0.99 is pretty clearly a step down to a different tier of player, right?

After the lockout, Mario was 40 and only played 26 games. Forsberg was another year older and skating on 1 foot. Everyone else above 1.0 PPG or higher in those 4 years before the lockout, other than Thornton, was into their 30s by 2005-06 and on the downturn of their careers. Bure retired the year before the lockout. Palffy and Allison retired after playing one more year. Only Jagr played and Thornton played a game after 2011.

Crosby, OV and Malkin were the only elite scorers added immediately after the lockout, and over the next 4 years, were comfortably in the top 4 in PPG rate (200 games minimum), along with Thornton. But they were at least competing amongst themselves. Beyond them, it was a "young" 32-35 year Jagr in 5th, Spezza and Alfredsson in 6/7, then Datsyuk, Heatley and Savard. One legged Forsberg put up the same PPG as Heatley, but only played 126 games and doesn't make the cut as a result. Top talent was very clearly lost in the lockout, even if PP rates artificially inflated scoring rates significantly.

After the lockout, the depth guys also started getting better, so the scoring averages didn't completely tank when PP opportunities dropped back down. And by that time, even more of the formerly elite guys had retired or passed their prime, and only Stamkos and Kane were added as elite scorers. OV also started having down seasons, and Malkin and Crosby struggled with injuries. So, over the next few years, the Ross went to whichever of the top guys could stay healthy, with the 2nd tier player who had the best season finishing a distant 2nd. When all the elite guys had down seasons, Benn won.

To me, an elite guy significantly outscoring 2nd tier players is expected, not impressive. And it certainly doesn't suggest that the elite guy who did it is definitely better than the elite guys today who are competing with 10 other elite guys (including McDavid) instead of beating up on 2nd tier talent.

That was alot of noise to say that you were wrong in suggesting that GHealtely didn't have strong offensive linemates don't you think?

but then again the thread has been side railed simply because it had zero merit in the first place.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

That was alot of noise to say that you were wrong in suggesting that GHealtely didn't have strong offensive linemates don't you think?

but then again the thread has been side railed simply because it had zero merit in the first place.

Where did I suggest Heatley didn't have strong linemates, exactly? He was literally on the best line in hockey during those years, so of course he had strong linemates. The only one saying otherwise is this new strawman that you seem to be building.

What I actually said was that having his best seasons playing with strong linemates doesn't prove he was not elite offensively when he was a top 5 scorer in 2006-07 and one of only 4 players putting up 200 points in those first two 2 years after the lockout. He was 9th in scoring as a 2nd year player, playing in Atlanta. Was that because of his linemates too, or is there some either reason to discount that season?

But if your argument against Heatley being elite is that he played with Spezza and Alfredsson, I almost have to ask, how much do you think Crosby benefited over his career from playing so much with Malkin, and vice versa? How much does McDavid benefit from Draisaitl, and vice versa? How much does MacKinnon benefit from Makar, Rantanen and Landy? Are they all less elite because they have good linemates? Or is the fact that they put up big numbers away from them too (like Heatley did in Atlanta) evidence that they are still clearly elite?

And I think the question absolutely has merit, assuming you try to look at hockey skill and don't try to discount the question based on flawed logic, like raw trophy counts and higher scoring ranks against lesser competition. Based on just hockey skill, I'm not sure it isn't a coin flip between Crosby and MacKinnon/Kuch/Drai.

 

[discobob]

It's enough of a compliment to McKinnon to say he's had 7 consecutive Crosby-esque seasons. That's amazing.... but stop before you say something stupid....

 

[bambamcam4ever]

It's fair to point out that whatever metric you use - league average gpg, dominance over other top scorers, raw points, MacKinnon is quite clearly having a superior season than Crosby ever did.

There's nearly a 25% gap between the field (outside Kuch/Mcs) and MacKinnon. They're all over 1.7 p/gp and the 4th highest is only at 1.39 p/gp. That's lapping the field level dominance, exhibited by three players in the same season.

What about when Crosby was at 1.6 and second was at 1.25?

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

MacK is definitely not better than Crosby was - but its still pretty cool that he could match (with 1 point) or surpass (with 2 pts) Crosby's single-season career high playing against him.

It would obviously be a dream come true to surpass your idol's personal best playing head-to-head against them. Even though scoring is up, its still a remarkable feat. I think if anyone told Nate that this was a possibility someday he would tell them they were crazy.

I don't think Sid would even be mad or jealous, watching his protege surpass his numbers. Would be a cool moment for both of them.

Edit - I also just realized he could tie Sakic's record in an Avalanche sweater of 120 (not franchise record but since the team moved to COL). I remember when he got drafted they showed a paper he wrote when he was like 10 that said his goal was to play with Joe Sakic on the Colorado Avalanche someday. MacK could essentially tie his 2 idols with 1 pts. One being head to head and the other being for the same team they played for. Would really be a surreal moment for him I'm sure.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

MacK is definitely not better than Crosby was - but its still pretty cool that he could match (with 1 point) or surpass (with 2 pts) Crosby's single-season career high playing against him.

It would obviously be a dream come true to surpass your idol's personal best playing head-to-head against them. Even though scoring is up, its still a remarkable feat. I think if anyone told Nate that this was a possibility someday he would tell them they were crazy.

I don't think Sid would even be mad or jealous, watching his protege surpass his numbers. Would be a cool moment for both of them.

Edit - I also just realized he could tie Sakic's record in an Avalanche sweater of 120 (not franchise record but since the team moved to COL). I remember when he got drafted they showed a paper he wrote when he was like 10 that said his goal was to play with Joe Sakic on the Colorado Avalanche someday. MacK could essentially tie his 2 idols with 1 pts. One being head to head and the other being for the same team they played for. Would really be a surreal moment for him I'm sure.

Guarantee both are not aware of crosbys 120 points

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

Crosby.

 

[daver]

What about when Crosby was at 1.6 and second was at 1.25?

This needs to be adjusted to the league APG (Alfies per game).