Your expectations of Crosby after 2007

[Zuluss]

No, I mean from 2010-'14 he didn't do a whole lot that made you think he still "had it". Honestly, lurk around these boards with old threads from those years, the idea was that Stamkos was the better goal scorer at the time and not Ovechkin. The idea was that Ovie was doing what all great players do, have their goal totals drop in his late 20s. This was the consensus pretty much.

This is revisionist history. 13/14 started with everyone talking about Ovechkin going for 50 goals in 50 consecutive games and being the first guy to do that in a long while. Somewhere around the end of 2013 he was leaving everyone in the dust in the goal-scoring race, having scored 30 goals in 34 games while #10 in the race had 16 goals or smth.

Crosby has led the NHL in goals twice. Ovechkin 7 times. Obviously we know where the edge is there. But here is the question, is Ovechkin a better playmaker than Crosby? Not even close, no one is going to debate this and I think most would agree the gap between Crosby and Ovechkin as goal scorers is noticeably smaller than their comparison as playmakers.

That's the wrong optics. If Usain Bolt beats everyone to the finish by 10 yards, it is freaking amazing. If I beat the guy next door to the finish by 10 yards, it's nothing. Usain Bolt is head and shoulders above everyone; me and my neighbor equally suck at running.
Crosby is a very productive goal-scorer, even if he is a "garbage man" and his goal totals sort of overstate his goal-scoring reputation (think about Esposito and why he is never brought up in the "best goal-scorer ever" discussion, and even Bossy is). The fact that Ovechkin is able to beat him there by 50% is a huge feat.
Being a better play-maker than Ovechkin though... meh.

Besides, recall that Crosby led the league in assists exactly once. It is sort of weird to say that 2 goal-scoring titles and 1 assist title beat 7 goal-scoring titles.
Another fun fact: Ovechkin has more combined top10 finishes in goals and assists (12+3=15) than Crosby (4+9=13).
Yet another fun fact: both have the same number of seasons when they were top10 in both goals and assists (3).
So Crosby can neither bring truly great goal-scoring and play-making to the table in the same season, he alternates between both, and even then he cannot catch up in times being at the top (combined top5 finishes in goals and assists: Ovechkin 12, Crosby 6).

 

[Big Phil]

This is revisionist history. 13/14 started with everyone talking about Ovechkin going for 50 goals in 50 consecutive games and being the first guy to do that in a long while. Somewhere around the end of 2013 he was leaving everyone in the dust in the goal-scoring race, having scored 30 goals in 34 games while #10 in the race had 16 goals or smth.

It isn't revisionist history, it is what was being thought at the time. Ovechkin had some bizarre years after 2010. 2011, especially 2012. Meanwhile Malkin had 50 in 2012 while Stamkos was thought to be the new top goal scorer in the NHL with 60. Ovechkin was still there, but was lacking in the entire hockey atmosphere, especially with Washington's usual early playoff exits. 2013 Crosby had as many points as Ovechkin despite missing 25% of the season. The next year Crosby lapped the field in the NHL. Ovechkin did something he hadn't done in 5 years - hit 50 goals. Yet it was very much anti-climatic because he had that horrible +/- that year and the Caps didn't even make the playoffs. This was also around the time where he started to win Hockey's version of the "Cy Young" award by having a ridiculously low assist total in comparison to his goals.

Overall here are their top 10 finishes in points:
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 10
Ovechkin - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8

PPG
Crosby - 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 6
Ovechkin - 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 8, 9, 9

That's the wrong optics. If Usain Bolt beats everyone to the finish by 10 yards, it is freaking amazing. If I beat the guy next door to the finish by 10 yards, it's nothing. Usain Bolt is head and shoulders above everyone; me and my neighbor equally suck at running.
Crosby is a very productive goal-scorer, even if he is a "garbage man" and his goal totals sort of overstate his goal-scoring reputation (think about Esposito and why he is never brought up in the "best goal-scorer ever" discussion, and even Bossy is). The fact that Ovechkin is able to beat him there by 50% is a huge feat.
Being a better play-maker than Ovechkin though... meh.

Besides, recall that Crosby led the league in assists exactly once. It is sort of weird to say that 2 goal-scoring titles and 1 assist title beat 7 goal-scoring titles.
Another fun fact: Ovechkin has more combined top10 finishes in goals and assists (12+3=15) than Crosby (4+9=13).
Yet another fun fact: both have the same number of seasons when they were top10 in both goals and assists (3).
So Crosby can neither bring truly great goal-scoring and play-making to the table in the same season, he alternates between both, and even then he cannot catch up in times being at the top (combined top5 finishes in goals and assists: Ovechkin 12, Crosby 6)

The reason I bring it up is because Crosby has it more evenly spread out. Look, Ovechkin may not even get 30 assists this year, he's done this quite a bit in his career and it is probably the biggest reason why Crosby beats him in PPG and overall point finishes.

 

[daver]

Being a better play-maker than Ovechkin though... meh.

It has brought Crosby significantly more team success so I am not sure "meh" quite captures the value of Crosby's superior playmaking.

 

[talitintti]

Crosby's job is to elevate mediocre wingers.

Ovechkin's job is to play with the best players in the team that feed him pucks and do the heavy lifting.

It's not even close in reality. There's no comparison between the two as hockey players.

 

[Zuluss]

Ovechkin had some bizarre years after 2010. 2011, especially 2012. Meanwhile Malkin had 50 in 2012 while Stamkos was thought to be the new top goal scorer in the NHL with 60. Ovechkin was still there, but was lacking in the entire hockey atmosphere, especially with Washington's usual early playoff exits. 2013 Crosby had as many points as Ovechkin despite missing 25% of the season. The next year Crosby lapped the field in the NHL. Ovechkin did something he hadn't done in 5 years - hit 50 goals. Yet it was very much anti-climatic because he had that horrible +/- that year and the Caps didn't even make the playoffs.

There is a lot of swiping under the rug going on here.

In 12/13, Ovechkin was 3rd in points and just 4 points behind the Art Ross winner. If that, along with a Hart and a Richard won in a convincing fashion (10% lead over Stamkos, 50% over #10 in goals) is not enough to return an established superstar to the status of one of the best players in the league, I don't know what is enough.

Also, one cannot fault Ovechkin for the lockout. He had 32 goals in 48 games in the shortened season, the pace of 55 goals over 82 games, and he finished 12/13 strong with 22 goals in the last 21 games of the season. There was no doubt as of April 2013 that the 50+ goal version of Ovechkin was back, and pretending that "In 13/14, Ovechkin did something he hadn't done in 5 years - hit 50 goals" and was an afterthought between 2010 and 2014 is like saying the same about Crosby. I mean, "in 13/14, Crosby did something he hadn't done in 5 years - hit 100 points" is factually correct, but it is not like he was an afterthought between 2010 and 2014 despite everything Malkin, Stamkos and whoever did then.

Ovechkin did have down years in 10/11 (though he still was voted 2nd-best LW and finished top10 in points) and in 11/12, but in 12/13 he was back to being viewed as the best winger in the league, and his 4th Richard in 13/14 started the talk that he should probably be viewed as a top5 goal-scorer ever. Did he disappoint in 13/14 some people who thought players do not age? Yes, but so did Crosby: so many folks thought he will get to 50 goals and 120-130 points once healthy, and there you go: he was fully healthy in 13/14 and brought in 36 goals and 104 points, worse than what Malkin did in 11/12 or what Kane did in 14/15.

Look, Ovechkin may not even get 30 assists this year, he's done this quite a bit in his career and it is probably the biggest reason why Crosby beats him in PPG and overall point finishes.

The reason why Crosby beats Ovechkin in career ppg is secondary assists Crosby collects due to his position on the ice and cycling the puck on PP. If you look at their primary points, the difference in ppg is virually nil.
Ovechkin, on the other hand, never touches the puck on the PP unless he has a clean shot - and now we keep hearing how Laine is imitating him, how Lightning is trying to refine the PP scheme OV made possible on the Caps, and how Ovechkin is the best PP weapon ever (which is no wonder given that he led the league in PPG 6 times, something nobody ever did). Somehow we do not hear all that about Crosby's cycling the puck - though he routinely has more PP points than Ovechkin.

Another reason why their ppg is different is the nature of their injuries. If you line up their most productive seasons, Ovechkin has slightly higher ppg in three most productive ones and slightly lower ppg in seven and even nine most productive ones.
The difference in career ppg comes exclusively from the fact that Ovechkin plyed through his wrist injuries, and his ppg these seasons was awful, and Crosby had to sit after his head injuries, and his ppg looked great. Different kinds of bad luck, that's all.

 

[Zuluss]

It has brought Crosby significantly more team success so I am not sure "meh" quite captures the value of Crosby's superior playmaking.

You can't be serious about Crosby's playmaking being the decisive difference between Team Canada and Team Russia, so let's talk about NHL.
It is in fact much easier to track Caps' team success back to Ovechkin's goal-scoring. E.g., when they won the Cup last year, he led the playoffs in goals and had twice as many goals as his next teammate not playing on his line. Two out of their three President's Trophies (fwiw) were also backed by Ovechkin's 50-goal seasons.
On the other hand, the first Cup was brought to Pens by Malkin, who had almost 50% more assists than Crosby during the 08/09 Cup run and did not play on Crosby's line.
The second Cup was largely due to HBK line, on which Bonino had more assists than Crosby and Kessel had one assist less; and again, it was not Crosby's line.
And only on the third successful Cup run Crosby indeed led the playoffs in assists and turned Guentzel into a 40-goal player for the duration of the playoffs; and yet Malkin had just one helper less, and Malkin is on the other line.
So I am not sure that there is such a strong correlation between Crosby's playmaking and his team's success.

Crosby's job is to elevate mediocre wingers.

Ovechkin's job is to play with the best players in the team that feed him pucks and do the heavy lifting.

Well, great wingers are just wasted on Crosby, he cannot gel with practically anyone. There is a reason why Malkin played with Neal and got to play with Iginla more when Iginla joined the Pens for a Cup run. Neal and Iginla were just more productive with Malkin. And for the same reason Team Canada had to bring Chris ****ing Kunitz to Olympics-2014 (not that it worked though).
It is hard to blame Crosby much for that, he is hard to please, but he produces nevertheless, so whatever. But "bad wingers" is not really an excuse for him. He has the wingers that are the best fit for him. They are not star wingers, but that's how he works.

Ovechkin, on the other hand, posted his best season with rookie Backstrom and 38-year-old Fedorov as his alternating centers, and I do not even want to recall the name of his center when he scored 52 goals and got an MVP nomination as a rookie.

 

[daver]

No, it really hasn't come true to any degree. Crosby still has no argument against any big four players. Should be more worried about his comparison with Ovechkin honestly and perhaps McDavid before long. Crosby should be compared with the Hull, Beliveau type players.

I think Crosby, through age 31/his first 14 seasons, has a decent argument to be in Howe's tier, and a great argument to be ahead of Hull and Beliveau at the same stage of their careers (first 14 seasons).

Howe has a clear advantage in RS points and peak seasons while their PPG dominance is similar. Crosby has a clear advantage in playoff points, peak playoff runs, and in playoff PPG.

Compare Howe's best 15 year stretch where, IMO, he was the best player in the world, or shared that title with another player, with Crosby's 14 seasons, where, IMO, he was the best player in the world, or shared that title with another player. Howe has a significant advantage in RS points and peak seasons while their PPG dominance is still similar. Their playoff resumes are close.

Howe has one season, 52/53, that reasonably cannot be touched by Crosby when examining level of play during any of their seasons but I would argue Crosby's best two seasons, 10/11 and 2013, are on the same level as Howe's other three seasons during the '51 to '54 period.

Does this mean Crosby could have a chance to surpass Howe? Nope

Does this mean Crosby has a chance to become the clear #5 and perhaps open the door to a discussion of a Big 5? Given the leeway that is given to Orr and Mario regarding their partial careers/partial seasons, I don't see why not. There is almost consensus that Crosby reasonably has two or three more Rosses, if not for bad luck with injuries, which, if it was the case, could put him at #5 all-time right now.

If he is able to keep himself in the discussion for best player, or at least be better than Howe and Wayne, as he gets further into 30s, he could make a case as having the longest elite prime of any player in history.

 

[golfortennis]

Also, one cannot fault Ovechkin for the lockout.

But it's Crosby's fault Brooks Orpik hits him with a slap shot in the jaw while Crosby was at least 10 feet off the line of the net? And Ovehckin's production in 48 games was not only 4 points off the Art Ross winner, it was also equal to Crosby's 36 game output. If Orpik could come close to hitting the net, Crosby runs away with things that year.

 

[Zuluss]

But it's Crosby's fault Brooks Orpik hits him with a slap shot in the jaw while Crosby was at least 10 feet off the line of the net? And Ovehckin's production in 48 games was not only 4 points off the Art Ross winner, it was also equal to Crosby's 36 game output. If Orpik could come close to hitting the net, Crosby runs away with things that year.

If you score off rebounds and deflections, you have to take the good with the bad, occasionally the puck will be hitting you.
Don't want that to happen? Park in the face-off circle and fire the shots like most great goal-scorers do. But you have to have the shot to do that. Crosby does not, he would be scoring 15 goals a season if he tried that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And also not getting out of the divisional round haha

 

[daver]

If you score off rebounds and deflections, you have to take the good with the bad, occasionally the puck will be hitting you.
Don't want that to happen? Park in the face-off circle and fire the shots like most great goal-scorers do. But you have to have the shot to do that. Crosby does not, he would be scoring 15 goals a season if he tried that.

I presume this is an example of the riveting narrative you said was well received in the HOH section?

 

[JackSlater]

I think Crosby, through age 31/his first 14 seasons, has a decent argument to be in Howe's tier, and a great argument to be ahead of Hull and Beliveau at the same stage of their careers (first 14 seasons).

Howe has a clear advantage in RS points and peak seasons while their PPG dominance is similar. Crosby has a clear advantage in playoff points, peak playoff runs, and in playoff PPG.

Compare Howe's best 15 year stretch where, IMO, he was the best player in the world, or shared that title with another player, with Crosby's 14 seasons, where, IMO, he was the best player in the world, or shared that title with another player. Howe has a significant advantage in RS points and peak seasons while their PPG dominance is still similar. Their playoff resumes are close.

Howe has one season, 52/53, that reasonably cannot be touched by Crosby when examining level of play during any of their seasons but I would argue Crosby's best two seasons, 10/11 and 2013, are on the same level as Howe's other three seasons during the '51 to '54 period.

Does this mean Crosby could have a chance to surpass Howe? Nope

Does this mean Crosby has a chance to become the clear #5 and perhaps open the door to a discussion of a Big 5? Given the leeway that is given to Orr and Mario regarding their partial careers/partial seasons, I don't see why not. There is almost consensus that Crosby reasonably has two or three more Rosses, if not for bad luck with injuries, which, if it was the case, could put him at #5 all-time right now.

If he is able to keep himself in the discussion for best player, or at least be better than Howe and Wayne, as he gets further into 30s, he could make a case as having the longest elite prime of any player in history.

He doesn't have an argument against Howe 's first however many years due to not having a strong enough peak. He almost certainly won't match Howe given Howe's longevity. There is essentially no chance of him making it a big 5 with his peak.

 

[daver]

He doesn't have an argument against Howe 's first however many years due to not having a strong enough peak. He almost certainly won't match Howe given Howe's longevity. There is essentially no chance of him making it a big 5 with his peak.

What defines "peak"?

 

[daver]

He doesn't have an argument against Howe 's first however many years due to not having a strong enough peak. He almost certainly won't match Howe given Howe's longevity. There is essentially no chance of him making it a big 5 with his peak.

Never said he would match Howe's overall longevity but he could prove to have more seasons where he is considered to the best or co-best player in the world.

Howe earned that in 50/51 and held it on his own or with another player thru to his 63/64 season. After that, Top 5 finishes are very good but are the equivalent of a Top 10 finish in today's league.

 

[JackSlater]

What defines "peak"?

I almost admire your dedication to being obtuse. You know what a peak is and you know that Crosby's pak is lacking compared to those of the players you want him placed with.

Never said he would match Howe's overall longevity but he could prove to have more seasons where he is considered to the best or co-best player in the world.

Howe earned that in 50/51 and held it on his own or with another player thru to his 63/64 season. After that, Top 5 finishes are very good but are the equivalent of a Top 10 finish in today's league.

You've tried grasping at this straw before and it fails. Yes, I'm sure that you believe that Crosby has been the best player since 2006-07 and remains as such. Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's a pretty random criteria to use as it depends so heavily on what other players are doing. I don't mind suggesting that a top ten finish today is pretty equivalent to a top five finish in the 1950s or 1960s but even that boost is extremely unlikely to help Crosby match Howe's incredible longevity.

Crosby is not going to have an argument against Howe no matter how many straws you grasp at. Crosby should be compared with Beliveau, Howe, Ovechkin, Hasek and company.

 

[Midnight Judges]

But it's Crosby's fault Brooks Orpik hits him with a slap shot in the jaw while Crosby was at least 10 feet off the line of the net? And Ovehckin's production in 48 games was not only 4 points off the Art Ross winner, it was also equal to Crosby's 36 game output.

lol No it wasn't. Ovechkin had more than twice as many goals as Crosby.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin did have down years in 10/11...

If by "down" you mean pretty much the same as Crosby's past 4 regular seasons, then yeah.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I'm not really seeing three of these four points. (I'll leave aside "the eye test", as I have a feeling you're not exactly objective.)

First, while being a center is indeed a position of responsibility, I don't think we can fault Ovechkin for being a winger. That's just silly.

Second, "Selke recognition". Really? I personally don't value the Selke at all (as I don't understand what it means, and I don't think voters do either), and the voting record I see shows Crosby finished as high as 7th once in his career, which means the highest he ever finished was with 4.7% of the vote. It's completely negligible.

Third, the ES scoring. I guess if you consider 0.1 PPG as "much better", then Crosby is indeed the higher scorer on a per game basis. And Crosby is certainly the better playmaker and probably a better passer. My issue, however, with favoring Crosby strongly for 0.1 PPG is the number of games he's missed. It's just a lot. Crosby was doing remarkably well in the short seasons of 2010-11 and 2012-13, but it's just as likely that if he'd finished 2011 and played the full season in 2013, his rapid pace would have dropped (as he has never had a full season at that pace). If that had happened, his ES PPG might still be marginally higher than Ovechkin, but now we'd be into the 0.05-or-something range which is virtually meaningless.

And finally, the plus/minus. Yes, there is an argument for Crosby here. Since they each entered the League, Cros is at about +179 (in about 140 fewer games) and Ovie at about +101. (I'm tempted to suggest the difference-maker is simply Ovechkin's outlier 2013-14 season, when he inexplicably went -35... but I guess he has to own that!) It's a difference for sure, but is it really significant, given the vagaries of plus/minus? With high-scoring forwards, I personally tend to ignore plus/minus and look instead at actual goals-for and against when the player is on the ice. In this, Ovie is +792 and Crosby +727, which is to say about exactly even.


So, out of your four arguments, I can get behind the plus/minus one in Crosby's favor -- i.e., his results have been somewhat better at even-strength. That is notable, but it's not like Ovechkin is a slouch (he's still in the top-20 plus/minus players since he entered the League, and is 4th-best of PPG players in that span). But as mentioned, with offensive players, I personally only care about overall goal-differential (though this, too, obviously requires some context), and in this category, they're even (in fact, Ovechkin is better overall, but in 140-odd more games).


I think, if forced to distinguish the two players, I might argue that at their respective peaks Crosby is a slightly better player. My reasoning would be that he has proven capable of leading the League in goals and in assists, separately, which Ovechkin hasn't (though it's easy to forget that Ovechkin has been top-10 in assists three times). One could, of course, turn that around and say that Ovechkin has been far and away the best goal-scorer since he's been in the League, whereas Crosby has never really been far and away the best at anything (I wouldn't make that argument, but some might).

So, anyway, you can split a hair between them in my opinion. But I can't see any reason for your opinion that Crosby is "clearly" a more complete player.

If daver's numbers are correct, that would be a 19% edge in ES production, which is quite large especially when over entire careers. For reference, that is larger than the difference between the career ppg averages of Kessel and Pominville

 

[daver]

Crosby is not going to have an argument against Howe no matter how many straws you grasp at. Crosby should be compared with Beliveau, Howe, Ovechkin, Hasek and company.

For the 3rd time, I am not arguing Crosby vs. Howe, just establishing that Howe's longevity puts him above Mario and maybe Orr while having a lower peak.

If Crosby is still putting up prime performances farther into his career than Howe or Wayne did, that should hold some leverage shouldn't it? Howe's prime performances ended after the 63/64 season based on his exceptional playoff performance that year.

Add in a playoff resume that could be better than three members of the Big 4 and that should also hold some leverage too shouldn't it?

 

[daver]

I almost admire your dedication to being obtuse. You know what a peak is and you know that Crosby's pak is lacking compared to those of the players you want him placed with.

But Howe's peak is lacking vs. Wayne, Mario and Orr too isn't it?

He has one season that is clearly on a tier of it's own from his peers, and two others that are matched by Hull, Beliveau, and Mikita.

Based on this, he is on a tier of his own from those players and has the playoff resume befitting his RS stature.

 

[JackSlater]

For the 3rd time, I am not arguing Crosby vs. Howe, just establishing that Howe's longevity puts him above Mario and maybe Orr while having a lower peak.

If Crosby is still putting up prime performances farther into his career than Howe or Wayne did, that should hold some leverage shouldn't it? Howe's prime performances ended after the 63/64 season based on his exceptional playoff performance that year.

Add in a playoff resume that could be better than three members of the Big 4 and that should also hold some leverage too shouldn't it?

More straws. Howe had a peak that was pretty close to what the other players did. He didn't maintain it as well as they did and merely had an exceptional but mortal prime, but he did have that peak. Crosby does not have that peak, and that is a huge negative for him in that comparison. Crosby is also incredibly unlikely to put up "prime" performances longer than Gretzky or Howe did. Gretzky had better scoring results at 37 than Crosby did last year or is on track to this year. Crosby surpassing Howe in longevity is laughable, to the point that you'd almost be better off arguing that Crosby might have a second peak that puts him up there with those guys. Crosby would have to maintain his health and be an elite player into his mid 40s to match Howe, better yet surpass him in longevity. How long would Crosby have to be elite to surpass Howe enough in longevity to make up for his relatively weak peak? Age 50?

Crosby's only playoff edge would be in longevity, leaving him basically where he is in the regular season. If your peak isn't high enough longevity just isn't going to cut it. No one argues Bourque over Orr, and for good reason. It doesn't matter that Bourque provided elite level play for over twice as long as Orr did when Orr was so clearly the superior player at his best.

But Howe's peak is lacking vs. Wayne, Mario and Orr too isn't it?

He has one season that is clearly on a tier of it's own from his peers, and two others that are matched by Hull, Beliveau, and Mikita.

Based on this, he is on a tier of his own from those players and has the playoff resume befitting his RS stature.

Why does this need to be asked again after it has bee discussed numerous times? Seeking for a window for Crosby to sneak into that level doesn't work by attrition - Crosby actually has to do it, and at this point that ship has sailed. Howe's peak is almost certainly the lowest of the big four, but it is stronger than anyone else's. He also has the greatest longevity of all time. Crosby has a peak that is in the mix with many players below the big four, including below some of them, and he is incredibly unlikely to match Howe in terms of longevity, better yet surpass him in some meaningful way. It's like suggesting that Patrick Kane can surpass Crosby all time as long as he sticks around long enough at an elite level after Crosby regresses, just because his peak season is somewhat in the ballpark of Crosby's best. It's ridiculous and based on something happening that almost certainly will not.

 

[Noldo]

Does this mean Crosby has a chance to become the clear #5 and perhaps open the door to a discussion of a Big 5? Given the leeway that is given to Orr and Mario regarding their partial careers/partial seasons, I don't see why not. There is almost consensus that Crosby reasonably has two or three more Rosses, if not for bad luck with injuries, which, if it was the case, could put him at #5 all-time right now.

The key difference between Orr’s/Lemieux’s partial seasons and Crosby’s partial seasons is that Orr and Mario managed to maintain similar level also over a course of (relatively) full seasons, giving credibility to the thought that they would have done that also over the course of season they were partially sidelined.

The Crosby’s dilemma will always be that he was injured right during his peak season while he was playing at level he never demonstrated over a course of a full season. As noted above in this thread, Crosby actually has similar or even better partial seasons before the injuries. Therefore there is reasonable doubt that he could managed to continue perform at the demonstrated level had he not been injured. His average level could have been sufficient for Ross though.

I have always held that had Crosby managed to lap the field during his first complete season after injuries, he would have received effective credit for three such seasons, because then the idea that he could have done that already during the injury ridden seasons would have been much more plausible. But now Crosby lacks that signature/ statement season, which quite many for expecting soon after his debut.

 

[daver]

The key difference between Orr’s/Lemieux’s partial seasons and Crosby’s partial seasons is that Orr and Mario managed to maintain similar level also over a course of (relatively) full seasons, giving credibility to the thought that they would have done that also over the course of season they were partially sidelined.

The Crosby’s dilemma will always be that he was injured right during his peak season while he was playing at level he never demonstrated over a course of a full season. As noted above in this thread, Crosby actually has similar or even better partial seasons before the injuries. Therefore there is reasonable doubt that he could managed to continue perform at the demonstrated level had he not been injured. His average level could have been sufficient for Ross though.

I have always held that had Crosby managed to lap the field during his first complete season after injuries, he would have received effective credit for three such seasons, because then the idea that he could have done that already during the injury ridden seasons would have been much more plausible. But now Crosby lacks that signature/ statement season, which quite many for expecting soon after his debut.

He did mange to have the best Art Ross win in 25 years if one chooses to ignore injuries completely but the consensus seems to be Crosby's peak level, however many games it was, was up there with the Best of the non-Big Four.

Howe had one season at a level that was better than anyone else outside the Big Four but arguably was not on the other three's level. Everything else he did peak-wise and playoff-wise points to him clearly him being above his peers at the time but not in a another stratosphere that is usually attributed to Orr, Wayne and Mario.

So if Howe earned his spot in the Big Four with a peak that is below the other three plus longevity, why can't Crosby earn his way in with a potentially superior length of elite prime and a potentially superior playoff resume to three members of the Big Three?

 

[Big Phil]

There is a lot of swiping under the rug going on here.

In 12/13, Ovechkin was 3rd in points and just 4 points behind the Art Ross winner. If that, along with a Hart and a Richard won in a convincing fashion (10% lead over Stamkos, 50% over #10 in goals) is not enough to return an established superstar to the status of one of the best players in the league, I don't know what is enough.

Also, one cannot fault Ovechkin for the lockout. He had 32 goals in 48 games in the shortened season, the pace of 55 goals over 82 games, and he finished 12/13 strong with 22 goals in the last 21 games of the season. There was no doubt as of April 2013 that the 50+ goal version of Ovechkin was back, and pretending that "In 13/14, Ovechkin did something he hadn't done in 5 years - hit 50 goals" and was an afterthought between 2010 and 2014 is like saying the same about Crosby. I mean, "in 13/14, Crosby did something he hadn't done in 5 years - hit 100 points" is factually correct, but it is not like he was an afterthought between 2010 and 2014 despite everything Malkin, Stamkos and whoever did then.

Ovechkin did have down years in 10/11 (though he still was voted 2nd-best LW and finished top10 in points) and in 11/12, but in 12/13 he was back to being viewed as the best winger in the league, and his 4th Richard in 13/14 started the talk that he should probably be viewed as a top5 goal-scorer ever. Did he disappoint in 13/14 some people who thought players do not age? Yes, but so did Crosby: so many folks thought he will get to 50 goals and 120-130 points once healthy, and there you go: he was fully healthy in 13/14 and brought in 36 goals and 104 points, worse than what Malkin did in 11/12 or what Kane did in 14/15.



The reason why Crosby beats Ovechkin in career ppg is secondary assists Crosby collects due to his position on the ice and cycling the puck on PP. If you look at their primary points, the difference in ppg is virually nil.
Ovechkin, on the other hand, never touches the puck on the PP unless he has a clean shot - and now we keep hearing how Laine is imitating him, how Lightning is trying to refine the PP scheme OV made possible on the Caps, and how Ovechkin is the best PP weapon ever (which is no wonder given that he led the league in PPG 6 times, something nobody ever did). Somehow we do not hear all that about Crosby's cycling the puck - though he routinely has more PP points than Ovechkin.

Another reason why their ppg is different is the nature of their injuries. If you line up their most productive seasons, Ovechkin has slightly higher ppg in three most productive ones and slightly lower ppg in seven and even nine most productive ones.
The difference in career ppg comes exclusively from the fact that Ovechkin plyed through his wrist injuries, and his ppg these seasons was awful, and Crosby had to sit after his head injuries, and his ppg looked great. Different kinds of bad luck, that's all.

To be fair, 2013 was one of those years where Crosby was noticeably better than Ovechkin. These were years that the gap was becoming obvious. 2011 that's just bad luck with that Steckel hit. He's miles ahead of Ovechkin at that point of the season. 2012 he misses most of the year but still has 37 points in 22 games. Actually a better pace than 2011. Then 2013 comes and he is lapping the NHL. Orpik's wacky shot hits him and he's injured for 12 games. This was the PPG for 2013 in the NHL:

Crosby - 1.56
St. Louis - 1.25
Stamkos - 1.19
Kane - 1.17
Ovechkin - 1.17

That is Jagr-esque back in his late 1990s days. Lots of threads talked about how amazing it was that he almost won the scoring race playing the equivalent of 60 games over a full year. Then 2014 hits and he beats the entire league by 17 points with Getzlaf being 2nd with 104 points. This is when Crosby started to separate himself from Ovechkin career-wise. Ovie had that 50 goal year with a low assist total in 2014 and a bad plus minus. Sure he led the league in goals, but his Caps missed the playoffs, it wasn't his best year.

So this is how I look at their careers, basically evenly split from 2005-'10 and that was as close of a consensus as possible. From 2010-'14 there was a lull with Ovechkin. As I said before he did have that surge at the end of 2013, and a 50 goal season in sort of a forgettable year in 2014. On a per game basis it was becoming obvious that Crosby had created a bit of a gap by now with their careers. He stole the show at the 2014 NHL Awards and it was the 2nd Lindsay trophy he won in a row. He was dangerously close to winning the Hart in 2013 as well and it is obvious it was solely because of his freak injury that he didn't (a la Jagr in 2000).

Then the next group is 2014-today. Their point totals have looked like this:
Crosby - 84, 85, 89, 89,
Ovechkin - 81, 71, 69, 87

Crosby has outscored him in every season since his Art Ross/Hart year. Some by noticeable margins. Throw in the fact that overall the playoff edge is clearly in favour of Crosby, but especially during this time too. Remember that 12 month run where Crosby won two Cups, two Smythes and a World Cup and World Cup MVP? That was literally just two years ago. Ovechkin winning his Cup in 2018 was nice, but all it does is make the playoff gap less gaudy for Crosby.

I fail to see where Ovechkin has had the better career when I can split their career up in three parts and Crosby wins two and ties the other.

 

[Fantomas]

The reason why Crosby beats Ovechkin in career ppg is secondary assists Crosby collects due to his position on the ice and cycling the puck on PP. If you look at their primary points, the difference in ppg is virually nil.

This.