Your expectations of Crosby after 2007

[wetcoast]

No, that's not a fact at all.

It is a fact that Crosby has more points per game. But I don't think it's a terribly important fact if we want to know which player is more offensively productive.

Points isn't an important fact in measuring offensive production?

So who is the better offensive player in the NHL this season, Kucherov or Ovechkin?

I don't think that there is even a debate among 99% of observers but for the goals are more important crowd it's hard to keep track.

Patrick Line is 6th in goals, would you even argue that he is a top 30 offensive player in the NHL this year?

 

[Fantomas]

Points isn't an important fact in measuring offensive production?

It is not an accurate metric (which has been my argument here for several posts, I don't know how you could have missed this). Whether it is important depends on how one defines 'important.'

So who is the better offensive player in the NHL this season, Kucherov or Ovechkin?

It's too close to call, but both ops and goals created have Kucherov ahead of Ovechkin.

I don't think that there is even a debate among 99% of observers but for the goals are more important crowd it's hard to keep track.

Patrick Line is 6th in goals, would you even argue that he is a top 30 offensive player in the NHL this year?

Maybe. Depends on the calculation one uses.

 

[Zuluss]

idk, if you go that far why not mention that he only got 20 pts in the last 19 games of 09-10?

Sure, that's one good example to bring up to someone who says Crosby would have absolutely got 50 goals and/or 120 points in 10/11. Multiple seasons by practically everyone that looked awesome at the midpoint fizzled out to be much closer to the average in the end.
And this is the reason why Crosby did not really accomplish anything in 10/11 - we do not know what would have happened, probably he would have lost Richard to Perry (like Stamkos did the same season) and Art Ross/Hart to D.Sedin. Or probably not.
And that's why it is not fair to say "Ovechkin lost a step in 10/11 and Crosby was just as great as he was in 09/10" - we do not know what he would have been over the full season.

 

[solidmotion]

Sure, that's one good example to bring up to someone who says Crosby would have absolutely got 50 goals and/or 120 points in 10/11. Multiple seasons by practically everyone that looked awesome at the midpoint fizzled out to be much closer to the average in the end.
And this is the reason why Crosby did not really accomplish anything in 10/11 - we do not know what would have happened, probably he would have lost Richard to Perry (like Stamkos did the same season) and Art Ross/Hart to D.Sedin. Or probably not.
And that's why it is not fair to say "Ovechkin lost a step in 10/11 and Crosby was just as great as he was in 09/10" - we do not know what he would have been over the full season.

typically crosby's play in the next few injury-marred seasons is brought up to argue the pace was broadly sustainable.

 

[wetcoast]

typically crosby's play in the next few injury-marred seasons is brought up to argue the pace was broadly sustainable.

One doesn't even need to look at that.

One can look at his career up to that point

he finished the year at 41-32-34-66

Taking his career average to before the season he scored 371-183-323-506 in those 5 years, so let's say he tails off if not injured and only plays to his previous level he ends up with a line of

52-70-122 clearly leads the NHL in points and probably goals but he would be at least 2nd in goals(45).

But let's say it's only 90% (which would be highly unlikely given how well he was playing) then it's 49-66-105 which would be 2nd in goals and 1st in points.

Edit: Something looks wrong with my math will recheck tomorrow when sober Changes made in bold correct now

 

[Zuluss]

typically crosby's play in the next few injury-marred seasons is brought up to argue the pace was broadly sustainable.

Typically Ovechkin's 22 goals in 21 games to complete 12/13 were used to argue that his 30 goals in 34 games at the start of 13/14 was a sustainable pace and he would surely break 70-goal mark. He got 53 goals in 13/14 nevertheless - great, but still.
Likewise, when Crosby finally played a full 80-game season in 13/14, he got 104 points - not 130 and not 120. And it was downhill from there once he started playing back-to-back full seasons plus playoffs, with all wear and tear and fatigue associated with that.

 

[wetcoast]

Sure, that's one good example to bring up to someone who says Crosby would have absolutely got 50 goals and/or 120 points in 10/11. Multiple seasons by practically everyone that looked awesome at the midpoint fizzled out to be much closer to the average in the end.

See my previous post, even if Crosby only regressed to his play in the 5 previous seasons he would have easily led the NHL in goals and points buy a large margin.

And this is the reason why Crosby did not really accomplish anything in 10/11 - we do not know what would have happened, probably he would have lost Richard to Perry (like Stamkos did the same season) and Art Ross/Hart to D.Sedin. Or probably not.

We will never know but if he doesn't get injured it's highly unlikely he would have lost either the Richard or the Art Ross that year.

Definitely not the Art Ross.

He would have only needed 38 points in the final 41 games, and who knows what happens in the game he got injured in.

And that's why it is not fair to say "Ovechkin lost a step in 10/11 and Crosby was just as great as he was in 09/10" - we do not know what he would have been over the full season.

No that would be inaccurate, Ovechkin wasn't that great in 10/11, especially as a goal scorer and Crosby got injured.

2 completely different reasons why both didn't lead the NHL in anything that year.

 

[wetcoast]

Typically Ovechkin's 22 goals in 21 games to complete 12/13 were used to argue that his 30 goals in 34 games at the start of 13/14 was a sustainable pace and he would surely break 70-goal mark. He got 53 goals in 13/14 nevertheless - great, but still.

I never saw that argument in 13/14 for Ovechkin.

Pretty simple because of the unbalanced schedule in 12/13, which worked in Ovechkin's favor in scoring goals down the stretch in 12/13.

Using career average would be more use full and predictive, whish of course it was.

Likewise, when Crosby finally played a full 80-game season in 13/14, he got 104 points - not 130 and not 120. And it was downhill from there once he started playing back-to-back full seasons plus playoffs, with all wear and tear and fatigue associated with that.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that in 13/14 his 104 points was 17 points more than 2nd place that year.

Using pure counting stats to compare 2 different seasons always needs context.

 

[Zuluss]

See my previous post, even if Crosby only regressed to his play in the 5 previous seasons he would have easily led the NHL in goals and points buy a large margin.

Usually hot streaks are followed by cold streaks, not reversal to the average.
People similarly said "if Crosby just regresses to the average" after he had 26 goals in 31 games to start 16/17 and concluded he would definitely top 50 goals, if not 60. What happened was 44 goals. Kane was on pace for 120+ points midway through 15/16, Ovechkin was on pace for many things during his career (in 09/10, 13/14, and this year, for example).

We will never know but if he doesn't get injured it's highly unlikely he would have lost either the Richard or the Art Ross that year.

Definitely not the Art Ross.

He would have only needed 38 points in the final 41 games, and who knows what happens in the game he got injured in.

You just said in your previous post that even scoring at 90% of his career average (which included the higher scoring 05/06 and 06/07) would have meant he would have lost both.
Things get tighter towards the end of the season, even great players get tired and accumulate minor bruises and stretches.

No that would be inaccurate, Ovechkin wasn't that great in 10/11, especially as a goal scorer and Crosby got injured.

2 completely different reasons why both didn't lead the NHL in anything that year.

Ovechkin had a wrist injury in 10/11, he was reported to be getting cortisone shots in mid-January 2011. When exactly that thing started and when it ended, is hard to say, teams do not report that, but a sharp drop in his shooting % of 8.7 vs. 13.6% the year before speaks for itself.
A wrist injury is not just a bruise, it is a big deal for a goal-scorer. E.g., Semin, a 40-goal scorer in his heyday, had his wrist ruined and was largely done as a hockey player. Luckily, Ovechkin's injury was not that serious, but it is pretty amazing he still was very serviceable playing through it.
So two completely different injuries, but one gets all the heat he can get, and the other gets all the forgiveness there is.

 

[Zuluss]

I never saw that argument in 13/14 for Ovechkin.

Using career average would be more use full and predictive, whish of course it was..

Using career average of 0.61 gpg would say Ovechkin would end up with 59 goals for 13/14 after getting 30 in 34 (48*0.61=29). He got 53, so we are 10% off. And we are only off by 10% and not 20% because his shooting % back then was below 17%, relatively close to his career median of 13%.
Crosby shot at 20% in 10/11 vs. career median of 14%, so the reversal would have been greater.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that in 13/14 his 104 points was 17 points more than 2nd place that year.

Using pure counting stats to compare 2 different seasons always needs context.

Proper context is something constant within an era, like points by #10 in the scoring race. #2 is too variable - Crosby got lucky that Stamkos and Malkin were injured, Kane had a career year two years later and McDavid has not shown up.
Measuring him against #10 gives a winning margin of 32% - much worse than Malkin's margin in 11/12 (40%), worse than Kane's margin in 15/16 (38%) and even worse than D. Sedin's margin in 10/11 (35%).
Tell me again why we have to be sure Crosby's 10/11 would have been that much different had Crosby stayed healthy. He never led #10 in points by more than 32% - and then in 10/11 he would have led #10 by 50% all of a sudden? And the 50% margin would still put him at 116 points.

 

[streitz]

220 points

 

[wetcoast]

Using career average of 0.61 gpg would say Ovechkin would end up with 59 goals for 13/14 after getting 30 in 34 (48*0.61=29). He got 53, so we are 10% off. And we are only off by 10% and not 20% because his shooting % back then was below 17%, relatively close to his career median of 13%.
Crosby shot at 20% in 10/11 vs. career median of 14%, so the reversal would have been greater.

The thing is that you are comparing apples to oranges here.

Goals and points.

Ovechkin clearly dipping as a player in terms of points in the 10/11 season and has remained there since.

Crosby shot at 17.1% the previous year and sure he would have regressed in goals but he would have still gotten points and led the NHL in points quite easily in 10/11 without the injury.

Crosby was really consistent as a point producer from 06-10 with very few 10 games chunks under the 38 in 41 he would have needed to win the Art Ross in 10/11.

Sure he might not have won the richard as he is a more complete player but the Art ross would have been there 99%, not this 50/50 chance you indicated upthread.

Proper context is something constant within an era, like points by #10 in the scoring race. #2 is too variable - Crosby got lucky that Stamkos and Malkin were injured, Kane had a career year two years later and McDavid has not shown up.

What do you mean he got lucky Malkin had 72 points in 60 games and was barely over a PPG the year before and after.

If you really want to argue that Sid probably would not have reached 104 points in 10/11 then at least be consistent with Malkin.

Same with Stamkos as he only had 40 points in 37 GP

Measuring him against #10 gives a winning margin of 32% - much worse than Malkin's margin in 11/12 (40%), worse than Kane's margin in 15/16 (38%) and even worse than D. Sedin's margin in 10/11 (35%).

Well see your argument above when Crosby got lucky that Malkin and Stamkos were injured.

Malkin and Sedin both got such large margins with the league's best offensive player being injured.

Kane had a career year and deserves full props for that season.

Tell me again why we have to be sure Crosby's 10/11 would have been that much different had Crosby stayed healthy. He never led #10 in points by more than 32% - and then in 10/11 he would have led #10 by 50% all of a sudden? And the 50% margin would still put him at 116 points.

Sure in a 6 team league the #2 is going to be variable but in a 30 team league there are 180 top line players, the gap over 2 is quite plausible.

No one is claiming that he absolutely would have hit 130 points in 10/11 but hitting 116 really isn't that far out of the question and 105 sure would have been attainable.

We are very far removed from that year and the closest he gets to PPG is 85 in 80 games in 15-16 and it's not like scoring was up that year.

And that's after the injury when he lost a bit of his burst.

If you somehow think that he couldn't reach 38 points in 41 games had he kept playing in 10/11 please provide some evidence, it isn't there.

 

[bobholly39]

220 points

Did you really? I assume you're kidding but really curious to see if some seriously expected to see Crosby surpass some of Gretzkys records.

I was less into records and stat watching back in 07 so i dont even remember what my expectations were.

I know today mcdavid - a comparable level prospect - i could see him maybe do 130 or even 140 in an absolute perfect storm of a season but id be shocked to see more.

Ive always argued if a lemieux or gretzky level player came into the league even in this era i could see them still making a run at 200.

 

[streitz]

Did you really? I assume you're kidding but really curious to see if some seriously expected to see Crosby surpass some of Gretzkys records.

I was less into records and stat watching back in 07 so i dont even remember what my expectations were.

I know today mcdavid - a comparable level prospect - i could see him maybe do 130 or even 140 in an absolute perfect storm of a season but id be shocked to see more.

Ive always argued if a lemieux or gretzky level player came into the league even in this era i could see them still making a run at 200.

Nah I'm kidding but I certainly expected at least like 150-160 at least for a peak season.

 

[wetcoast]

Did you really? I assume you're kidding but really curious to see if some seriously expected to see Crosby surpass some of Gretzkys records.

I was less into records and stat watching back in 07 so i dont even remember what my expectations were.

I know today mcdavid - a comparable level prospect - i could see him maybe do 130 or even 140 in an absolute perfect storm of a season but id be shocked to see more.

Ive always argued if a lemieux or gretzky level player came into the league even in this era i could see them still making a run at 200.

You had me up until the last sentence, Mario never hit 200, he got to 199 then his next best is 168 even in a much higher scoring era and the conditions have simply changed too much for that to happen in todays NHL.

 

[The Panther]

I did expect Crosby to be able to grow a beard soon after 2007. He didn't really live up to my expectations until recently.

 

[Zuluss]

You were asking when did Crosby have two seasons back to back comparable to Ovechkin's 2008 and 2009? I'd say 2013 and 2014 are similar.

The back-to-back seasons are important because they show the ability to maintain peak level of play. They basically differentiate players like Malkin (who had back-to-back 100+ point seasons in 2008 and 2009) and Kane, who had only one such season in 2015.
Ovechkin's 2008 and 2009 are 161 games (and he has 72 games more from 2010 to add to that). Crosby's 2013 and 2014 are 116 games. That's a difference. In the past 110 games McDavid and MacKinnon have the same stat line (a few more points for McD, a bit higher ppg for MacK) - do you hear a lot of people saying MacK is as good as McD? Some are saying that already, but the vast majority choses to wait for a couple full seasons they will be close in (and last season they were not close, Hart votes be damned).

The highest point total by either of them in their careers is Crosby in 2007. He just got hurt the next year...

...and we never got to learn if he can maintain this level of play over 2 full seasons or more. And that's not just one instance: literally, Crosby has never led #10 in points by 20% or more in two consecutive seasons. It was either injuries, or a relatively weak year, like recently, or something else.
And I know, he should have done and would have done that, but there is so many things many players almost surely would have done if healthier and luckier. Ovechkin, for instance, would have had 3 straight Art Rosses instead of 1 if not for a dozen of missed games, and that would have put him closer to Bobby Hull than he currently is. Bure would have had 700 career goals if not for his bad knees. Orr would have become the best player ever if not for the knee again.
But it is what it is, and Crosby left some question marks as to whether he was capable of maintaining his MVP level of play in two or more full consecutive seasons, or he was a very consistent top3 finisher who hung in there long enough to have a couple of outlier seasons (and probably also was "lucky" to get hurt after hot streaks and not after cold streaks).

 

[Zuluss]

Crosby's PPG from 10 to 13 was 1.60

The next best PPGs are:

Malkin - 1.20
Stamkos - 1.16
Sedin - 1.05
Giroux - 1.05

OV's PPG from 07 to 10 was 1.42

The next best PPGs are:

Crosby - 1.35
Malkin - 1.28
Gaborik - 1.13
Kovalchuk - 1.12
Thornton - 1.12

Crosby is clearly more dominant.

So show me a full season by Crosby when he led #5 in points by 1.6/1.05-1=52%. His best lead over #5 in points in a full season is 27% (13/14), his second-best lead is 18% (06/07).

So, what happened, why ppg paints such a different picture from what the real full season show? A combination of three things happened:

- Crosby's ppg pace in 10-13 was unsustainable, this period was a combination of hot streaks which he could never carry through a full 82-game seasons
- If your competition plays full seasons and you play half-seasons, you have an advantage of being well-rested, and that makes you look better than you would have if you had played full seasons too
- The competing players are punished for having down years, so what you are showing about Crosby is his consistency, not dominance.

The third point needs a bit more elaborating, since it is an important thing to keep in mind when hearing/talking about Crosby's career ppg.
Imagine four runners, A, B, C, and D who run races in three consecutive years.
Year 1 - A wins, D comes in second, B and C are far behind
Year 2 - B wins, D comes in second, A and C are far behind
Year 3 - C wins, D comes in second, A and B are far behind
If you look at average times, D is the fastest. Did he dominate? No, he was beaten every year. But he was consistent, he did not have bad races either, so that's what gives him the fastest average time.

So that's what's going on with Crosby's ppg: he gets too much credit for not having bad years and "dominating" weak years by others, but not their strong years. But like I said, to be better than Mike Tyson, you have to beat peak Tyson, not the Hangover version of Tyson. If the peak Tyson destroyed you once and then you were able to beat the Hangover Tyson ten times, you still are not better than Tyson.

 

[daver]

So show me a full season by Crosby when he led #5 in points by 1.6/1.05-1=52%. His best lead over #5 in points in a full season is 27% (13/14), his second-best lead is 18% (06/07).

So, what happened, why ppg paints such a different picture from what the real full season show? A combination of three things happened:

- Crosby's ppg pace in 10-13 was unsustainable, this period was a combination of hot streaks which he could never carry through a full 82-game seasons
- If your competition plays full seasons and you play half-seasons, you have an advantage of being well-rested, and that makes you look better than you would have if you had played full seasons too
- The competing players are punished for having down years, so what you are showing about Crosby is his consistency, not dominance.

The third point needs a bit more elaborating, since it is an important thing to keep in mind when hearing/talking about Crosby's career ppg.
Imagine four runners, A, B, C, and D who run races in three consecutive years.
Year 1 - A wins, D comes in second, B and C are far behind
Year 2 - B wins, D comes in second, A and C are far behind
Year 3 - C wins, D comes in second, A and B are far behind
If you look at average times, D is the fastest. Did he dominate? No, he was beaten every year. But he was consistent, he did not have bad races either, so that's what gives him the fastest average time.

So that's what's going on with Crosby's ppg: he gets too much credit for not having bad years and "dominating" weak years by others, but not their strong years. But like I said, to be better than Mike Tyson, you have to beat peak Tyson, not the Hangover version of Tyson. If the peak Tyson destroyed you once and then you were able to beat the Hangover Tyson ten times, you still are not better than Tyson.

You made a specific claim that OV's most productive seasons were as good as good as Crosby's, based on PPGs.

Quote: "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."


Now you are clearly moving the goalposts to raw points since this has been shown to be completely false.

Their career PPGs should be viewed as a completely accurate reflection of their on-ice performances.

 

[daver]

typically crosby's play in the next few injury-marred seasons is brought up to argue the pace was broadly sustainable.

If one wants to guess at how that season plays out, they can look at his 06/07 season where he had a similar PPG at the halfway mark. He finished that year at a 125 point pace.

The fact that he again was lapping the field after 36 games in 2013 adds a lot of credibility to the notion he was playing on a clearly higher level than everyone else.

 

[solidmotion]

- Crosby's ppg pace in 10-13 was unsustainable, this period was a combination of hot streaks which he could never carry through a full 82-game seasons

nothing to suggest this is either true or untrue—the only thing being argued is crosby's relative greatness in the games he did play, which amount to rather enough to judge him well above anybody else in the era.

- If your competition plays full seasons and you play half-seasons, you have an advantage of being well-rested, and that makes you look better than you would have if you had played full seasons too

the exact opposite is just as often the case, viz. nylander this year. and hard to claim that being plagued by headaches etc amounts to time off to get in shape, etc. at the time i believe it was expected crosby would show some rust. he never did.

- The competing players are punished for having down years, so what you are showing about Crosby is his consistency, not dominance.

consistency at a level far, far above anything anybody else attained in the era.

 

[wetcoast]

The back-to-back seasons are important because they show the ability to maintain peak level of play. They basically differentiate players like Malkin (who had back-to-back 100+ point seasons in 2008 and 2009) and Kane, who had only one such season in 2015.

This is totally untrue, we all have seen Crosby maintain a high level of play every season in his career.

There is a difference in staying healthy (playing complete seasons) and maintaining a high level of play.

Ovechkin's 2008 and 2009 are 161 games (and he has 72 games more from 2010 to add to that). Crosby's 2013 and 2014 are 116 games. That's a difference. In the past 110 games McDavid and MacKinnon have the same stat line (a few more points for McD, a bit higher ppg for MacK) - do you hear a lot of people saying MacK is as good as McD? Some are saying that already, but the vast majority choses to wait for a couple full seasons they will be close in (and last season they were not close, Hart votes be damned).

Why compare apples with Oranges?

McDavid won his 2nd Art Ross last season.

Mac before last season had a high of 63 points in his rookie year and had 105 points in the previous 154 games.

...and we never got to learn if he can maintain this level of play over 2 full seasons or more. And that's not just one instance: literally, Crosby has never led #10 in points by 20% or more in two consecutive seasons. It was either injuries, or a relatively weak year, like recently, or something else.

Relatively weak year where he finished 10th in scoring, was good in the dot and played an elite 2 way game for a top 30 scorer, finishing with a 9th in the Selke.

That's alot better than at least 2 of Ovechkin's wort seasons and maybe up to 4/5 of them depending on what happens this year.

And I know, he should have done and would have done that, but there is so many things many players almost surely would have done if healthier and luckier. Ovechkin, for instance, would have had 3 straight Art Rosses instead of 1 if not for a dozen of missed games, and that would have put him closer to Bobby Hull than he currently is. Bure would have had 700 career goals if not for his bad knees. Orr would have become the best player ever if not for the knee again.

For the record I think Ovechkin has a case over Hull right now but comparing injuries, which are out of a players control, to a suspension that Ovechkin deserved isn't fairly comparable.

But it is what it is, and Crosby left some question marks as to whether he was capable of maintaining his MVP level of play in two or more full consecutive seasons, or he was a very consistent top3 finisher who hung in there long enough to have a couple of outlier seasons (and probably also was "lucky" to get hurt after hot streaks and not after cold streaks).

Well actually no Crosby has maintained a very high level from his first season and including this season in the games he played in.

The claim that Crosby got lucky when he got hurt is really puzzling to say the least.

Crosby's whole career has been a "hot streak", his low point season is still better than 2-4 of Ovechkin's level of play.

There is no question about it.

 

[pappyline]

For the record I think Ovechkin has a case over Hull right now but comparing injuries, which are out of a players control, to a suspension that Ovechkin deserved isn't fairly comparable.

Ovechkin has no case over Hull and don't give him a break because of missed time. Don't forget that Hull also missed time due to contract disputes and injuries. Though Hull tended to play through a lot of his injuries which hurt his stats some years. For example, unlike Crosby, Hull kept playing when he broke his jaw.

 

[wetcoast]

Ovechkin has no case over Hull and don't give him a break because of missed time. Don't forget that Hull also missed time due to contract disputes and injuries. Though Hull tended to play through a lot of his injuries which hurt his stats some years. For example, unlike Crosby, Hull kept playing when he broke his jaw.

I think it's a little strong to say that he has no case.

I personally have hull ahead of Ovechkin but I fully expect Ovechkin to pass Hull, unless he falls off a cliff within 2 or 3 years.

They both have 7 Richards, Ovechkin might get his 8th this year and after this year both will have 12 top 10 finishes in goal scoring.

Hull has the playoff advantage but it's not huge.

He also has the point finish advantage but it was all pretty much in a 6 team league, competition for points was much harder in the last 12 years than it was for Hull.

I give credit to Hull for his WHA years but once again level of competition, split between WHA and NHL and still limited players from Europe, makes it hard to tell exactly how much it tilts the discussion towards Hull.

If Ovechkin wins 10 Richards, so 2 more after this year, or has 4 or 5 more top 5 goal finishes, it's going to be really hard to make the case for Hull.

 

[pappyline]

I think it's a little strong to say that he has no case.

I personally have hull ahead of Ovechkin but I fully expect Ovechkin to pass Hull, unless he falls off a cliff within 2 or 3 years.

They both have 7 Richards, Ovechkin might get his 8th this year and after this year both will have 12 top 10 finishes in goal scoring.

Hull has the playoff advantage but it's not huge.

He also has the point finish advantage but it was all pretty much in a 6 team league, competition for points was much harder in the last 12 years than it was for Hull.

I give credit to Hull for his WHA years but once again level of competition, split between WHA and NHL and still limited players from Europe, makes it hard to tell exactly how much it tilts the discussion towards Hull.

If Ovechkin wins 10 Richards, so 2 more after this year, or has 4 or 5 more top 5 goal finishes, it's going to be really hard to make the case for Hull.

Well we shall see won't we. You do realize that Hull was #5 in the exercise we are currently going through whereas Ovechkin was #22. Thats quite a bit of ground to make up. Do you also realize that Ovechkin would have to leapfrog your boy (Crosby)to pass Hull.

I find it puzzling that winning more Richards puts Ovechkin over Hull in the minds of many people yet it makes no difference in comparing Ovechkin to Crosby etc. It actually amuses me.