Sidney Crosby Appreciation Thread

[FlamesFanStrandedInEDM]

Originally Posted by Rerun

... and still curious... HOW OLD ARE YOU?

Growing up, I was always told to avoid this question when it was asked by a stranger on the internet.

Though you cannot base everything on a stats page, when the stats begin to add up, there needs to be some consideration. Also, today right now we can compare stats where we cannot put them on the same rink.

If Gretzky played in an era when the goalie stops 5% more shots on average throughout a career, that would definitely impact his goal totals and the goal totals of the players he was setting up. in 1985(Gretzky's 215 pts season) All top 10 players had point totals 105 or greater. A feat Crsoby has only done twice. Can we not just say that if Neal Broten can score 105 pts in the NHL in 1985, it was probably easier to score back then?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

I never understood the clutching to a viewpoint that biased on you taking an athlete "Crosby" and thinking what he would be able to do in the "80's" as if he stepped out of a time machine.

A Crosby born in 1961 would not grow up to have the same advantages that the Crosby that was born in 1987 had.

You have to compare the athlete to his peers and not the athlete to another era's peers

Hell, if Crosby had been born in 1961 he probably wouldn't have even played in the NHL. He'd probably be out in his dory fishing in Cole Harbour Nfld. trying to make a buck to feed his family.

And if Gretzky had been born in 1987, who knows how many goals and assists he would have so far in his career (assuming he plays 7 years just like Sid)... though I suspect it would be the same amount that he got from 1978-1985 (1226 pts)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanStrandedInEDM

Growing up, I was always told to avoid this question when it was asked by a stranger on the internet.

Though you cannot base everything on a stats page, when the stats begin to add up, there needs to be some consideration. Also, today right now we can compare stats where we cannot put them on the same rink.

If Gretzky played in an era when the goalie stops 5% more shots on average throughout a career, that would definitely impact his goal totals and the goal totals of the players he was setting up. in 1985(Gretzky's 215 pts season) All top 10 players had point totals 105 or greater. A feat Crsoby has only done twice. Can we not just say that if Neal Broten can score 105 pts in the NHL in 1985, it was probably easier to score back then?

Everyone agrees that it was easier to sore then.

However, you have to look at how much Gretzky dominated his peers by. The only reasonable conclusion is to assume he would dominate by a similar amount today.

Maybe that means 150 or 160 pts instead of 215, but it would still be head and shoulders above his peers.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanStrandedInEDM

Growing up, I was always told to avoid this question when it was asked by a stranger on the internet.

When I grew up there was no such thing as the internet. Kids actually left the house to play hockey, baseball, basketball, and soccer.

Personal computers, Wii, Nintendo 360, and Playstation hadn't been invented yet.

Strangers were the new kid down the block who you invited to play with your buddies in a pick up game of scrub baseball. Do kids still play this???

[TurnedTheCorner]

Continuing to harp on the age thing is giving your replies a super condescending and dismissive tone IMO.

And that last post is straight Dion territory.

[Coach]

I think I see what Strombad is getting at and why it is getting past a few people.

Crosby IS the most marketable player in the NHL. He is the amassador for the sport whether you like him or not. Any sports fan, even those who know nothing about hockey, knows who Sidney Crosby is. Just like Tiger Woods, just like Michael Jordan, Pele, Beckham, GRETZKY, etc... He is the face of his sport. That's not to say he is the greatest of all time. Only time can tell that and unless Crosby explodes at some point, he won't touch Gretzky stats-wise, but that doesn't mean he can't have a similar role within the sport.

Think of Beckham. Was he the best of all-time in his sport? Definitely not. Was he the best of his era? Very very debatable. But people know Beckham is synonmous with soccer. He has sold the sport to a generation of people (and to floundering markets) through elite level play as well as branding. We see the same thing Crosby.

He is not being deployed as the "saviour" like Gretzky because, frankly, hockey is doing quite well. But it wasn't when he first entered the league. It had been bogged down by stand-still defense and boring champions. Yes they did change (or more strictly enforce) a bunch of rules to help the game play, but Crosby came in as an 18-year old and exploded like we hadn't seen from a young player in a very very long time. I think I can bring it down to pne phrase from the British broadcast of the 2010 gold medal game; "Ohhhh Sidney Crosby, it had to be!" That line tells me that the world views Crosby as synonmous with hockey.

And while I think goalies and general play style helped Gretzky with his impossible numbers somewhat. I think a larger factor is the narrowing of the talent gap between the top NHL players and the 4th line players.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Continuing to harp on the age thing is giving your replies a super condescending and dismissive tone IMO.

And that last post is straight Dion territory.

Don't mean to be condescending and definitely not dismissive. My point is that sometimes you have to experience things in order to be able make a complete case for comparison purposes. There is more to greatness than just what the record book says.


And my little soliloquy about growing up was kind of a "way back then" story. Life has changed a lot, particularly from a kids point of view, in the past 50 years. Its a little harder for the youth of today to understand what it was like back then.... same way as it was for me to really understand what life was like growing up in the "Dirty '30s".

That's why I would never get into an argument with someone over how great Doug Harvey was or Eddie Shore or Howie Morenz in comparison to todays or players of the past 50 years. How can I argue when I never saw them play?

[TurnedTheCorner]

So is it a matter of first hand knowledge, the seeing, that's critical in your view? Or is part of it just a matter of how close together different players might be in time?

I ask because I too saw Gretzky play as I was growing up, although Orr was just ahead of my time. It didn't stop me from reading up on past NHL and Stanley Cup exploits, and the Original Six, and the first expansion, and so on. I think I gained a lot of respect for past players though that, and of course a lot of broadcasters, journalists, and fans pass on their knowledge to new fans.

When Gretzky broke out, I remember people still maintaining that Orr or Howe were the greatest. So I guess things just go in cycles.

Sid's the real deal IMO though, and belongs in the conversation. I just hope he can stay healthy so there's not so many "What if"s when he's done like there is with Lemieux.

[albertGQ]

To be honest, I think a lot of current non-hockey fans don't know who Sidney Crosby is.

In his prime, even non sports fans would probably know who Wayne Gretzky is.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanStrandedInEDM

If Gretzky played in an era when the goalie stops 5% more shots on average throughout a career, that would definitely impact his goal totals and the goal totals of the players he was setting up. in 1985(Gretzky's 215 pts season) All top 10 players had point totals 105 or greater. A feat Crsoby has only done twice. Can we not just say that if Neal Broten can score 105 pts in the NHL in 1985, it was probably easier to score back then?

I think even the strongest Gretzky supporters would agree that playing in the 80s helped his point totals. It's to what extent that we get hung up on. Would Gretzky be putting up 200 point totals in today's NHL consistently? Ehh probably not. Would Tim Jackman teleported back into 1985 be challenging Gretzky for the scoring lead? Ehh going to go with no. Somewhere in the middle is our answer.

If you want to bring up 1985, remove Gretzky from the equation for a second and hear me out. Lemieux's 141 point second place finish is still a high number, and he would lead the league in his 19 year old season just like Crosby if not for Gretzky. And you're right that top 10 did score pretty highly in 1985. But compared to Crosby's top 10 finishers when he had his best season, so far, with 120 points in 2007 is it an astronomical difference? Everyone in the top 10 had over 95 points, and if Jokinen can score 91 that year is Broten really that big of an insult to Gretzky?


Lemieux's 141 points to Crosby's 120 is 118% difference
Coffee's 138 points to Thornton's 114 is 121% difference
Kurri's 131 points to Lecavalier's 108 is 121% difference
Bossy's 123 points to Heatley's 105 is 117% difference
Stastny's 122 points to St. Louis's 102 is 120% difference
Savard's 116 points to Hossa's 100 is 116% difference
Naslund's 110 points to Sakic's 100 is 110% difference
Hawerchuk's 105 points to Jagr's 96 is 109% difference
Broten's 105 points to Savard's 96 is 109% difference
Goulet's 104 points to Briere's 95 is 109% difference

(Sorry terrible formatting, but from there you can see that somewhere between that top tier scoring was up between 10% and 20% without factoring in Gretzky, and more importantly the playstyle, the goalies, the competition, the parity, the training etc. etc. etc. I'm just more going for a comparison between their peers)

Now placing Gretzky and his 215 points back into that mess and the equivalent would be placing a player in 2007 who scored somewhere between 180 and 195 points. Imagine if in 2007 a player did put up those type of points, would Crosby be even getting the time of day? The way Gretzky dominated his peers up until Lemieux broke out is just so far out of what Crosby has done to date that the comparison becomes pretty iffy at best to me.

Then of course there's the argument about all the other stuff but just in terms of comparison to peers Gretzky has a leg up.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

So is it a matter of first hand knowledge, the seeing, that's critical in your view? Or is part of it just a matter of how close together different players might be in time?

I ask because I too saw Gretzky play as I was growing up, although Orr was just ahead of my time. It didn't stop me from reading up on past NHL and Stanley Cup exploits, and the Original Six, and the first expansion, and so on. I think I gained a lot of respect for past players though that, and of course a lot of broadcasters, journalists, and fans pass on their knowledge to new fans.

When Gretzky broke out, I remember people still maintaining that Orr or Howe were the greatest. So I guess things just go in cycles.

Sid's the real deal IMO though, and belongs in the conversation. I just hope he can stay healthy so there's not so many "What if"s when he's done like there is with Lemieux.

Yes its definitely a critical dimension in evaluating players... which is why scouts still go to see prospects in person. You can tell a lot by stats and stories but they don't tell everything.

Not disputing that Sid is a great player. He is. Just don't consider him Gretzky great. Just my opinion for what its worth... and on here, I will admit, most people don't consider it worth too much.

[wretched34]

I find this topic quite amusing, as half the debate is for Crosby being the "Gretzky" of this generation based on points, and the other half is arguing he is the "Gretzky" of this generation based on his name/marketing.

Here's my 2 cents, on both topics:
1. When it comes to points, since Crosby has joined the league in 2005, he has been outscored 745-682 by Alex Ovechkin, hell, even Joe Thornton has outscored him with 708 points. Of course Crosby has suffered injuries, but when talking strictly points, he's not at the top of the ladder.

2. when it comes to his name, it is owned by CCM/Reebok for marketing, he is by far the most marketed player in North America, but do you know who else CCM/Reebok owns marketing rights to? Alex Ovechkin, and I'd have to assume, they've done their homework, and know their markets, and would probably think Ovechkin is the most well known name in Europe. So the "Gretzky" of this generation should actually be CCM/Reebok when it comes to marketing the NHL.

Crosby is an undeniable talent, but so are other players, like Ovechkin, Thornton, Toews, Stamkos, and many others. To say Crosby is the "Gretzky" of this generation is some what unfounded, and quite biased.

That's my thoughts anyways.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yes its definitely a critical dimension in evaluating players... which is why scouts still go to see prospects in person. You can tell a lot by stats and stories but they don't tell everything.

Not disputing that Sid is a great player. He is. Just don't consider him Gretzky great. Just my opinion for what its worth... and on here, I will admit, most people don't consider it worth too much.

Sure, I get what you mean about scouting. But less face it, fans aren't scouts. And if you're anything like me, you watched hockey a lot differently as a kid then you do now.

Anyway, no biggie. Thanks for chiming in.

[Rerun]

Greatest Top 10 Sports Stars Ever

Mohammad Ali (boxing)
Michael Jordan (basketball)
Michael Phelps (swimming)
Pele (soccer)
Usain Bolt (track and field)
Wayne Gretzky (hockey)
Babe Ruth (baseball)
Carl Lewis (track and field)
Michael Schumacher (auto racing)
Martina Navratilova (tennis)

The above are people who utterly dominated their field of sport for many years.

Does Wayne Gretzky deserve to be included with the above elite stars? Yes he does.

Does Sidney Crosby deserve to be included? Right now, no he doesn't.

/nuff said. Done.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

1996 was absolutely the dead puck era. It wasn't the middle of it but you're going to find far more people refer to the dead puck era starting in 1995 than 1998. And I've also used 1996 and 2006 as benchmarks. 1996, with Lemieux and Jagr, had 6.2 goals per game, 2006 has 6.1 goals per game, based on the last website I looked. Not exactly a crazy difference.

Maybe I'm missing something here. My reference shows that goals per game per team was 3.14 in 1995-96. That's not in the dead puck era of low goal scoring. If you're saying that Lemieux scored all these point totals in 95-96 as a slight against Crosby then you're argument does not make sense. Because goals per game per team and lower now than in that season which was 2.74 last season.

Put in context, that's 6.28 goals per game to 5.28. That's a goal a game higher than what Crosby is playing in right now.

Over 82 games assuming say 2.7 points awarded per goal that's an additional 110 points awarded per team in 95-96 as opposed to now.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Sooo that Crosby guy is pretty good.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Really great start, no question. I hope he stays healthy all season.

[vilzeh]

He's the Gretzky of our generation, sup guys?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Sooo that Crosby guy is pretty good.

Nah... he sucks balls and he's a whiner.

Wait a minute. Where and when have I heard that before? Sounds very familiar.

I have a theory that greatness inspires great hate and they directly correlate to each other. Frankly Sid just isn't hated that much.

Oh wait... that would mean that Sean Avery is the Greatest! Damn... so much for that theory.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

He's the Gretzky of our generation, sup guys?

Whoa, don't say that or the old guys will go off their meds and start ranting again.