shmenguin wrote:People assume because a person takes this stance on Crosby that they aren't a fan and want him to fail. That's not the case. I don't include anything up until the 09 wings because there were no problems then. He was fantastic across the board. Then the trend started. So the only series' I'm leaving out are Ottawa, NYI, Ottawa and Columbus.
He wasn't good against Columbus despite his numbers. If that wasn't true, tell it to the rest of the hockey world.
He did well in the other 3 series. But that tells me he can still produce against poor competition. That's nice, but it doesn't prove that when he plays a competitive team, he performs adequately. I listed quality opponents. You can call it cherry picking but you'd be missing out on an important point while dismissing it.
As again, I have nothing against Sid, but if he doesn't perform, we lose every year. So it's important for him to figure things out.
Crosby was not good these playoffs, I will offer no argument there. His playoff productivity all-time (which really is 3rd greatest) speaks for itself imo. I don't "box score link" like you assumed, but I feel like 1. that's such a huge defense in this instance (insulting a player in the playoffs, when statistically he's the 3rd most productive player ever 2. Its hard to recall / discuss the details of games played years ago. (I can write about the last series without referencing stats so heavily, but doing so from something from 2010 a little tougher)... I really do feel like the rest is cherry picking.. I'm sure you can find stretches / series in small game sample sizes in ANY players career in the playoffs... when you look at the body of work, its still quite impressive.
Here's another issue I have, you essentially diminish any series sid has been dominant or great in because "poor competition". Once again (speaking to stats only because its hard to recall some specific plays from years ago), 3rd most productive.. I'm sure every other NHL player hasn't played every series against the greatest team ever. I also feel like, if Crosby tears up a team, they're considered "lesser competition", if he doesn't they're considered tougher competition.... I'd imaging if he destroyed the rangers, flyers, and habs they'd suddenly be discounted as lesser competition. This makes the series you list imo even more of a selection bias.
Once again, what I derive from the series you list is that, if a team can limit Crosby they will almost always win (you listed every series in the last 5 years the Pens have been eliminated in). That' to me, just speaks volumes to how much the Pens rely on 1 player in recent years (once again, not counting this year). IMO, NO player, even the greatest in the world, will tear up every series in this era. IIRC, Toews (now suddenly regarded as super clutch) struggled for large periods during the Hawks last run, but the Hawks were deeper / had others step up. Also, in 2009, the Pens had Geno playing in God mode / MAF when the Wings limited Crosby. I feel like too many other years, any time a team could limit Crosby it was an automatic exit. I'll repeat, that I'm not counting this year, I feel like Crosby truly was subpar iin the 2014 playoffs
Also, my general response in this subject has less to do with any denial because I'm a Sid fanboy, and more my long-standing argument that "clutch" in all sports is 99% misconceptions over-exaggerated and also extreme small sample size. Its why I argue with everyone about Peyton Manning, Tony Romo constantly... You will probably disagreemee with this theory, but just letting you know my thoughts aren't derived from an "omg, how dare he criticize Crosby" background). I feel like while Crosby was subpar in the last 13 games, it probably matches similar random bad stretches for Crosby that if they occurred in November are soon forgotten. When you look at his 91 game sample size of playoffs its more telling.
Just letting you know how I'm drawing my conclusions, I understand your arguments though