I said Yzerman-like numbers.
I wasn't likening him to Yzerman compared to Lemieux and Gretzky. I was saying if he put up numbers like Yzerman did.
You can't argue that Yzerman, when all is said and done, won't go down in NHL history as one of the best players ever. He certainly ranks in the Top 50 of all time, which, by my estimation, any player that matches that can't be considered not living up to any hype.
Why is everything a comparison to Gretzky or Lemieux's numbers to you? Gordie Howe didn't come close to those two. Messier didn't either (per season. Over the course of their careers they had good point totals). Yet both of those guys could arguably compete with Lemieux and Gretzky for "greatest player ever".
Which goes back to what I've repeated a bunch of times now. If Crosby DOMINATES his era, but does it by scoring "only" 130 to 150 points, instead of coming close to 200 points, then he lived up to the hype.
You've contradicted yourself a couple of times by first saying that he has to atleast challenge Gretzky's records (something Messier, Howe, Richard, etc. best point or goal totals never did, btw) to live up to the hype. Then you say in your last response that he has to dominate his era, which is basically what I proposed all along which you disagreed with because of your insistence he had to do the above.
So which is it? Does he have to come close to breaking Gretzky's records for him to live up to your notion of his hype? Or does he just have to dominate his era? They're not necessarily one and the same.