As of TODAY, where is McDavid on the all time list in your opinion?

[GreeningOil]

Lemieux would never be outscored by Kucherov and MacKinnon though. From 1988-97 he only lost the art ross if he was injured that season. And it was to Gretzky anyway.

Well, McDavid was injured last season…

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Well, McDavid was injured last season…

He played 76 games. I mean Lemieux didn't play any completely healthy games post 1990.

 

[lawrence]

top 4. easily. Dude is hard to contain. makes everyone around him better. much better. unique players. Once in a lifetime type of guy.

 

[GreeningOil]

He played 76 games. I mean Lemieux didn't play any completely healthy games post 1990.

I ain’t gonna start arguing that.

McDavid was not 100% last season and he still had 100 assists and had an incredible playoff run.

 

[ViD]

Right now he ranks as the second best cupless player right behind Marcel Dionne

 

[WetcoastOrca]

He’s a tough one to be honest. My gut tells me he ends up in the top 5 even without a Cup. But this is based on trajectory rather than where he is right now.
There’s Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux that he’s not likely to catch. And Howe’s duration at a high level is really unheard of.
The trouble I have is with the lack of a Cup. Should he be punished for having Chia, Holland and now Bowman as poor GM’s? How many Cups would the others have won with that type of management? For me it’s not just a cut and dry thing but requires context.

 

[TKB]

Im one of the few that argue Orr should be lower for that very reason. The skill was there, the high end seasons were there, and the accolades were there, but not the longevity. So were crowning him top 3 of all time because we never saw the regression assuming he would have stayed at that level for another 10 seasons, which is highly unlikely.

McDavid, if his career ended today, is Orr without the Cups.

Hell, i we are going off that logic, there is a real argument for Lemieux being the best ever. ASSUMING he played the same amount of games as Gretz, he would be close to his point totals and played in a tougher era to score.

Bobby Orr is not placed where he is because we didn't see a downside of his career ....he is placed there because when he was healthy and in his prime....he changed the game.

Similar to Gretzky. You can make a good argument that Mario was a better hockey player, but Gretzky completely transcended the game by how he played during his prime. Mario dominated in a more traditional physical sense.

To the subject at hand as great as McDavid is, he just doesn't separate himself from his peers the way Orr, Gretzky and Mario did.

 

[nerevarine]

Honestly, number 1

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Bobby Orr is not placed where he is because we didn't see a downside of his career ....he is placed there because when he was healthy and in his prime....he changed the game.

Similar to Gretzky. You can make a good argument that Mario was a better hockey player, but Gretzky completely transcended the game by how he played during his prime. Mario dominated in a more traditional physical sense.

To the subject at hand as great as McDavid is, he just doesn't separate himself from his peers the way Orr, Gretzky and Mario did.

Bingo. Orr revolutionized the way defensemen played D. I think he may have had the biggest influence on the game of hockey. Had he played a full career I personally would have had trouble separating him and Gretzky.

 

[wetcoast]

Bobby Orr is not placed where he is because we didn't see a downside of his career ....he is placed there because when he was healthy and in his prime....he changed the game.

Agree.

Similar to Gretzky. You can make a good argument that Mario was a better hockey player, but Gretzky completely transcended the game by how he played during his prime. Mario dominated in a more traditional physical sense.

Agree and will add that Howe also has a very good and long prime of tilting the ice.

To the subject at hand as great as McDavid is, he just doesn't separate himself from his peers the way Orr, Gretzky and Mario did.

This is where we part as I think it's just harder to dominate for several reasons.

1) the number of teams and the chance for variance which is part of my second point.

2) the number of talent streams producing elite talent these days is just out of this world and all trophies are more competitive than in most seasons in the past.

 

[TKB]

Agree.

Agree and will add that Howe also has a very good and long prime of tilting the ice.


This is where we part as I think it's just harder to dominate for several reasons.

1) the number of teams and the chance for variance which is part of my second point.

2) the number of talent streams producing elite talent these days is just out of this world and all trophies are more competitive than in most seasons in the past.

I would argue that the counter to that is that there may be more talent overall today, there are more teams now. in addition pre-cap era the late playoff rounds featured more best on best player wise in terms of matchups. While the Soviets weren't in the NHL at the time Gretzky and Mario also performed at the highest levels in those great Canada Cup series against the Soviets, which was as good of hockey as I ever watched.

I would say McDavid ends up in a second tier off all time greats at least in my life time (1967). I really don't know how to rank Original 6 greats compared to the eras that I was able to watch for myself. None of that is to diminish the skill levels of players and even kids (youth hockey) today. But if you are measuring the GOATs you ultimately have to evaluate each generations best measured up against the best of their time.

 

[Video Nasty]

McDavid's PPG can't really be compared to the all-time greats, because he is in his prime right now and hasn't had the end-of-career PPG dip that all players go through.

Sure it can. He's building enough of a buffer where his overall placement is not going to fall all that much. As of now, he has 1006 points in 662 games, good for 1.52 PPG.

Let's say he plays 1400 games, a number that will still have been reached by less than 50 players all-time by the time he gets there in this hypothetical.

Let's also say he dips all the way to 1.00 PPG for the next 738 games, which I think is extremely unrealistic.

His 1.241 PPG would still rank 9th all-time, if we give Crosby the benefit of the doubt that his current 1.25 doesn't dip further down, and that's with three players in the top 10 now playing only 553, 657, and 708 games.

I would bet that McDavid retires no lower than back below Orr at 5th.

 

[bishop12]

Mario or McDavid are likely the two most talented players of all time.

 

[Video Nasty]

if he had health and longevity had a real chance at taking down Gretzkys records. Assuming Lemieux was able to play the same amount of games as Gretzky, his career pace would put him 57 points behind Gretz. 2800!!! That is how good Lemieux was and he did it in a harder era to score.

Once upon a time, Gretzky had 2,119 points in his first 915 games.

Using your same very basic idea, his career pace at that point would put him at 3,444 points, or 644 points ahead of Lemieux's make-believe total of 2,800 in 1,487 games.

Another fun one is the 745 games Lemieux played before retiring for the first time in 1997. He had 1,494 points. Gretzky had 1,774 points in his first 745 games. Shouldn't he have finished with 3,541 points according to your thesis?

Lemieux was always behind Gretzky. Pace doesn't mean anything, especially when the most consistent and dominant player showed why.

Of course, I'm sure the counter will be that Lemieux would be even more dominant with health (he should have stretched more btw). Well, we would have to do the same for Gretzky and his own back issues. There's no scenario where Mario surpasses Gretzky, or even gets close.

 

[caymanmew]

He’s a tough one to be honest. My gut tells me he ends up in the top 5 even without a Cup. But this is based on trajectory rather than where he is right now.
There’s Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux that he’s not likely to catch. And Howe’s duration at a high level is really unheard of.
The trouble I have is with the lack of a Cup. Should he be punished for having Chia, Holland and now Bowman as poor GM’s? How many Cups would the others have won with that type of management? For me it’s not just a cut and dry thing but requires context.

One major thing to consider is he had the Conn Smythe. Obviously it is valued less than a cup, but in some ways, it is more important to the individual resume. Being called the best player in a playoff says he is showing up, and his stats back that up.

I know it isn't a cup, but winning it and his playoff record over a number of years show me he plays a big game in the big games, and that matters more than being on the best team. Great players don't win on teams like McDavid has/had. The teams that surrounded 99, 66, and Orr were so much better than what McDavid had. McDavid would have multiple cups too if he had teams like they did.

 

[DFC]

Top 10 already, headed for top 5.

 

[benfranklin]

Once upon a time, Gretzky had 2,119 points in his first 915 games.

Using your same very basic idea, his career pace at that point would put him at 3,444 points, or 644 points ahead of Lemieux's make-believe total of 2,800 in 1,487 games.

Another fun one is the 745 games Lemieux played before retiring for the first time in 1997. He had 1,494 points. Gretzky had 1,774 points in his first 745 games. Shouldn't he have finished with 3,541 points according to your thesis?

Lemieux was always behind Gretzky. Pace doesn't mean anything, especially when the most consistent and dominant player showed why.

Of course, I'm sure the counter will be that Lemieux would be even more dominant with health (he should have stretched more btw). Well, we would have to do the same for Gretzky and his own back issues. There's no scenario where Mario surpasses Gretzky, or even gets close.

Since were going to make pretend world, we can pretend the scoring levels of 1984 were the same as 1997. Gretzky won the scoring title in 83-84 with 205 points. Jagr won in 97-98 with 102 points.

Its all the same though.

One major thing to consider is he had the Conn Smythe. Obviously it is valued less than a cup, but in some ways, it is more important to the individual resume. Being called the best player in a playoff says he is showing up, and his stats back that up.

I know it isn't a cup, but winning it and his playoff record over a number of years show me he plays a big game in the big games, and that matters more than being on the best team. Great players don't win on teams like McDavid has/had. The teams that surrounded 99, 66, and Orr were so much better than what McDavid had. McDavid would have multiple cups too if he had teams like they did.

Yes, but can also easily argue Bob lost it more than McDavid won it. If that was a sweep, Bob gets it easily. McDavid had 2-2 in their first win and was pointless in win 2 and 3.

 

[Video Nasty]

Since were going to make pretend world, we can pretend the scoring levels of 1984 were the same as 1997. Gretzky won the scoring title in 83-84 with 205 points. Jagr won in 97-98 with 102 points.

Its all the same though.

Great example picking 1997-1998, a season Gretzky played and Lemieux didn’t.

 

[Romang67]

Since were going to make pretend world, we can pretend the scoring levels of 1984 were the same as 1997. Gretzky won the scoring title in 83-84 with 205 points. Jagr won in 97-98 with 102 points.

Its all the same though.


Yes, but can also easily argue Bob lost it more than McDavid won it. If that was a sweep, Bob gets it easily. McDavid had 2-2 in their first win and was pointless in win 2 and 3.

Lemieux played 140 regular season games in the low scoring period 1997-2004. Gretzky played 234.

Lemieux's pace was unaffected by the harder era to score in. He barely played in it.

 

[benfranklin]

Great example picking 1997-1998, a season Gretzky played and Lemieux didn’t.

Go to 96-97 then. 122 points led the league. 98-99. 127 points.

I think you get the point. I know most Americans dont understand inflation, but we need to calculate for something here. Im with you, the point totals may have never been there for Lemieux in pure numbers because of the difference in eras, but we can easily make an argument for Lemieux being on par with Gretzky if healthy.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Mario or McDavid are likely the two most talented players of all time.

Bobby Orr is number one imo.

 

[benfranklin]

Lemieux played 140 regular season games in the low scoring period 1997-2004. Gretzky played 234.

Lemieux's pace was unaffected by the harder era to score in. He barely played in it.

Got it. So that 1.94 ppg pace we are ignoring during those two seasons at the beginning of the dead puck era? For comparison Gretzky was scoring at a 2.02 ppg clip at the same age in 89-91.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

I've got him at 5 right now. His dominance of the league is absurd, he's got tons of hardware and after what he did in the playoffs last season I don't care if he never wins a cup, he's a proven playoff performer who does great every year and is constantly let down by his team.

 

[MuckOG]

I would have McDavid somewhere between 5-10 all time.

 

[57special]

Bingo. Orr revolutionized the way defensemen played D. I think he may have had the biggest influence on the game of hockey. Had he played a full career I personally would have had trouble separating him and Gretzky.

I would've had no trouble at all. he would've been better than Gretzky. Most of Orr's accomplishments were after he had already had surgeries, and this was back in pre-arthroscopic days, when they cut you open, leaving a mass of scar tissue that was never the same. In those days, a cartilage tear was often career ending.