Can Connor McDavid break up the "big 4"?

[MadLuke]

Agree with all points. I do think, back in that era, that ES point-scoring was more valuable a skill than PP points because (at least I think) the PP numbers went down in the playoffs. That's why (and again, I agree) 1987-88 Gretzky is still clearly above Mario -- Wayne out-pointed Mario 91 to 74 while playing 13 fewer games!

Long overtime (but playoff OT pp are probably for sure a bit rare) can make direct comp a bit rough, but say 87 to 91

Average PPO/PPG per game
regular season : 4.8 / 0.98
playoff .......: 5.2 / 0.98

Better team get more power plays, better team are more often in the playoff, or just game are in average a bit longer, so PP by 60 would be the same, we just have more time for them...

Could the myth (if it is and always been) come from people looking at PIM, and seeing penalty down quite a bit in the playoff because fighting tended to go away in them, and thinking it mean less PP ? Or that people watch game more attentively and see more non-call (or hockey being more intense and physical really had more of them), I could believe Weber did more cross-check in the playoff than the regular season and was not called more for it, just the same amount.

SH points tend to have more value than RS points and those more than PP Points because they tend to be an higher amount of net added goal to a team, but for super player every points scored over say 65 in a season will tend to be net added goals.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So, out of curiosity, are you someone that doesn't see an argument for Orr at #1?

There's a clear argument for Orr at 1 and it's: 1970 Orr was the best player I've ever seen. And defensemen are the most valuable position because they cover the most area and have the most responsibility. So, with Orr, you get all the same scoring PLUS he was a huge, huge plus defensively - especially compared to Gretzky and Lemieux. After Orr's junior age, Orr was by far the highest scoring player in the NHL (1969 thru 1975) except for his center Esposito. I mean, he blew everyone else but Espo away by over 30%.

Even if you expand it to 1968 to 1979, it's still unreal...
1. Esposito 1318 (926 GP)
2. Ratelle 1018 (908 GP
3. Mikita 876 (828 GP)
4. Orr 874 (596 GP)
5. Clarke 868 (773 GP)
6. Lemaire 835 (853 GP)
7. Lafleur 816 (603 GP)

The production matches the eye test. So, that's a big winner for me. Gretzky's career is over twice the length, and it's almost all impact seasons...so that's enough to get the nod from me, for now.

The case for Lemieux is pretty simple too. There's a pretty good case that if we stopped the world right now, set every player to 18 years old, and set the scouts out for a draft...Lemieux is going #1 overall. He's the greatest goal scorer of all time because he score could every different way, he's one of the best rush players of all time, insane playmaker, perhaps the best 1 on 1 player ever, etc.

As the record shows, I still have Gretzky #1. But if anyone came here to sell Orr OR Lemieux as #1, as long as it's done earnestly and consistently, I wouldn't say a peep...

 

[VanIslander]

The question itself exposes injured Orr & Lemieux.

Yet, has McDavid been as great as Hasek?

 

[Beljavskij]

It’s actually much more simple than that. I’m not going to give credit to any player based on what they should have or could have done. Dave’s costly is, which is a problem. Crosbys peak is heavily inflated due to the games he played. Would he have won more? Of course…but he didn’t.

that’s fine. But the facts remain, McDavid actually accomplished more, played the games, and dominated. For many Crosby fans, that’s a hard pill to swallow…but it’s the truth.

He still hans't won anything on a team level. Definitely a knack on his resume.

 

[Beljavskij]

McDavid would have 7, more than Howe-Lemieux, he would more Hart than Lemieux, those are quite high bar.

Yes, but Lemieux was also facing the toughest competition of all when playing the first half of his career -- competing about arts and harts with Gretzky. Which makes his art and hart record almost more impressive.

McDavid has competed mostly with Crosby, Kuch and Mckinnon. Great players but not Gretzky-level.

 

[wetcoast]

You’re suggesting a “what aboutism”. In reality McDavid, in the biggest game to solidify his legacy, failed to produce and lift his club to the Cup.

That's sounds like an avoided yes doesn't it?

 

[wetcoast]

On the leadership front, I've always found it a curious coincidence that every "great" leader in hockey history was magically on a stacked team.

That's the 20/20 or hindsight rule of leadership though.

It grows exponentially once any said top player wins the SC and if they only score 40+ points then they chocked in game 7.

Obviously not all people think this way but many do at least to some extent.

 

[norrisnick]

That's the 20/20 or hindsight rule of leadership though.

It grows exponentially once any said top player wins the SC and if they only score 40+ points then they chocked in game 7.

Obviously not all people think this way but many do at least to some extent.

Yzerman is shining example of this. All he's ever done is play hard and do what the coaching staff asked of him. Lousy leader that you can't win with for most of his career. Until magically a solid roster without gaping holes was built around him and he's the greatest captain ever. Nothing in his approach to how he played or how he led changed. He still played hard and did what the coaching staff asked of him.

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Yzerman is shining example of this. All he's ever done is play hard and do what the coaching staff asked of him. Lousy leader that you can't win with for most of his career. Until magically a solid roster without gaping holes was built around him and he's the greatest captain ever. Nothing in his approach to how he played or how he led changed. He still played hard and did what the coaching staff asked of him.

Yzerman is the worst example for this.

Everyone knows Yzerman changed his playing style to focus more on defence under Scotty. When he did, then he starts winning all those cups in Red Wings and gold in Olympic until Gretz make decision to retire his number for international play (which he himself unretired it as a GM in 2010 btw).

 

[daver]

2.75 G/GP (07-14)
2.99 G/GP (17-24)

Crosby’s competition adjusted to 17-24
Kucherov: 1.41
Malkin: 1.33
MacKinnon: 1.30
Draisaitl: 1.30
Ovechkin: 1.28
Panarin: 1.19
Pastrnak: 1.17
(17-24) Crosby: 1.16
St. Louis: 1.16
Matthews: 1.15

McDavid’s 2-4 comp average: 1.34
Crosby’s 2-4 comp average adjusted to 2017-2024: 1.25


McDavid’s competition adjusted to 07-14
Kucherov: 1.30
Malkin: 1.22
MacKinnon: 1.20
Draisaitl: 1.20
Ovechkin: 1.18
Panarin: 1.09
Pastrnak: 1.08
17-24 Crosby: 1.07
St. Louis: 1.07
Matthews: 1.06

Crosby’s 2-4 comp average: 1.16
McDavid’s 2-4 comp average adjusted to 2007-2014: 1.23

Even with a crude and basic G/Gp adjustment we can see that dominance should be contextually viewed. McDavid’s peers are clearly harder to dominate than Crosby’s and yet McDavid dominates Crosby’s to a larger degree than he did while playing a much longer sample. This isn’t to say Crosby wasn’t impressive in his stat prime but it’s already in favor of McDavid and will probably become a non discussion as the 17-24 McDavid “prime” will probably shift to a start date between 2020 and 2027 in time.

Why adjust using league GPG when that has clearly been shown to be a faulty metric?

We can compare their respective gaps over the #5/#10/#25 and #50 scorers. That figure shows a similar % gap at each level.

Adjusting anything introduces unnecessary hypotheticals. In this case:

What if Crosby played in the McDavid's era where since 17/18, scoring by the very top end offensive players (including Crosby) has increased a bit disproportionately to overall league GPG?

What if McDavid played more seasons in DPE 2.0, which was even harder for top end talent to separate itself from the pack than the DPE? I.e. tighter games meant more balanced icetime, less TOI for Top 6 forwards.

Both players separated themselves from the pack in a way that was similar to peak Jagr and prime Howe.

McDavid's advantage over Crosby is less injury affected seasons during his peak and a three year head start on Jagr.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I don't see a meaningful PPG gap. But the extra peak games played will absolutely matter.

I do think the 2022 and 2024 playoffs are a major nod towards McDavid. Crosby never had a playoffs as statistically dominant as either McDavid year.

 

[WalterLundy]

Why adjust using league GPG when that has clearly been shown to be a faulty metric?

We can compare their respective gaps over the #5/#10/#25 and #50 scorers. That figure shows a similar % gap at each level.

Adjusting anything introduces unnecessary hypotheticals. In this case:

What if Crosby played in the McDavid's era where since 17/18, scoring by the very top end offensive players (including Crosby) has increased a bit disproportionately to overall league GPG?

What if McDavid played more seasons in DPE 2.0, which was even harder for top end talent to separate itself from the pack than the DPE? I.e. tighter games meant more balanced icetime, less TOI for Top 6 forwards.

Both players separated themselves from the pack in a way that was similar to peak Jagr and prime Howe.

McDavid's advantage over Crosby is less injury affected seasons during his peak and a three year head start on Jagr.

2-10th in ppg per year average per 82 GP
2005-06: 107 per 82
2006-07: 105 per 82
2007-08: 101 per 82
2008-09: 98 per 82
2009-10: 101 per 82
2010-11: 94 per 82
2011-12: 87 per 82
2012-13: 94 per 82
2013-14: 89 per 82
2014-15: 84 per 82
2015-16: 84 per 82
2016-17: 90 per 82
2017-18: 99 per 82
2018-19: 105 per 82
2019-20: 109 per 82
2020-21: 106 per 82
2021-22: 114 per 82
2022-23: 113 per 82
2023-24: 116 per 82

2021 McDavid in 2011 according to this (which I think is semi silly) to match peak for peak. I’d much rather use G/GP at the individual levels (Even strength/powerplay/shorthanded). But here is that conversion. Percentage gaps over competition is also faulty because not all talent is equal and fluctuates.

2021 McDavid (2011 level)
1.66 ppg (93 in 56)

Also from 2011 to 2017 there were a total of 5 100 point seasons in a 7 year span. McDavid comes in at age 19 in 2017 and drops one of them. He would have had zero issue in DPE 2.0. As a player far from his prime or peak he wins the Hart and Ross against a prime Crosby in DPE 2.0. He’d have the ability to score between 135 and 150 in that era over a full season at his current peak level.

 

[jigglysquishy]

He’d have the ability to score between 135 and 150 in that era over a full season at his current peak level.

I don't think this is reasonable at all.

In DPE 2.0 no one hit 110 points. Malkin was the only non Crosby player to have a PPG over 110. Crosby's PPG peaked at 132 point pace and most of us think he wouldn't have actually hit that.

150 points in 2011-2017 is Gretzky level domination. Gretzky's VsX peak comes to 145-148 points in 2011-2016.

McDavid hits 120 points for sure. Flirts with 130. But scoring was just too low for 150 to be a thing.

 

[WalterLundy]

I don't think this is reasonable at all.

In DPE 2.0 no one hit 110 points. Malkin was the only non Crosby player to have a PPG over 110. Crosby's PPG peaked at 132 point pace and most of us think he wouldn't have actually hit that.

150 points in 2011-2017 is Gretzky level domination. Gretzky's VsX peak comes to 145-148 points in 2011-2016.

McDavid hits 120 points for sure. Flirts with 130. But scoring was just too low for 150 to be a thing.

I get what you are saying. I agree that Crosby maintaining a 132 point pace that year wouldn’t have happened. More like 125. For me I look at the fact that goals per game in 2011 at 2.79 isn’t that far off from 2021 at 2.94. Only goes down to 100 in 56 based on that. That’s 1.79 or a 147 pace right there. Does he maintain that? Who knows but he doesn’t drop 20 points in pace in my mind. And that’s without looking at individual scoring levels for the phases of the game. Same goes for 2023 that alone is worth around 135 in 2011. And that was 100% maintained over 82 games. Again excluding the even strength/powerplay/shorthanded adjustments just overall G/Gp. So to me 135-150 as a range is pretty easy to see for a possible range. Especially considering that as a talent (especially offensively) he is clearly above all of the players of that time period Crosby included.

Just wanted to explain my logic. There is no exact science. I see where you are coming from as well but I didn’t just pull those numbers from just anywhere. What was Lemieux’s VsX peak in that range?

 

[Midnight Judges]

McDavid's ahead for me. Just more impressive both visually and career-wise (thus far, Crosby's longevity is pretty crazy for sure).

I saw someone say Crosby is comparable to Ovechkin. I don't see that all. I think there is a reason we are discussing Crosby vs McDavid other than both being Canadian. No one is asking if McDavid is superior to Ovechkin, are they?

Ovechkin's peak was easily better than Crosby's.

 

[daver]

Also from 2011 to 2017 there were a total of 5 100 point seasons in a 7 year span. McDavid comes in at age 19 in 2017 and drops one of them. He would have had zero issue in DPE 2.0. As a player far from his prime or peak he wins the Hart and Ross against a prime Crosby in DPE 2.0. He’d have the ability to score between 135 and 150 in that era over a full season at his current peak level.

And Crosby had just as impressive Art Ross at age 19 too.

It doesn't pass the smell test that McDavid (and Kucherov and MacKinnon) would be dropping 130 to 150 point seasons in 2014 to 2016.

It is more reasonable to say that Crosby would be dropping 150 point seasons over the past few years.

But this is the point about NOT adjusting, you don't get to throw out "what if scenarios" masquerading as reasonable arguments.

Crosby was just as dominant vs. his peers as McDavid.

 

[GreatGonzo]

He still hans't won anything on a team level. Definitely a knack on his resume.

Yes, he…as an individual hasn’t won anything in terms of TEAM championships. Mainly because it takes a good team with a lot of other factors to win at this level.

Yzerman is the worst example for this.

Everyone knows Yzerman changed his playing style to focus more on defence under Scotty. When he did, then he starts winning all those cups in Red Wings and gold in Olympic until Gretz make decision to retire his number for international play (which he himself unretired it as a GM in 2010 btw).

He was also surrounded by HOFers and other talented players. Yzerman was also basically past his offensive prime when he started winning cups while being complimented defensively with other killer two way players.

 

[JackSlater]

Yzerman is shining example of this. All he's ever done is play hard and do what the coaching staff asked of him. Lousy leader that you can't win with for most of his career. Until magically a solid roster without gaping holes was built around him and he's the greatest captain ever. Nothing in his approach to how he played or how he led changed. He still played hard and did what the coaching staff asked of him.

This is of course true. In hockey as in the rest of life, people who get recognized as great leaders almost often are strong leaders who also happened to have very fortuitous situations around them. Yzerman was a great franchise player before Detroit ended up with Fedorov and Lidstrom and changed the course of the franchise.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Despite these many valid points about McDavid, there remains this elephant in the locker room where something within his game seems beyond the Big 4. Whatever that is doesn't translate to the Big Four overall, but it is a thing, I would say.

I haven't thought about this in a while, but for me that best comparison in this regard is to my favourite Big Four guy, Mario. I see definite separation where Connor has superior speed with his hands and his feet. As far as the former goes, the hands, I now wonder how much slower Connor would be with a wooden stick which all of the Big Four guys had to use. Would he still be strikingly fast with his hand in the 80s? There's the test for me.

 

[MadLuke]

Do they have nothing to do with it ? Prospect turning great, FA signing there

2006-2022 the team with the most wins, Pens and Caps.

Are Ovechkin-Crosby been very fortuitous or actively part of creating enthusiasm from the owners to the drafted ?

Fedorov goes "hollywood" sooner without an Yzerman ? Bowman take a coach job there ? The effect would be small obviously, but not necessary nill.

Did Joe Sakic after loosing round one, not making the play off and loosing round 1 again once the Nordiques got stacked post Lindros trade ever got the Yzerman treatment ? I do not remember so... He scored goals in the playoff which tend to calm talk (if you are not Ovechkin level great)

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Do they have nothing to do with it ? Prospect turning great, FA signing there

2006-2022 the team with the most wins, Pens and Caps.

Are Ovechkin-Crosby been very fortuitous or actively part of creating enthusiasm from the owners to the drafted ?

Fedorov goes "hollywood" sooner without an Yzerman ? Bowman take a coach job there ? The effect would be small obviously, but not necessary nill.

Did Joe Sakic after loosing round one, not making the play off and loosing round 1 again once the Nordiques got stacked post Lindros trade ever got the Yzerman treatment ? I do not remember so... He scored goals in the playoff which tend to calm talk (if you are not Ovechkin level great)

For me its that being a great leader becomes the feather in the cap for a star as they age and the production slips. That and "turned into a 2 way player". Yes they obviously are leaders and have a positive effect on the locker room and the team, but it gets very overstated.

For example, Messier and the 94 Rangers. For all the credit that gets heaped on him historically for that year, people forget that Zubov was the regular season leading scorer and Leetch channeled Orr going for 34 points and the Smythe in the playoffs. That was a loaded team with Leetch, Zubov, Kovalev, Graves, Tikkanen, Amonte

 

[WalterLundy]

And Crosby had just as impressive Art Ross at age 19 too.

It doesn't pass the smell test that McDavid (and Kucherov and MacKinnon) would be dropping 130 to 150 point seasons in 2014 to 2016.

It is more reasonable to say that Crosby would be dropping 150 point seasons over the past few years.

But this is the point about NOT adjusting, you don't get to throw out "what if scenarios" masquerading as reasonable arguments.

Crosby was just as dominant vs. his peers as McDavid.

2.74 G/GP 2011-2017
3.05 G/GP 2018-2024

I get to do whatever I want honestly especially if it makes sense. All I ever hear is what if scenarios for Crosby arguments. Yours just happen to not be that but rather solely peer dominance of points per game without factoring in level of competition or games played. It is a stretch to say that Crosby would be putting up 150 point seasons when only one 41 game sample translates to the mid 140s right now over the course of 82 game pace.

I never said that Kucherov and MacKinnon would be putting up 130-150s then as well. Their stats would be in the 120s from this past year in the 2011-17 range based on scoring level difference. With McDavid just based on scoring level differential we are looking at a season in the mid 130s (2023) and an upper 140s pace (2021) in that era. He’s the only one that translates to that.

He was not as dominant over his peers. In 2011 Crosby was in process of his magnum opus season. That ended in injury as we know but over the course of his actual 41 games (Oct 7 2010 to Jan 5 2011) Crosby had 66 points to Stamkos’ 56. An 18% difference. Quite impressive but not on par with McDavid’s peak seasons. McDavid in 2021 had a 25% margin on Draisaitl and a whopping 52% margin on the closest non teammate. In 2023 McDavid had a 20% margin on Draisaitl and a 35% margin on closest non teammate (Kucherov). Not only higher margins but Steven Stamkos is not a point producer on the level of Leon Draisaitl or Nikita Kucherov.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

This is of course true. In hockey as in the rest of life, people who get recognized as great leaders almost often are strong leaders who also happened to have very fortuitous situations around them. Yzerman was a great franchise player before Detroit ended up with Fedorov and Lidstrom and changed the course of the franchise.

As they say: you cannot soar with the eagles if you are surrounded by turkeys.

 

[MadLuke]

2.74 G/GP 2011-2017
3.05 G/GP 2018-2024

2011-2017:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

I have 43,479 goals scored in 16,200 game played for 2.68 goal a game (maybe you used hockey-reference season average, they add winning shutout goals), I think there is a bit of a danger of doing anything else than simply comparing to how elite scorer scored, trying to take everything into account.

Obviously that just tells you dominance over elite peers, how good are elite peer change over time, elite peers are not playing in the same hockey situation with the same responsibility, but so do how good the average player are (but that will be less noisy) and points does not capture offensive output completely to start with.

In generals, trying to use league scoring seem just more flawed, trying to think to what matter on elite forward scoring is hard, using how they actually will encapsulate all of them automatically to the cost of adding noise because how good are the top 10 or 20 players can move a bit faster yearly than the average player.

As they say: you cannot soar with the eagles if you are surrounded by turkeys.

Also, not sure how unfair it would be:
Leadership can be defined as the ability or process of influencing and guiding individuals or groups towards achieving common goals.

I think the more raw critics would be: good leader are recognized only when they win, considering leadership is about aligning diverse group of people action toward achieving a common goals, judging it by how much the goal was achieved can be unfair but not that crazy.

Having good teams is necessary to win, but stacked is not necessarily true, Bourque was considered a good leader and reached the finals, those Bruins were not particularly stacked, Daniel Alfresson, Iginla never won anything and will came up in best captain ever list:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1096961-15-greatest-team-captains-in-nhl-history

Sundin, Bourque, Alfredsson, Iginla, Bourque appear here, never won with their teams and outside some peak years when they were a goaltender away of winnings it all before or the year of teh lock-out, Sens were not stacked, all the other teams never particularly were.

And in hockey like pretty much all sports, stacked team can go no-where and never win it all, good team is necessary to win the cup but not sufficient, there will be other good team at the same time that will exist.

 

[daver]

2.74 G/GP 2011-2017
3.05 G/GP 2018-2024

I get to do whatever I want honestly especially if it makes sense. All I ever hear is what if scenarios for Crosby arguments. Yours just happen to not be that but rather solely peer dominance of points per game without factoring in level of competition or games played. It is a stretch to say that Crosby would be putting up 150 point seasons when only one 41 game sample translates to the mid 140s right now over the course of 82 game pace.

Except it doesn't make any sense to use hypothetical stats to argue against ACTUAL stats.

FACT: Using PPG, Crosby was as statistically dominant over his peers as McDavid. No scenarios, no pacing.

FACT: We have absolutely no idea what McDavid does if was drafted ten years earlier or if Crosby was drafted ten years later.