First paragraph = Yeah, sure. I felt the same way. He deserve that Conn Smythe nonetheless. Awesome playoff but useless and fruitless in the end.
Second paragraph = Talk about misrepresentation without looking at mirror. You read my comment that said "Yet, no one thinks that all the guy above are worthy of big four.". Do you even read?
Third paragraph = FIVE? dude, he needs to speed run the winning if you guys think he might hit number five and to touch Lemieux? Not even Crosby who won more with Pens than him can touch "Le Magnifique" (not even the most insane Pens fan will say that). you want a guys who wins nothing to at least "touch" him? Delusional.
I tell you the whole gist of my comment. Stop putting someone who doesn't belong yet. That's it.
"Useless." Okay, apparently, the only playoff runs we should consider are runs on Cup winning teams. Maybe the only regular seasons we should consider are Cup winners too.
I engaged in some hyperbole to try to demonstrate how ridiculous what you were saying was. I'm simply showing how ridiculous some people's view of winning the Cup is. But you're still saying it. Look at your third paragraph. You're saying that not including a big number of Cups in the calculus for
individual success is delusional. Yeah, there's some delusion, but it's not on the part of the majority. Yeah, I read, and the cases of some of the guys you mentioned that come up short of the Big Four are non-existent for #5. Maybe I'm projecting this onto you somewhat, and if I am, I apologize, but I've seen some pretty absurd claims as to the importance of Cups made in the past. There was a guy I used to know that actually got mad at me one time for saying that Beliveau was the greatest player in Habs history, all because Henri Richard had one more Cup.
As far as individual accomplishments go, and again, we're talking about individual success, McDavid has already blown by Crosby in those one or zero accomplishments. Five Art Rosses, five first team all-star selections (assuming he's second team this year, which I'm assuming he is), three Harts, four Lindsays. Those are all more than Crosby can claim. But because McDavid is on a banged up team with less depth, he didn't win a Cup. Okay, yeah, that's his fault. Give me a break. At the same time though, I've stated very clearly that I have Crosby ahead (so clearly that I even posted my center rankings that show exactly where I have them), because he's got the longevity advantage on McDavid. You know what that means? It means I'm not putting McDavid in the five slot yet. I'm not even putting him in the top five at his position. The whole point of the thread (AGAIN), is asking where we think McDavid ends up. I think he ends up at five. But he's got work to do.
By the way, if you want to accuse someone of not reading, maybe you should look in the mirror too. I noted that there were a couple of people that are a minority saying that they think that McDavid might threaten Lemieux, and then you go and treat that as though the people that you disagree with are saying it en masse. Let's get that straight. Few people are saying that they think he can reach Lemieux's level, and they're on the fringe.
So mcD has free pass in the playoffs if he doesn’t win as long as he puts up a good amount of points. C’mon man…
You can’t just blame it on the team. McD is the superstar, he takes the credit if they win. He takes the blame if they fail.
Zero points in the final two games. That cost the cup.
That’s the difference between big 4 and the gap to the next players.
There's plenty of credit to go around for the team that wins the Cup. Barkov finished second in the Conn Smythe balloting, but he's not getting all the credit for their win. The team is getting the credit. Now, there can be variation as to how much credit or blame as far as how well a player performs, but all the credit/blame doesn't go to the superstar. It goes to the team.