Can Connor McDavid break up the "big 4"?

[MadLuke]

I think that extra thinking of the sorts could be more common that we think, but when it is that theoretical and projection of the future, would come for a late Jordan-Gretzky that find stuff to do a la will try to have 2 assists a game this year, once you have won and proven everything. When you are so established that those things can start to take mental space and took things personal to find a way to keep the super competitive engine running.

I would imagine McDavid is quite all about winning that cup, still, hard to imagine needing anything else to motivate you when you have yet to win.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I guarantee that he is not playing with some extra motivation to flex on a kid in Juniors. Maybe once Bedard makes the NHL and if he starts living up to the hype, McDavid will want to keep up the pressure to assure he wins the Art Ross, but as of now, Bedard shouldn't really be on McDavid's radar (although he's likely heard of him).

He's definitely heard of him. I won't say more so as not to derail this thread, but I'm not sure how effective CB will be as a rookie. I'm sure he'll do well enough, but he seemed to have a much harder time of things in the later stages of the World Juniors.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If anything I would assume in a Michael Jordan and I took that personally kind of way this season was likely influenced a bit by losing out on the Hart last season to Matthews just because Matthews scored 60.

Like this is your MVP?

Edit: And getting swept by Colorado

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You're a mad man. Check out his hockey reference page instead, or at least wikipedia.

Guess I should have said not basing my opinion solely on resume.

 

[JackSlater]

Guess I should have said not basing my opinion solely on resume.

I wasn't serious. Too many people focus on resume bullet points and are disinterested in actually seeing a player they are willing to discuss.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I wasn't serious. Too many people focus on resume bullet points and are disinterested in actually seeing a player they are willing to discuss.

Sorry, bad read on my part.

The mad man part threw me off, it seemed reasonable.

 

[Boxscore]

The only way McDavid can possibly catch, or surpass, Mario is if he remains healthy, wins at least 2 Cups, and continues to dominate offensively. McDavid is an absolute machine and what he's doing today is unreal but Mario was a demigod. When Lemieux turned it on, he was the most dominant and scary player in NHL history, imo. He also had a flair for the dramatic and came up huge on the biggest stages at the biggest times. And his 160 in 60 while battling cancer was immortal level stuff that I couldn't even see Gretz and Orr matching, let alone anyone from the modern era.

In addition to all of that, nobody ever looked as good as Mario when it came to style points. He was a pure artist who would toy with teams. McDavid does his damage with immense speed, like Pavel Bure and those guys, but Lemieux was on a different level due to his shot arsenal, size, dekes, and tremendous wingspan.

I think McDavid's best chance at cracking the Big 4 is to have enough longevity and hardware to edge out Gordie, which is a tall ask. Sure, he can beat Mario and Orr at the longevity game, but they are in a different tier when we mention, "at their absolute best.."

All that being said, I may already have McDavid in the number 5 slot based on his insane accomplishments at such a young age. He is faster, more dynamic, and better offensively than Crosby, Malkin, or Ovechkin at their best imo. And he is a notch above his peers such as MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Matthews, Pastrnak, etc.

I feel I have seen enough of McDavid to say his high point is above that of Hull Sr., Beliveau, Rocket, Jagr, Messier, Bossy, Lafleur, Mikita, Esposito, Dionne, Yzerman, Trottier, Sid, Ovie, etc. If he starts winning Cups, watch out.

 

[RJMA]

Gretzky and Orr are out of the question.

McDavid wont have a prime that comes near the length of Howe's. So he's out.

Lemieux is all that is within striking distance and while McDavid has blinding speed, Mario was fear on skates. Like nothing I've ever seen.

When Connor carries his team to the Finals on at least 2 occasions the way Le Magnifique did, then we can revisit this topic.

 

[JianYang]

In my lifetime, Gretzky and Mario were on a different level than everyone else.

These last couple years and counting, I really think mcdavid is right up in that league or at least the closest I've seen to that realm.

 

[alko]

Why are you all obsessed wit Big 4?

In 10 years we would say Big 5, maybe Big 6, not Big 4.

I know, there is this "Mount Rushmore" thing, what is often used for nice articles, but im sure, we can find also something about Nr 5.. Or maybe also about Nr. 6, when Oveckin breaks Gretzky record.

 

[bobholly39]

Why are you all obsessed wit Big 4?

In 10 years we would say Big 5, maybe Big 6, not Big 4.

I know, there is this "Mount Rushmore" thing, what is often used for nice articles, but im sure, we can find also something about Nr 5.. Or maybe also about Nr. 6, when Oveckin breaks Gretzky record.

It's not about the #4 - it's just about how those 4 players happen to so obviously sit above everyone else in history. Wouldn't talk about a big 4 in other sports, it's just the way hockey pans out right now.

Best 4 peak players of all-time? Big 4
Best overall careers of all-time? Big 4
Best primes of all-time? Big 4
Best playoff peaks of all-time? Argument for big 4 being top 4 (or, close)

For #5 - depending on if you like peak more, playoffs, goalies, consistency, prime - you can come up with ~10 different names easy as to who to rank at #5 all-time. Whereas it doesn't matter which of peak/prime/playoffs/consistency you like more - anyway you shake it, these "big 4" always come up top 4 above the pack, with a gap, because of just how dominant they were.

That's why to me - if McDavid ever manages to hoist himself up to that level, it's extremely significant.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Needs cup wins

Multiple

 

[JackSlater]

Why are you all obsessed wit Big 4?

In 10 years we would say Big 5, maybe Big 6, not Big 4.

I know, there is this "Mount Rushmore" thing, what is often used for nice articles, but im sure, we can find also something about Nr 5.. Or maybe also about Nr. 6, when Oveckin breaks Gretzky record.

As already said, I think four is the number that arrived fairly organically in hockey. For instance in basketball things are murkier at the top and there is no consensus top four. At the top it's either a big two or a clear one and two situation. Ovechkin will get some people making that claim once he sets the goal record, but it's going to be a very, very poor claim.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think McDavid's best chance at cracking the Big 4 is to have enough longevity and hardware to edge out Gordie, which is a tall ask. Sure, he can beat Mario and Orr at the longevity game, but they are in a different tier when we mention, "at their absolute best.."

Good luck with that. Also Howe's peak rivals Lemieux's.

Lemieux is actually the weakest of the big 4.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's not about the #4 - it's just about how those 4 players happen to so obviously sit above everyone else in history. Wouldn't talk about a big 4 in other sports, it's just the way hockey pans out right now.

Best 4 peak players of all-time? Big 4
Best overall careers of all-time? Big 4

Peak yes. Careers - hell no.

Orr played half a career and was completely useless for a decade in which time other all-time greats are still tremendous contributors winning rockets and conn smythes etc. Lemieux played a bit more but still only ended up with a mortal 3 Harts.

I just have no idea why anyone would put these guys alongside 9 time Hart winner Wayne Gretzky in terms of career. Or Gordie Howe. It just doesn't square with reality. I think people think they are being generous to the injured players, but ultimately they're just screwing over the guys who showed up.

Even if Bobby Orr won the Hart every healthy year of his career - which he wasn't even close to doing - he'd still have a far lesser career value than Gretzky.

 

[JackSlater]

Peak yes. Careers - hell no.

Orr played half a career and was completely useless for a decade in which time other all-time greats are still tremendous contributors winning rockets and conn smythes etc. Lemieux played a bit more but still only ended up with a mortal 3 Harts.

I just have no idea why anyone would put these guys alongside 9 time Hart winner Wayne Gretzky in terms of career. Or Gordie Howe. It just doesn't square with reality. I think people think they are being generous to the injured players, but ultimately they're just screwing over the guys who showed up.

Even if Bobby Orr won the Hart every healthy year of his career - which he wasn't even close to doing - he'd still have a far lesser career value than Gretzky.

I don't think that most people are attempting to just rank players by career value. I do agree that Lemieux and Orr don't necessarily have two of the four best careers ever. For example though, I'm pretty confident that Bourque has the most career value of any defenceman ever. If I'm also basically certain that Orr was better than Bourque, and by a good margin, it seems wrong to put Bourque ahead. Not everyone is going to think this way of course.

 

[jigglysquishy]

When we do projects we explicitly use the word Top instead of Best or Greatest so as to not lean to far towards peak or career value.

Orr and Lemieux rightfully were in the top 4 because of the insane peak value. But Gretzky was rightfully number 1 because his peak competes with them, while having immensely greater career value.

Peak, prime, career are all relevant.

How McDavid performs at age 35 will impact where he gets ranked. But it won't be as relevant as his 2022-23 season.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

When Lemieux turned it on, he was the most dominant and scary player in NHL history, imo. He also had a flair for the dramatic and came up huge on the biggest stages at the biggest times. And his 160 in 60 while battling cancer was immortal level stuff that I couldn't even see Gretz and Orr matching....

To me Mario was the most talented of the Big 4 I had long looks at, although I never had a sustatined look at Howe.

To your point about the cancer thing I woild differ on what you suggest about Orr. His MVP performance in the 1976 Canada Cup is just as epic to me, and that's saying a lot. Playing on one leg. Who does that?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Peak yes. Careers - hell no.

Orr played half a career and was completely useless for a decade in which time other all-time greats are still tremendous contributors winning rockets and conn smythes etc. Lemieux played a bit more but still only ended up with a mortal 3 Harts.

I just have no idea why anyone would put these guys alongside 9 time Hart winner Wayne Gretzky in terms of career. Or Gordie Howe. It just doesn't square with reality. I think people think they are being generous to the injured players, but ultimately they're just screwing over the guys who showed up.

Even if Bobby Orr won the Hart every healthy year of his career - which he wasn't even close to doing - he'd still have a far lesser career value than Gretzky.

Actually, he was close to doing that.

In his 7 healthy seasons (note he won his 1st Norris in only 46 games), his Hart finishes are 1,1,1,3,3,3,3.

2 of those 3rd place finishes were behind the guy who's season he propped up (Esposito). Another 3rd place was despite winning the Ross with 135 points and +80, the voters decided to give it to Clarke for some reason instead.

As for your overall terrible point, Orr's career has more value stuffed in it than anyone not names Gretzky.

3x Hart
2x Ross
8x Norris
2x Smythe
Calder
8x AS-1
1,1,2,2,2,3 Point finishes
1,1,1,3,3,3,3 Hart finishes

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Even though Orr only played 657 games (and hardly any past his 27th birthday), he still did the following:

• Won more Norris trophies than any other defenseman in NHL history
• Only defenseman in NHL history to win an Art Ross trophy (which he did twice)
• Only defenseman in NHL history to win multiple Conn Smythe trophies
• One of only two defensemen in NHL history (and the only in the ~70 years since defensemen got their own trophy) to win multiple Hart trophies

Bourque finishes way ahead in terms of games played, years in the top 3/5/10 in Norris voting, years as a first/second team all-star, etc. But by several important criteria, Orr accomplished more than Bourque (and Harvey, and Lidstrom, etc) - even with a much shorter career.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I don't think that most people are attempting to just rank players by career value. I do agree that Lemieux and Orr don't necessarily have two of the four best careers ever. For example though, I'm pretty confident that Bourque has the most career value of any defenceman ever. If I'm also basically certain that Orr was better than Bourque, and by a good margin, it seems wrong to put Bourque ahead. Not everyone is going to think this way of course.

Yeah that's reasonable. Personally I value total career value ahead of peak more than most but it's actually not that simple. A high peak results in a higher likelihood of a Stanley cup relative to that same production stretched out over time. So IMO you gotta try and balance those aspects.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Actually, he was close to doing that.

In his 7 healthy seasons (note he won his 1st Norris in only 46 games), his Hart finishes are 1,1,1,3,3,3,3.

2 of those 3rd place finishes were behind the guy who's season he propped up (Esposito). Another 3rd place was despite winning the Ross with 135 points and +80, the voters decided to give it to Clarke for some reason instead.

As for your overall terrible point, Orr's career has more value stuffed in it than anyone not names Gretzky.

3x Hart
2x Ross
8x Norris
2x Smythe
Calder
8x AS-1
1,1,2,2,2,3 Point finishes
1,1,1,3,3,3,3 Hart finishes

You make a fair point that he was Hart finalist in 7 healthy seasons.

The people who were there watching Orr's peak thought he was - for extended periods - the second most valuable player on his own team, and the third most valuable player in the NHL during a heavily watered down era with two professional leagues, expansion, and pre baby boom. Of course we, 50 years removed, somehow know better, eh?

 

[jigglysquishy]

This is missing the forest for the trees, in regards to anti defensemen voting.

He's the only d man to ever win the Pearson. And we know the Pearson voting is wonky with conflicting criteria until the 80s.

Orr 3 peated the Hart, then was injured. If he plays every game he likely wins 1973. 74 and 75 are oddities, 1975 in particular. Winning the Art Ross as a defenseman, but losing the Hart says more about the voters than Orr.

If we actually read from contemporaries, the broad opinion is that Orr in the early 70s was the best player of all time. Bowman (in Dryden's book) is very clear about Orr being the best. The newspaper sources are endless. I just finished the 1972 book, and there are lots of players who are firm in Orr being a clear tier to himself as the best player in the world. Players, journalists, fans, Soviets. It's just so evident.

We can pull up Bruins footage from 1969-1975. How can anyone watch this is and not see Orr is just a complete tier onto himself?

Award voting isn't everything, especially with such a clearly established and long lasting bias in place.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This is missing the forest for the trees, in regards to anti defensemen voting.

He's the only d man to ever win the Pearson. And we know the Pearson voting is wonky with conflicting criteria until the 80s.

Orr 3 peated the Hart, then was injured. If he plays every game he likely wins 1973. 74 and 75 are oddities, 1975 in particular. Winning the Art Ross as a defenseman, but losing the Hart says more about the voters than Orr.

If we actually read from contemporaries, the broad opinion is that Orr in the early 70s was the best player of all time. Bowman (in Dryden's book) is very clear about Orr being the best. The newspaper sources are endless. I just finished the 1972 book, and there are lots of players who are firm in Orr being a clear tier to himself as the best player in the world. Players, journalists, fans, Soviets. It's just so evident.

We can pull up Bruins footage from 1969-1975. How can anyone watch this is and not see Orr is just a complete tier onto himself?

Award voting isn't everything, especially with such a clearly established and long lasting bias in place.

A defenseman racking up huge points hinges on their assignments. If they are green lighted nearly 100% of the time, it's really not all that different from a forward racking up those kind of points. Opposing teams used Orr's unique deployment against the Bruins in the playoffs.

The points he put up also don't tell the story in the regard.

 

[jigglysquishy]

A defenseman racking up huge points hinges on their assignments. If they are green lighted nearly 100% of the time, it's really not all that different from a forward racking up those kind of points. Opposing teams used Orr's unique deployment against the Bruins in the playoffs.

The points he put up also don't tell the story in the regard.

To add to my previous post, here are polls from Orr's prime:

1971 NHL coach's poll: Best defensive defenseman - 3 way tie between Bobby Orr, Al Arbour, Ted Harris
March 13th, 1971 NHL Coaches Poll - Toronto Star

He's the only player since 1918 to arguably be the best defensively and best offensively at the same time.

Even after 1973 with his knee injuries he was still elite defensively.

He was a Hart finalist 7 times. Only Gretzky, Howe, and Hull exceeded that ever. He's second only to Gretzky for Hart votes recieved in first 8 years.