Can Connor McDavid break up the "big 4"?

[BigBadBruins7708]

Yet the average level of player was almost certainly higher than any Olympics.

So you're just trolling, got it

 

[lextune]

Being the best player on a Stanley Cup finalist twice isn't worth zero. That he pulled those teams as far as he did is a huge part of his legacy.

^This.

Ray was a beast in the playoffs.

23 points in 17 games as a number one defenseman, before running into the buzz saw of the Isles dynasty in '83.

Then two trips to the finals where he ran into the Oilers' dynasty both times. (38 points in 40 games during the runs). In game one of the '90 finals he scored twice in the 3rd to tie the game and force OT.

After that came two trips to the conference finals where he ran into Mario on his way to his two Cups. (Where Ray put up 34 points in 31 games).

Bourque took his team to 2 finals where he faced very strong Edmonton teams. He also made the conference finals 2 years consecutively after that losing the the Pens both years. Not saying he’s ahead of Crosby, just that his playoff resume isn’t really his fault.

He also ran into the Isles dynasty in '83.

(Sorry, I posted a little write up before reading the whole thread)

 

[JackSlater]

McDavid is now where Ovechkin was for me. Not in a ranking sense, but in the sense that I will be glad if he wins a Stanley Cup just to get rid of the arguments used against him that basically amount to punishing him for his teammates not playing better. People struggle to know what they're looking at when it comes to assessing players in the playoffs. I also don't need to see him hang around and accumulate stuff, for me he's pretty much softly set where he'll end up.

You fundamentally misunderstand what best on best is.

If Canada is structurally prohibited from icing it's best roster it's just a gimmick tournament.

McDavid has never played in a best on best tournament.

It was a joke tournament. I recall that USA actually asked if it could pick some U24 players (denied) and even Babcock, surely one of the conservative voices in the room, said that he wanted McDavid. Now even if McDavid had been there and Canada presumably won it shouldn't mean much of anything for his legacy or whether he knows the secret of winning (outscoring the other team).

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yes, I hear your argument. Just trying to create a nuanced view of the question "Can McD break up the big 4". It remains to be seen. But right now I don't think it is clear cut that he is even considered above Crosby. If he won the cup that would probably be a different argument.

Yeah, but so did Kucherov. We are in a higher scoring environment now that we were 10 years ago. What's the ceiling? What happens if Kucherov has a 150+ point season next season and sweeps the awards two years in row. Does he enter into the conversation of a top 10?
We are in an interesting time, but McDs achievements has to be viewed in comparison to his peers.

I actually like McD, and enjoy watching him, just think he is being hyped a little too much, especially in comparison to Crosby.

And please, don't mention Toews in this discussion. But hopefully you agree that some things can't be quantified as silly as it sound. Would you rather have Crosby or McD to lead a team if your life depended on it? I'd take Crosby.


I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore?

That doesn’t change the fact that he’s been making moves and doing great things, especially this year. I mean Kucherov is amazing in his own right and has made a name for himself, but McDavid is obviously a special breed. Has he broken the “top 4”, hard to say…but he’s getting there.

Well no, saying someone is simply a “winner” is simply lazy. It’s the same argument people used for Toews and now Crosby is getting that treatment.

 

[wetcoast]

When comparing individual players? Yes, that's correct.

Otherwise I'd better see a whole bunch of people stack Beliveau up ahead of Crosby. Very similar individual accolades, but one has a f*** ton more team success...

Even when you take away their team success one resume stands clearly above the other one.

I'm a huge Beliveau admirer but Crosby passed him on the all time list a couple of seasons ago.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Here's the thing too...McDavid isn't losing (errrr, not winning? Winningly-challenged?) because of his process. And that's the main thing. Some guys lose a lot because they are exploitable (advanced scouting ramps up in a series situation, especially for high end players) and/or they have a bad process and/or they lack adaptability, etc.

To not use anyone that someone will care about, I'll use Jared McCann. He can regularly score 20, 25 goals...even hit 40 once. But he has one career postseason goal. It's not a complete accident. The way he goes about his game is just not conducive to the postseason, he opts out of his potential "B" game, etc.

He's first rounder that has been in six organizations by the age of 25. Given away. Left exposed in expansion. etc. etc. And don't get me wrong, he's a good player. He can shoot and all that. But he'd need a very particular set of circumstances to have a chance to score in big spots, and that's not what happens and he's not adaptable enough to do anything about it. So he flounders.

Generally, he's not a winner because he's not good enough to be...despite being a terrific regular season producer.

Again, I'm just using McCann - a historically irrelevant player - to not turn the thread into more of a mess...but it's not always a player's fault that he doesn't win. Sometimes it's more his fault than the people that attribute everything they can't explain to "luck" though too. And that's where *clicks tape recorder* proper talent evaluation can really help out...

McDavid throws on another handful of seasons like this, I don't think I'll care if he wins a Cup or not because I know it's not his fault (assuming he continues to play the way he does)...

 

[seventieslord]

You fundamentally misunderstand what best on best is.

If Canada is structurally prohibited from icing it's best roster it's just a gimmick tournament.

McDavid has never played in a best on best tournament.

More importantly.... This is real life, not a video game. In a video game you can just make custom teams however you choose and then watch them go head to head. They'll play according to how the game's AI uses their attributes. In real life, an international tournament requires players to feel a sense of patriotism. It's hard to foster that environment when players are:

1) grouped by age instead of country
2) playing with other countries
3) playing against their own country.

What does the captain say in the dressing room? "Join me my young brothers. For tonight we fight! For the glory of our...... Age group!!!"

 

[The Panther]

I don't spend many brain-cells on the ranking-of-players thing as I don't find it very important or rational, but I'll throw in a few random comments responding to some points in this thread:

-- I can totally see the argument for Lafleur over Crosby. (Lafleur has become massively underrated over the past generation.) Lafleur had a higher "consistent prime" (my own term and main point of player comparison) than Crosby, and there should be no debate there. Over the six seasons 1974-75 to 1979-80, Lafleur scored 119+ points EVERY season including three straight scoring titles (already an offensive level beyond Crosby before we go any further), including 50+ goals all six years in a row (also beyond Crosby's ability), and led the playoffs in scoring three times (while winning four Cups in a row, all as the best player on his team).

Of course, Crosby has had a much longer prime and will retire with a much longer period of "elite-ness" than Lafleur had. But if you're looking at best five or six years in a row, Lafleur beats Crosby hands down. (I personally am more into the short-prime kind of comparison than most people are, I realize.) I probably wouldn't rank Lafleur over Crosby at this point, but I can see why people would.

-- Much as I loved Ray Bourque, I don't see the argument for ranking him over Crosby, and it's for this reason: Ray Bourque was simply never in the conversation for best player in the world. If you wore that mantle of "best player" (Crosby did, on and off, for at least 10-11 years, though he was often injured), I would automatically place that player at a higher level than one who wasn't. (This is maybe unfair to Bourque in a sense, though, as from around 1986-87 to 1993-94 when he was at his best, the best players were Gretzky and Lemieux, whom someone like Crosby also wouldn't have been close to.)

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Even when you take away their team success one resume stands clearly above the other one.

I'm a huge Beliveau admirer but Crosby passed him on the all time list a couple of seasons ago.

I don't agree but I respect that opinion. Beliveau is still over Crosby for me.

1971 cup which is his final season is possibly the most impossible cup he ever won considering how bad their team in RS and pitted against possibly the best Bruins team in first round.

Yes, it is mostly Ken's rookie magic but Jean has his best production number in the playoffs on his last season. If not for Ken surprises, Jean might won his second Conn Smythe in his final season. Which shows that he is not just a guy who is good in 6 teams era only.

But, I respect it if you put Crosby over him. Reasonable.

 

[daver]

The OP comes down to either placing McDavid above Mario and/or Orr all-time based on elite longevity and/or placing his offensive peak at a ceiling clearly above Howe's.

Does anyone want to place his peak along side Mario and/or Orr? If not, then the answer is likely not.

It hard to place him with Mario given the somewhat direct line you can draw from McDavid through Crosby and Jagr to Mario.

 

[JackSlater]

-- Much as I loved Ray Bourque, I don't see the argument for ranking him over Crosby, and it's for this reason: Ray Bourque was simply never in the conversation for best player in the world. If you wore that mantle of "best player" (Crosby did, on and off, for at least 10-11 years, though he was often injured), I would automatically place that player at a higher level than one who wasn't. (This is maybe unfair to Bourque in a sense, though, as from around 1986-87 to 1993-94 when he was at his best, the best players were Gretzky and Lemieux, whom someone like Crosby also wouldn't have been close to.)

You pretty much pointed out the issue yourself there. Bourque was right there in the (short list) conversation for best player, with Messier, Yzerman, then Hull. That's best player other than Gretzky and Lemieux though, which as you note could block Crosby (or McDavid) from being considered best player as well. I'd have Bourque on the lower end of my top ten I imagine.

The OP comes down to either placing McDavid above Mario and/or Orr all-time based on elite longevity and/or placing his offensive peak at a ceiling clearly above Howe's.

Does anyone want to place his peak along side Mario and/or Orr? If not, then the answer is likely not.

It hard to place him with Mario given the somewhat direct line you can draw from McDavid through Crosby and Jagr to Mario.

I think that some (many) people are ranking careers or achievements rather than players. McDavid doesn't become a better player if he finishes top ten in scoring next year or his team plays better and he wins a Stanley Cup. There isn't really a way to put him above Lemieux for instance if we're just comparing players, but he'll very likely end up with more career value. I'm open to McDavid possibly being a better player than Howe but it would be very close and Howe does have his freakish longevity.

 

[Staniowski]

I don't spend many brain-cells on the ranking-of-players thing as I don't find it very important or rational, but I'll throw in a few random comments responding to some points in this thread:

-- I can totally see the argument for Lafleur over Crosby. (Lafleur has become massively underrated over the past generation.) Lafleur had a higher "consistent prime" (my own term and main point of player comparison) than Crosby, and there should be no debate there. Over the six seasons 1974-75 to 1979-80, Lafleur scored 119+ points EVERY season including three straight scoring titles (already an offensive level beyond Crosby before we go any further), including 50+ goals all six years in a row (also beyond Crosby's ability), and led the playoffs in scoring three times (while winning four Cups in a row, all as the best player on his team).

Of course, Crosby has had a much longer prime and will retire with a much longer period of "elite-ness" than Lafleur had. But if you're looking at best five or six years in a row, Lafleur beats Crosby hands down. (I personally am more into the short-prime kind of comparison than most people are, I realize.) I probably wouldn't rank Lafleur over Crosby at this point, but I can see why people would.

-- Much as I loved Ray Bourque, I don't see the argument for ranking him over Crosby, and it's for this reason: Ray Bourque was simply never in the conversation for best player in the world. If you wore that mantle of "best player" (Crosby did, on and off, for at least 10-11 years, though he was often injured), I would automatically place that player at a higher level than one who wasn't. (This is maybe unfair to Bourque in a sense, though, as from around 1986-87 to 1993-94 when he was at his best, the best players were Gretzky and Lemieux, whom someone like Crosby also wouldn't have been close to.)

Neither Bourque nor Lafleur are anywhere close to Crosby or McDavid. It's not necessary to consider best-player-in-the-world status. It's just about talent level of the players.

 

[Staniowski]

The OP comes down to either placing McDavid above Mario and/or Orr all-time based on elite longevity and/or placing his offensive peak at a ceiling clearly above Howe's.

Does anyone want to place his peak along side Mario and/or Orr? If not, then the answer is likely not.

It hard to place him with Mario given the somewhat direct line you can draw from McDavid through Crosby and Jagr to Mario.

There will always be lots of people who think Lemieux was a better player than McDavid has been. But there are also many people who think McDavid is better (than anybody); and lots of others that he's at least fairly close to Lemieux. So, for the latter, opinion will depend somewhat on longevity of their primes.

If McDavid remains around his current level for many more years, plus has some playoff success (and maybe some international success), there will probably by many people who rank him above Lemieux.

And most hockey people already rank McDavid above Howe.

 

[Staniowski]

I don't know why you keep claiming this with zero evidence.

There is absolutely no consensus and you can't claim your opinion as fact.

There is no doubt - if you open your eyes and ears - that McDavid is already in the top 4 (above Howe, above Crosby) for the majority of hockey people. There are a lot of smart hockey people who are extremely high on McDavid (higher than they are on Howe), and many people believe he's the best player ever (virtually nobody thinks Howe or Crosby is).

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and McDavid are the only players who currently have any type of support for #1.

Nobody has to agree with these consensus rankings (I don't agree with them myself), but they are the majority opinion whether you agree with them or not.

The problem with people like you who take rankings very seriously (I don't), is that you cannot accept that most people don't agree with you (and a small group of your friends who more or less think exactly the same as you do).

 

[Staniowski]

The fascinating aspect of McDavid's place in history, and how it plays out in the coming years - especially over the next five years or so - is that this will be the first time that any player seriously challenges the very top guys in the social media age.

So it's an important thing for the sport in general. Can he challenge Orr, Lemieux, and even Gretzky?

 

[Fatass]

No, and (imo) after his no points in game 7 he’s even further away. He must lead his club to the Cup. Game 7 was a defining point for McDavid’s legacy. Leading teams to Cups is what separates the greatest of the greats into tiers. Those who did are in the top tier. Those who failed are a tier below.

 

[Midnight Judges]

McDavid will easily pass Lemieux and Orr if he stays healthy and doesn't fall of a cliff IMO. Those guys have enormous weaknesses on their resumes. McDavid thus far does not.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, and (imo) after his no points in game 7 he’s even further away. He must lead his club to the Cup. Game 7 was a defining point for McDavid’s legacy. Leading teams to Cups is what separates the greatest of the greats into tiers. Those who did are in the top tier. Those who failed are a tier below.

Helluva coincidence how Lemieux needed 6-8 other hall of famers on his team before he was ever able to "lead" them to a cup.

I guess it's also a coincidence that Gretzky's team was so good they were able to win a cup without him. Whereas had he still been on the team in '90 you'd be claiming - he didn't lead the team to that cup?

 

[Fatass]

Helluva coincidence how Lemieux needed 6-8 other hall of famers on his team before he was ever able to "lead" them to a cup.

I guess it's also a coincidence that Gretzky's team was so good they were able to win a cup without him. Whereas had he still been on the team in '90 you'd be claiming - he didn't lead the team to that cup?

Imo McDavid is in the group of the greatest. But he’s in the lower tier because he didn’t lead his team to the Cup. Game seven (a one goal loss) and he generates no points.
Ranking these greatest players is opinion. And imo these players value Cups as the key to their legacy.

 

[JackSlater]

Imo McDavid is in the group of the greatest. But he’s in the lower tier because he didn’t lead his team to the Cup. Game seven (a one goal loss) and he generates no points.
Ranking these greatest players is opinion. And imo these players value Cups as the key to their legacy.

If Skinner had pitched a shutout in game 7 and Janmark's goal stood as the sole goal, you'd rank McDavid higher?

 

[Fatass]

If Skinner had pitched a shutout in game 7 and Janmark's goal stood as the sole goal, you'd rank McDavid higher?

We could, following this theory, go back to round two game seven and ask what if the Canucks have a healthy Demko and he pitches a shutout?

 

[jigglysquishy]

There is no doubt - if you open your eyes and ears - that McDavid is already in the top 4 (above Howe, above Crosby) for the majority of hockey people. There are a lot of smart hockey people who are extremely high on McDavid (higher than they are on Howe), and many people believe he's the best player ever (virtually nobody thinks Howe or Crosby is).

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and McDavid are the only players who currently have any type of support for #1.

Nobody has to agree with these consensus rankings (I don't agree with them myself), but they are the majority opinion whether you agree with them or not.

The problem with people like you who take rankings very seriously (I don't), is that you cannot accept that most people don't agree with you (and a small group of your friends who more or less think exactly the same as you do).

Can you provide any evidence of this? You've brought up multiple times "the majority of hockey people", but haven't posted any lists or videos or anything.

 

[The Panther]

If Skinner had pitched a shutout in game 7 and Janmark's goal stood as the sole goal, you'd rank McDavid higher?

You're doing it wrong. In that case, McDavid would be a greater leader.

 

[bobholly39]

The OP comes down to either placing McDavid above Mario and/or Orr all-time based on elite longevity and/or placing his offensive peak at a ceiling clearly above Howe's.

Does anyone want to place his peak along side Mario and/or Orr? If not, then the answer is likely not.

It hard to place him with Mario given the somewhat direct line you can draw from McDavid through Crosby and Jagr to Mario.

To me there's absolutely no way I'd place McDavid's peak on a level similar to Mario or Orr. They were both better. McDavid does keep surprising with unexpected performances - so maybe he does something in future to change my opinion on this, but I doubt it.

However - I've always had peak Wayne/Mario/Orr as tier 1 close to each other.

Peak Howe tier 2 with a gap.

And everyone else starts at tier 3 for peak. Thats the likes of Jagr, Ovechkin, Hasek etc. I think someone like Crosby is there too - and its possible that with no injuries he could have been near top of tier 3 or even match Howe's tier 2.

With McDavid's peak - I definitely think he gives Howe a run for his money in tier 2. Is he just close? As good? Better peak than Howe? I'm still undecided, but it's a worthy consideration.

So I think McDavids path to "big 4/5" is actually going to be most similar to Howe. Great peak (but not as good as the other 3) with more career value to belong (vs Orr/Lemieux at least - we'll see how his career value stacks up to Howe and 99).

What he does from here on out will obviously be important. Does he win 3 cups and 3 more smythes? Does he never go to the finals again? Does he win ~3-4 more rosses, or non again? Lots of ways his career can still play out - but I do expect he has more great things to come.

 

[bobholly39]

You're doing it wrong. In that case, McDavid would be a greater leader.

I definitely think Crosby is a great leader and moreso than McDavid.

This is based on a ton of reports/interviews and testimonies from coaches and teammates etc.

It's probably super cliche - but a lot of the winningest captains are great leaders. Sakic, Yzerman, Toews, Messier, Beliveau, etc.

So I think Crosby can and should get value as a leader for his winning pedigree, both in NHL playoffs and internationally.

How much value does he get? I dunno, not a gigantic/insurmountable amount like some fans like to argue, but it is still something valuable.