Can Connor McDavid break up the "big 4"?

[bobholly39]

You are right we will never know but we can use probabilities here right?

I mean a lot of elite players have one or 2 of their top peak seasons at the ages of 23 and 24 and most of us saw how crosby was breaking out in 10-11 and sure maybe he slows down and only wins the Art Ross by 20ish points and is in the race for the Rocket.

We don't know for sure but most of us who follow hockey closely can make an educated guess here.

I fully expect McDavid, given his age and recent success, to pass Crosby eventually but it might be several more seasons for that unless one really favours peak over everything else.

Speaking of Crosby's 2nd half to his season in 2010-2011 and what could have been:

So much talk of "yeah but over 82 games, good chance his pace goes down from 64 goals/132 points". It's possible of course.

Flipside is - in both of the previous years (2009 & 2010) his pace went UP in the 2nd half of the season. So that's a possibility too. Whose to say he doesn't do....~68 goals and ~140 points?

It's really too bad we'll never know for sure.

I still maintain Crosby and McDavid are similar level talents. But McDavid is putting together the prime Crosby could have with no injuries and on the upper end of projections for Crosby - and so by default he's definitely going to rank ahead all-time by the time he's done.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Even if that were true - there's way too much talk of that. He's only 27 - it's extremely likely he'll win at least one.

This is the type of talk you should have about a player at age ~35 if he has no cup.

For what it's worth - I agree with the more reasonable stance of those saying playoff performance matters (ie his last 3 playoffs) more than team results (winning a cup in a 32 team league is hard). But I also acknowledge that if he were to not win a cup - it would certainly be held against him.

Here's one small bonus McDavid can get:

- world cup next year
- olympics following year

If he has a memorable performance and helps Canada win gold 2x as the clear best player, that'll count a lot for the "he has no cup" crowd

The problem is all of the big 4 are all time great playoff players WITH cups not just personal stats. Going pointless in game 6 n 7 also doesnt do him any favours in comparison to the big 4. So no he needs cups period

 

[wintersej]

The problem is all of the big 4 are all time great playoff players WITH cups not just personal stats. Going pointless in game 6 n 7 also doesnt do him any favours in comparison to the big 4. So no he needs cups period

At least one. I can hear the 32 teams makes it harder argument against him needing like 3. But he does need to win one, and probably two.

 

[wetcoast]

The problem is all of the big 4 are all time great playoff players WITH cups not just personal stats. Going pointless in game 6 n 7 also doesnt do him any favours in comparison to the big 4. So no he needs cups period

This is such malarkey and would be one thing if his play and stats was mere ordinary in the playoffs but he had 40+ points and still drove play in games 6 and 7 so the narrow misplaced focus should be objectively compared to what he did as an individual not some arbitrary team thing.

And sure winning matters but in any all time ranking individual performance matters a hell of a lot more.

 

[JackSlater]

Speaking of Crosby's 2nd half to his season in 2010-2011 and what could have been:

So much talk of "yeah but over 82 games, good chance his pace goes down from 64 goals/132 points". It's possible of course.

Flipside is - in both of the previous years (2009 & 2010) his pace went UP in the 2nd half of the season. So that's a possibility too. Whose to say he doesn't do....~68 goals and ~140 points?

It's really too bad we'll never know for sure.

I still maintain Crosby and McDavid are similar level talents. But McDavid is putting together the prime Crosby could have with no injuries and on the upper end of projections for Crosby - and so by default he's definitely going to rank ahead all-time by the time he's done.

At this point people are so desperate to resist projections of Crosby's 2010-2011 season that it's become quite underrated when judging how good Crosby was as a player. He clearly established that he was the best player in the league that season regardless of being elbowed in the head. As you note Crosby typically finished seasons strong, and when he played in 2012 he still piled up points (in a somewhat different way) so it isn't like we should expect that Crosby just falls off the map that year. Going into the winter classic he had 65 points in 39 games. Even if Crosby dropped to a point per game pace, which would be basically the worst period of that length in his career to that point (excluding start of his rookie year) or of any surrounding season, with let's say a 35/65 goals/assists split, he'd end up with 47/61/108. His worst case scenario, realistically, is still leading the league in scoring if he's healthy. Best case scenario is probably in the 130s, I'd bet on the 120s personally. Either way it's a great peak. I find it a lot harder to speculate on his 2012 season.

I agree that McDavid and Crosby are similar talents. McDavid is going to end up with a more individually impressive career though, which is fine since he deserves credit for thriving while playing basically all the time.

If you're making an all time hockey team, 2011 Crosby is on it. So is McDavid, probably 2023 but maybe 2021. But they're both there. I don't think that the team revolves around them like it does the big 4 though.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It really comes down to how you think it shakes out.

~57 goals, ~68 assists, ~125 points is how I think it ends up.

It's a season split of
41 GP 32 G 34 A 66 P
41 GP 25 G 34 A 59 P

It's still him leading in PPG by a bit in the second half, with identical assists/game, but drops his G/G down to a level he was more likely to sustain long term.

 

[Mohar Ikram]

This is such malarkey and would be one thing if his play and stats was mere ordinary in the playoffs but he had 40+ points and still drove play in games 6 and 7 so the narrow misplaced focus should be objectively compared to what he did as an individual not some arbitrary team thing.

And sure winning matters but in any all time ranking individual performance matters a hell of a lot more.

Individual performance only matters if it brings the team the winning it needs.

Why could people not understand that individual performance is useless when you don't win the whole prize? Plus, individual performance THAT DOES MATTER (clutch) is whole other level.

One of big four achievements for their team in the final:

- Gretzky assisted Kurri GWG in 1987 SCF GAME 7 after falling 1-0 early in the game (mind to you, Hextall won the Smythe).
- Lemieux put on 7 points in final two game of 1991 SCF game 5 and 6 to stop North Stars momentum (2 goals too).
- Howe scores hattrick in Game 5 and the GWG in game 7 in his final cup win 1955 against Canadiens (who will create a dynasty the next year) in the SCF series that saw "only home team wins".
- Orr scores the iconic OT winner in 1970 SCF (that dive) and it automatically became GWG (He also scored the GWG in 72 SCF too) - remember, he is a d-men.

Those are iconic clutch moments of the big four. and there are LOTS of player that is NOT big four worthy before McDavid that has more iconic clutch moment than this

- Henri Richard scored the GWG in 1971 SCF with pissed off attitude and in absolute no right state of mind because both teams are on intense state of anger due the discord between players and coaches.

You think McD can do what Henri did in 1971? For now, I don't think so.

And yet, you want to put McDavid alongside big 4? zero points in tying series and winner takes it all game are DISGRACEFUL performance for so called GOAT candidate.

I give you all a comparable example in another.

You're putting McDavid as big four of ice hockey is kinda you put Haaland as the GOAT striker over R9, Henry, G. Muller and Romario. But worse since Haaland DID win something.

A ridiculous thought. I will re-visit this again when McDavid starts winning for his team.

 

[DitchMarner]

It really comes down to how you think it shakes out.

~57 goals, ~68 assists, ~125 points is how I think it ends up.

It's a season split of
41 GP 32 G 34 A 66 P
41 GP 25 G 34 A 59 P

It's still him leading in PPG by a bit in the second half, with identical assists/game, but drops his G/G down to a level he was more likely to sustain long term.

That seems reasonable. I don't think anyone thinks he couldn't have hit those numbers. It's more that he didn't and there's more value in that type of production over 82 games than in 41, and that if something incredible happened (ie 105 points in 56 games or 153 points in 82 games), you take it over something outstanding that could realistically have happened (125 points in a low-scoring era).

I'd say the problem people seem to be having is with treating the accomplishments as if they're equal. When evaluating careers and ranking players, this sub forum typically seems to favor things that really happened over what-ifs. Otherwise guys like Lindros would be ranked and regarded much higher and there would be more support for Lemieux = Gretzky and such notions.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Individual performance only matters if it brings the team the winning it needs.

Why could people not understand that individual performance is useless when you don't win the whole prize? Plus, individual performance THAT DOES MATTER (clutch) is whole other level.

One of big four achievements for their team in the final:

- Gretzky assisted Kurri GWG in 1987 SCF GAME 7 after falling 1-0 early in the game (mind to you, Hextall won the Smythe).
- Lemieux put on 7 points in final two game of 1991 SCF game 5 and 6 to stop North Stars momentum (2 goals too).
- Howe scores hattrick in Game 5 and the GWG in game 7 in his final cup win 1955 against Canadiens (who will create a dynasty the next year) in the SCF series that saw "only home team wins".
- Orr scores the iconic OT winner in 1970 SCF (that dive) and it automatically became GWG (He also scored the GWG in 72 SCF too) - remember, he is a d-men.

Those are iconic clutch moments of the big four. and there are LOTS of player that is NOT big four worthy before McDavid that has more iconic clutch moment than this

- Henri Richard scored the GWG in 1971 SCF with pissed off attitude and in absolute no right state of mind because both teams are on intense state of anger due the discord between players and coaches.

You think McD can do what Henri did in 1971? For now, I don't think so.

And yet, you want to put McDavid alongside big 4? zero points in tying series and winner takes it all game are DISGRACEFUL performance for so called GOAT candidate.

I give you all a comparable example in another.

You're putting McDavid as big four of ice hockey is kinda you put Haaland as the GOAT striker over R9, Henry, G. Muller and Romario. But worse since Haaland DID win something.

A ridiculous thought. I will re-visit this again when McDavid starts winning for his team.

What a weird way of blaming McDavid for his team not winning. “Let’s revisit when McDavid starts winning for HIS team”

Meanwhile 42 points later, 11 points in the finals. Seems more like the team around him should have wanted to win just as much…but they always seem to get left out when talking about performances.

 

[Mohar Ikram]

What a weird way of blaming McDavid for his team not winning. “Let’s revisit when McDavid starts winning for HIS team”

Meanwhile 42 points later, 11 points in the finals. Seems more like the team around him should have wanted to win just as much…but they always seem to get left out when talking about performances.

Yup, I confirm now McDavid got Messi/LeBron treatment.

- If he wins, it's all him
- If he lost, It's all the team (not him at all)

Gosh. You guys realize this topic is putting him on the BIG FOUR right?

- There is a guy who won 10 cups and never declines
- There is a guy that cause national riot when he got banned (NATIONAL RIOT)
- There is a guy that won basically everything in the sports (except Selke)
- There is a guy that won scoring titles more than anyone else and finally did won the ultimate prize after so long.
- There is a guy who plays two different positions, two different teams, won same amount of cups and oh... his part time job is an MP.
- There is a guy who be the only person to captain two different clubs (one of them was having a LONG cup drought) to SCF win in the sports history.

Yet, no one thinks that all the guy above are worthy of big four. Yet you guys put someone who do FAR LESS than them as big four already? Cut me some slack.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yup, I confirm now McDavid got Messi/LeBron treatment.

- If he wins, it's all him
- If he lost, It's all the team (not him at all)

Gosh. You guys realize this topic is putting him on the BIG FOUR right?

- There is a guy who won 10 cups and never declines
- There is a guy that cause national riot when he got banned (NATIONAL RIOT)
- There is a guy that won basically everything in the sports (except Selke)
- There is a guy that won scoring titles more than anyone else and finally did won the ultimate prize after so long.
- There is a guy who plays two different positions, two different teams, won same amount of cups and oh... his part time job is an MP.
- There is a guy who be the only person to captain two different clubs (one of them was having a LONG cup drought) to SCF win in the sports history.

Yet, no one thinks that all the guy above are worthy of big four. Yet you guys put someone who do FAR LESS than them as big four already? Cut me some slack.

Well this was…interesting…

I have a hard time blaming the guy who had 11 points in the finals….especially compared to the rest of the team. But if this makes sense to you, by all means. It’s silly…but if that’s how you want to view things.

 

[wetcoast]

Individual performance only matters if it brings the team the winning it needs.

Why could people not understand that individual performance is useless when you don't win the whole prize? Plus, individual performance THAT DOES MATTER (clutch) is whole other level.

One of big four achievements for their team in the final:

- Gretzky assisted Kurri GWG in 1987 SCF GAME 7 after falling 1-0 early in the game (mind to you, Hextall won the Smythe).
- Lemieux put on 7 points in final two game of 1991 SCF game 5 and 6 to stop North Stars momentum (2 goals too).
- Howe scores hattrick in Game 5 and the GWG in game 7 in his final cup win 1955 against Canadiens (who will create a dynasty the next year) in the SCF series that saw "only home team wins".
- Orr scores the iconic OT winner in 1970 SCF (that dive) and it automatically became GWG (He also scored the GWG in 72 SCF too) - remember, he is a d-men.

Those are iconic clutch moments of the big four. and there are LOTS of player that is NOT big four worthy before McDavid that has more iconic clutch moment than this

- Henri Richard scored the GWG in 1971 SCF with pissed off attitude and in absolute no right state of mind because both teams are on intense state of anger due the discord between players and coaches.

You think McD can do what Henri did in 1971? For now, I don't think so.

And yet, you want to put McDavid alongside big 4? zero points in tying series and winner takes it all game are DISGRACEFUL performance for so called GOAT candidate.

I give you all a comparable example in another.

You're putting McDavid as big four of ice hockey is kinda you put Haaland as the GOAT striker over R9, Henry, G. Muller and Romario. But worse since Haaland DID win something.

A ridiculous thought. I will re-visit this again when McDavid starts winning for his team.

So okay it seems that your model only values what Florida did this year then eh?

Like I said up thread winning is part of the equation but the lengths that people are going to to conflate individual success with team success in this thread is malarkey.

 

[Professor What]

Yup, I confirm now McDavid got Messi/LeBron treatment.

- If he wins, it's all him
- If he lost, It's all the team (not him at all)

Gosh. You guys realize this topic is putting him on the BIG FOUR right?

- There is a guy who won 10 cups and never declines
- There is a guy that cause national riot when he got banned (NATIONAL RIOT)
- There is a guy that won basically everything in the sports (except Selke)
- There is a guy that won scoring titles more than anyone else and finally did won the ultimate prize after so long.
- There is a guy who plays two different positions, two different teams, won same amount of cups and oh... his part time job is an MP.
- There is a guy who be the only person to captain two different clubs (one of them was having a LONG cup drought) to SCF win in the sports history.

Yet, no one thinks that all the guy above are worthy of big four. Yet you guys put someone who do FAR LESS than them as big four already? Cut me some slack.

Find anyone that has a halfway nuanced view that believes that if the Oilers had won the Cup it was all McDavid. I'll wait. You won't find one. You're far more likely to find that among the people who harp on Cups all the time. Had they won, yes, he would have been a big part of it. You don't contribute as much as he did and not be a big part of a win. By the same token, had he put up five points, we'd be talking about how he didn't perform and that hurt his team. The guy just won a Conn Smythe in a losing effort that even has people who think only a player on the winning side should win it saying, "Yeah, I see why they gave it to him." Common sense says you don't blame the guy who was the most valuable to his team in the playoffs if things don't go his way.

The one thing you're right about is that it takes something special to break the Big Four. But by your logic, we should consider Henri Richard, Jean Beliveau, Yvan Cournoyer, and Claude Provost(!) as the Big Four, because apparently it's all team success that matters. There's where I say give me a break. We're talking about individual careers, so a team accomplishment where one player has a limited ability to contribute should be limited to what the player can reasonably do. Forty-two points is a more than reasonable contribution to a win. Oh, and apparently he did it while needing surgery.

And for the record, you say that we're saying McDavid belongs in the realm of the big four right now. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or not paying attention, but the whole premise of the thread is asking whether McDavid can eventually break the big four, and the consensus seems to be that if he keeps up what he's doing, he probably ends up at number five. There have been a couple of suggestions that he might reach Lemieux, but those are minority opinions. Honestly, could you have misrepresented what everyone is saying more than what you did?

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Find anyone that has a halfway nuanced view that believes that if the Oilers had won the Cup it was all McDavid. I'll wait. You won't find one. You're far more likely to find that among the people who harp on Cups all the time. Had they won, yes, he would have been a big part of it. You don't contribute as much as he did and not be a big part of a win. By the same token, had he put up five points, we'd be talking about how he didn't perform and that hurt his team. The guy just won a Conn Smythe in a losing effort that even has people who think only a player on the winning side should win it saying, "Yeah, I see why they gave it to him." Common sense says you don't blame the guy who was the most valuable to his team in the playoffs if things don't go his way.

The one thing you're right about is that it takes something special to break the Big Four. But by your logic, we should consider Henri Richard, Jean Beliveau, Yvan Cournoyer, and Claude Provost(!) as the Big Four, because apparently it's all team success that matters. There's where I say give me a break. We're talking about individual careers, so a team accomplishment where one player has a limited ability to contribute should be limited to what the player can reasonably do. Forty-two points is a more than reasonable contribution to a win. Oh, and apparently he did it while needing surgery.

And for the record, you say that we're saying McDavid belongs in the realm of the big four right now. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or not paying attention, but the whole premise of the thread is asking whether McDavid can eventually break the big four, and the consensus seems to be that if he keeps up what he's doing, he probably ends up at number five. There have been a couple of suggestions that he might reach Lemieux, but those are minority opinions. Honestly, could you have misrepresented what everyone is saying more than what you did?

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.

 

[Beljavskij]

Well this was…interesting…

I have a hard time blaming the guy who had 11 points in the finals….especially compared to the rest of the team. But if this makes sense to you, by all means. It’s silly…but if that’s how you want to view things.

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.

 

[Professor What]

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.

 

[GreatGonzo]

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.

That’s really the logic you came to?

There is a big difference between blaming him for ALL his team/teammates short comings( like many are implying)…and then there’s blaming him within reason….something you clearly lack.

42 points….11 points in the finals….but for you, none of that matters and you decide to nitpick the argument. How HE costed them the cup is beyond a stupid opinion. Also, I love the constant avoiding the fact that games 4 and 5 were elimination games….but sure, ignore that as well.

So your going to avoid ALL context that hurts your argument and just make it a black and white issue…how convenient.

Well No, the “big 4” also played on stacked teams surrounded by talent. But again, ignore that because it doesn’t make your argument look any better.

 

[Professor What]

That’s really the logic you came to?

There is a big difference between blaming him for ALL his team/teammates short comings( like many are implying)…and then there’s blaming him within reason….something you clearly lack.

42 points….11 points in the finals….but for you, none of that matters and you decide to nitpick the argument. How HE costed them the cup is beyond a stupid opinion. Also, I love the constant avoiding the fact that games 4 and 5 were elimination games….but sure, ignore that as well.

So your going to avoid ALL context that hurts your argument and just make it a black and white issue…how convenient.

Well No, the “big 4” also played on stacked teams surrounded by talent. But again, ignore that because it doesn’t make your argument look any better.

You know, if anything, Orr and Lemieux underaccomplished by only winning two Cups. They played on utterly stacked teams but couldn't manage to put themselves among the elite winners. Maybe even Howe has to be dinged for only winning four. Heck, why couldn't Gretzky win with LA? It's almost as though there are things more important for those guys to be on the proverbial Mount Rushmore.

 

[Beljavskij]

That’s really the logic you came to?

There is a big difference between blaming him for ALL his team/teammates short comings( like many are implying)…and then there’s blaming him within reason….something you clearly lack.

42 points….11 points in the finals….but for you, none of that matters and you decide to nitpick the argument. How HE costed them the cup is beyond a stupid opinion. Also, I love the constant avoiding the fact that games 4 and 5 were elimination games….but sure, ignore that as well.

So your going to avoid ALL context that hurts your argument and just make it a black and white issue…how convenient.

Well No, the “big 4” also played on stacked teams surrounded by talent. But again, ignore that because it doesn’t make your argument look any better.

It’s amazing how every time you don’t agree with an opinion it’s lol-emojis and “stupid opinion”.
Makes it look like you don’t really have a lot to contribute with to the discussion.

I said just a few posts above that McD had a great playoffs. Maybe even one of the all-time great playoff performances. But different from you I’m not blinded by the 42 points and 11 points, and can objectively question his part in losing the finals... which you seemingly can't as every post you write only wants to elevate McD to the sky for his accomplishments, or put down anyone who question you. I honestly can remember if you have ever written a critical post about McD.

Just as he was great in Game 4 and 5, he was completely taken out of games 1-3, which if they had won one of those games, could have led to a different outcome. McD had an uneven finals round which, while still great, ultimately cost them the cup.

Regarding context, you seem to have a very black and white view of Crosby's career and injury-inflicted peak seasons. So seems like you are playing a double-standard here.

And to your last point, you are basically saying that every superstar played on a stacked team surrounded by talent. Looking at the '09 Penguins squad and comparing them to the '24 Oilers squad, doesn't exactly scream stacked on the pens side. Pens might have slight edge on Goalie, D looks pretty even, and oilers have an edge on offensive side (McD, Drai, Nuge, Kane, Foegle Henrique).

Great players find ways to win.
Crosby did it 3 times.
Lemieux did it 2 times.
Gretz did it 4 times.
Howe did it 4 times
Orr did 2 times.

As long as McD has 0 wins there is just no way he breaks into the big 4.

 

[GreatGonzo]

@Beljavskij that’s because your opinion is simply trash and it’s humorous.

Your contradicting yourself and it’s just confusing at this point. Feel free to keep fighting the good fight to discredit McDavid. I’ll be here to laugh the whole way.

Yes, Lemieux, Gretzky, and Orr also played on stacked teams. But keep ignoring that…also, Crosby didn’t lead ANY of those cup winning teams in points….he was also a fat 0 in games 6-7 with a whopping 3 points in the ‘09 finals…

But your logic: He won so context doesn’t matter….

 

[Beljavskij]

@Beljavskij that’s because your opinion is simply trash and it’s humorous.

Your contradicting yourself and it’s just confusing at this point. Feel free to keep fighting the good fight to discredit McDavid. I’ll be here to laugh the whole way.

Yes, Lemieux, Gretzky, and Orr also played on stacked teams. But keep ignoring that…also, Crosby didn’t lead ANY of those cup winning teams in points….he was also a fat 0 in games 6-7 with a whopping 3 points in the ‘09 finals…

But your logic: He won so context doesn’t matter….

Again, you don't really have a lot to contribute to the discussion with. And you certainly don't have respectful tone. This is a shame because I think that's what toxify the debate climate here on Hfb.

I looked at you posting history and went back 50-60 posts. Every single one is either about the greatness of McDavid or a negative/thrashing comment about Crosby and his legacy. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I mean... that is saying something about your bias and agenda.

I'm not even sure what you are debating other than McDavid = great and Crosby = bad. I'm not discrediting McDavid at all. But on the topic if he can break into the Big 4 - the answer at the moment is no. Because he does not have the accomplishments or team achievements to do so. He might be individually more talented than any of the big four (personally I think Lemieux was more talented), but he certainly is not as great as any of the big 4.

Greatness takes winning.

Now any debate with you basically ends up with you thrashing Crosby. I don't know if you have a personal vendetta against him (did he steal your girlfriend or something?), but as I wrote in another post: Crosby has over 200 playoff points. The only other players that have that are from the Oilers Dynasty of the 80s. And Jagr - who took 28 more games than Crosby to get there.

Crosby has consistently been great in the playoffs (yet not a run as dominant as McDavid), but Crosby is the Golden standard for players outside of the Oilers Dynasty. McDavid is currently at nr.73 all time in play off points. He is gonna climb surely. But it is McDavid that has stuff to prove.

I'll leave it at that and will move on from the debate with you.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Again, you don't really have a lot to contribute to the discussion with. And you certainly don't have respectful tone. This is a shame because I think that's what toxify the debate climate here on Hfb.

I looked at you posting history and went back 50-60 posts. Every single one is either about the greatness of McDavid or a negative/thrashing comment about Crosby and his legacy. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I mean... that is saying something about your bias and agenda.

I'm not even sure what you are debating other than McDavid = great and Crosby = bad. I'm not discrediting McDavid at all. But on the topic if he can break into the Big 4 - the answer at the moment is no. Because he does not have the accomplishments or team achievements to do so. He might be individually more talented than any of the big four (personally I think Lemieux was more talented), but he certainly is not as great as any of the big 4.

Greatness takes winning.

Now any debate with you basically ends up with you thrashing Crosby. I don't know if you have a personal vendetta against him (did he steal your girlfriend or something?), but as I wrote in another post: Crosby has over 200 playoff points. The only other players that have that are from the Oilers Dynasty of the 80s. And Jagr - who took 28 more games than Crosby to get there.

Crosby has consistently been great in the playoffs (yet not a run as dominant as McDavid), but Crosby is the Golden standard for players outside of the Oilers Dynasty. McDavid is currently at nr.73 all time in play off points. He is gonna climb surely. But it is McDavid that has stuff to prove.

I'll leave it at that and will move on from the debate with you.

Your whole argument is McDavid isn’t a “winner” and it’s because of him that his team didn’t win game 7….42 points and 11 points aside, along with all the other context….you are simply closing your eyes, covering your ears, and stomping your feet while yelling “I’m right your wrong!”

I point out the hypocrisy that many Pen fans refuse to acknowledge. The constant goal posts changing, it’s all real. I don’t trash Crosby, I point out the obvious. The same posters that LOVE pointing out how McDavid went pointless in games 6 and 7….yet Crosby did the same thing, but they ignore that and carry on with their hate…blind and stubborn.

Well that’s just not true. He HAS the accomplishments to threaten for the top 4-5, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Sure he needs the team accomplishments….but my problem with you is your constant bringing up Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, and even Crosby…as these amazing leaders who got their teams to glory…and you do that while ignoring all context.

You have to pretend that I “hate” Crosby in order to even have an argument. That’s how weak your whole debate is all while you continue showing just how much your willing to belittle McDavid.

We both know McDavid could have had 3 goals in game 7….and if the team still lost, you would be singing this same old song. You have no logic behind your statements, only feelings.

Good for you wasnt much of a debate considering I had to write everything out in crayon for you….but glad you had fun.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

I'd say that he needs a Frankenstein argument where various different things are pieced together. I also suspect that his only realistic chance is against Lemieux using the things that people usually use in player comparison. Gretzky peaked too high for McDavid to realistically reach, McDavid will never have the trophy case that Gretzky has, and Gretzky's raw numbers will always be beyond McDavid. Orr also peaked too high, and he has the novelty of being a defenceman and consensus best ever at that position. Howe has a peak that McDavid can (maybe has) reached, but his longevity is freakish and I would not bet on McDavid matching it. Howe also brings more variety in what he offers than does Gretzky or Lemieux or McDavid. I do not think it is realistic for McDavid to match any of those three given where his peak looks likely to end up.

Lemieux is a different story. I cannot see McDavid reaching Lemieux's peak, but everything else is in play for McDavid to surpass Lemieux. It's not hard to see McDavid ending up with a more full trophy case than Lemieux, a much fuller career with a much greater number of full seasons, and superior raw totals. A huge part of Lemieux's case is based on how impressive his highlights are and how impressive he was when he was on his game - this is the only thing that keeps Lemieux in discussions with Gretzky, and access to Lemieux's highlights (but not Orr's for the most part or Howe's) is the main reason that many people now consider him #2 of all time. McDavid is a spectacular player to watch, and everything he does is recorded and accessible in clear video. If McDavid ends up with a bigger trophy case, better career totals, more career value, plus a comparable or superior highlight reel... I can see many fans of the future putting him ahead of Lemieux. The most interesting thing will be what people do if he ends up without a Stanley Cup, as I'd already have McDavid as the clear best player in hockey history whose team has not won a Stanley Cup.

For me personally I do not see McDavid ending up among the top 4 but I think he has a good chance to create McDavid Island in the #5 spot. I have no rooting interest in McDavid or Edmonton but to me he's nearly must see TV this season, and I have not seen that since Lemieux.

What the best highlight of Lemieux you can provide ? Great carrier and maybe it's just me but I awlays found them rather unimpressive. Before someone ask out yes, I've seen Mario live quite a few times.

 

[JackSlater]

What the best highlight of Lemieux you can provide ? Great carrier and maybe it's just me but I awlays found them rather unimpressive. Before someone ask out yes, I've seen Mario live quite a few times.

Top three that instantly come to mind for fame/impressiveness are Lemieux scoring as he drags a Nordique all the way down the ice, Lemieux murdering Bourque, and Lemieux Ohhhhhhh Babying the North Stars in the 91 finals. He probably has the most famous non-goal from the 2002 gold medal game at the Olympics too.

 

[VanIslander]

9 and 99 are a tier above.

The gimby great duo tier is vulnerable.

Hasek is ****ing you up at the door.

I love McD but he doesn't drop jaws like Hasek did. ... but he's close...