Can Connor McDavid break up the "big 4"?

[Midnight Judges]

Yes I think that players on relatively one line teams tend to see their scoring suffer more in the playoffs than other players. I don't have stats behind this, it is just something you notice over time. Playoffs are also a time to really create a gameplan for a team, and planning helps defence generally.

It makes perfect sense though.

Teams tend to have a top d pairing and a line of players that focuses more on defense. If an opposing team has 1 superstar - they are going to get the focus of that top pairing and that shutdown line. If a team has two superstars (like Sakic and Forsberg), then the team has to decide to focus their top defensive players to shut down one of them or else split time, in which case both Sakic and Forsberg are (more often) facing the 3-4 or 5-6 D pairing and the non-shutdown lines.

 

[Sentinel]

Yes I think that players on relatively one line teams tend to see their scoring suffer more in the playoffs than other players. I don't have stats behind this, it is just something you notice over time. Playoffs are also a time to really create a gameplan for a team, and planning helps defence generally.

I'd take Jagr over Sakic or Forsberg for a playoff run. He's the better player. I'd also take McDavid over Kucherov or MacKinnon for the exact same reason.

Cases where a player jumps past another player due to playoffs are very rare in my eyes. One example where I am certain of it happening from having watched all of their playoff games is Zetterberg and Datsyuk. There is no question that if I could only have one I would take Zetterberg, since he would be the better performer in the playoffs and give me a better chance at a Stanley Cup. Again these are rare cases though.

No way in hell I'd take Jagr over Sakic or Forsberg in playoffs. They were better playoff performers.

I would agree with Zetterberg over Datsyuk.

 

[JackSlater]

No way in hell I'd take Jagr over Sakic or Forsberg in playoffs. They were better playoff performers.

I would agree with Zetterberg over Datsyuk.

Eh I think they just had better teams.

I'd say that most Detroit fans, having followed the team closely, would take Zetterberg over Datsyuk. Looking from a distance it wouldn't be as clear.

It makes perfect sense though.

Teams tend to have a top d pairing and a line of players that focuses more on defense. If an opposing team has 1 superstar - they are going to get the focus of that top pairing and that shutdown line. If a team has two superstars (like Sakic and Forsberg), then the team has to decide to focus their top defensive players to shut down one of them or else split time, in which case both Sakic and Forsberg are (more often) facing the 3-4 or 5-6 D pairing and the non-shutdown lines.

Yeah I agree that it makes sense. A team can focus on stopping one group and even if they have a lot of personnel it's a lot easier to gameplan against a single line. Even the depth players who may get called on are going to be better equipped to deal with one good line if they are playing relatively easy minutes otherwise. In the regular season everyone is on a more even playing field.

 

[Sentinel]

Eh I think they just had better teams.

I'd say that most Detroit fans, having followed the team closely, would take Zetterberg over Datsyuk. Looking from a distance it wouldn't be as clear.


Yeah I agree that it makes sense. A team can focus on stopping one group and even if they have a lot of personnel it's a lot easier to gameplan against a single line. Even the depth players who may get called on are going to be better equipped to deal with one good line if they are playing relatively easy minutes otherwise. In the regular season everyone is on a more even playing field.

I wouldn't exactly call a team with Lemiuex, Kovalev, Nedved, Robitaille, Lang, etc. "bad."

 

[Felidae]

I wouldn't exactly call a team with Lemiuex, Kovalev, Nedved, Robitaille, Lang, etc. "bad."

Yeah not sure I agree with the "one man team" narrative.

Even in the late 90s, teams still had to focus on the Kovalev - Straka line which was one of the most productive of it's time. Not to mention Lemieux being present for all but 3 of Jagr's playoff runs.

I will say though, Jagr's only truly disappointing postseason run during his Art Ross era is 2000-01.

 

[MadLuke]

Yeah I agree that it makes sense.

To a point, say Edmonton Oilers, do you play your best defensive pair and match Gretzky the best you can regardless of how good Messier and others were ?

If the answer is yes, that can make it a bit mute, maybe not on the margin but in general. Like it helped Kane-Toews, at time it did help Sakic and Malkin, but did it help a Lemieux-Gretzky ? or those got the same amount of planning and matching the other team could throw at them was it on a shallow Pens team of 1989 or a cup winning one in 1992 ?

In 2009, Crosby faced Lidstrom 79:50 minutes to 26:31 minutes away at 5v5.
In 2009, Crosby faced Lidstrom 67:31 minutes to 38:48 minutes away at 5v5.

In 2009, Nash.. faced Lidstrom 47:18 minutes to 13:33 minutes away at 5v5.
In 2009, Nash.. faced Zetterbe 43:31 minutes to 17:19 minutes away at 5v5.

Nash enjoyed 3:22 a night of 5v5 hockey without Lidstrom, Crosby 3:46. Way less Zetterberg ratio and that despite the RedWings having a larger percentage of their games at home versus Crosby than Nash (4/7 versus 2/4), so there can be something to it when you are Crosby-Malkin, Sakic-Forsberg, Kane-peak Toews for a specific time close, I am not sure if it hold for Gretzky.

And there a bit of a linemate sacrifice that can occur, split Lindros-Leclair, Selanne-Kariya maybe you end up more with a 2 line team, but they play with worst teammate, specially in the cap era. Mc-Drai always scored more together than split I think.

 

[MadLuke]

One can argue it is easier for superstar offensive talent to put up points on a shallow team given how much emphasis there is for them to score

I am not sure in nhl hockey how much that work (versus say basketball), as long as you make the first PP unit obviously, there could be be some extreme example of say, peak Jagr does not score more on the 2002 Red Wings than the 1999 Pens ? But maybe not, specially for an superstar offensive talent they would be trying to score a lot of the time no matter what and where.

Shanahan in 2001, 278 shots - 31 goals, in 2002 took 277 shots-37 goals, Pavel Bure goes from the shallow Panthers to the relatively stacked Rangers (dysfonctionnal, aging, badly build, who the goaltender ?, do they play defense, etc... but relatively loaded in big name up front).... continue to take 4 shots a night and scored at a 50 goals pace.

Sundin did well on the Nordiques vs the Leafs, Primeau-jordan staal scoring did not go up once free of all that dept chart at their position. It is way more fuzzy in hockey.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I wouldn't exactly call a team with Lemiuex, Kovalev, Nedved, Robitaille, Lang, etc. "bad."

The Avs and Wings were superteams in those years.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

No way in hell I'd take Jagr over Sakic or Forsberg in playoffs. They were better playoff performers.

I would agree with Zetterberg over Datsyuk.

I'd also lean towards taking the best player (in this case, Jagr) for a playoff run, but I'll add that from watching Forsberg and Sakic (and Jagr) for the entirety of their careers they were (imho) able to raise their level of play in the playoffs more than Jagr was. To use a straightforward example, if I give Jagr a 95 rating for his regular season performance, I'd probably give him a 93 rating for his playoff performance...still near-elite/elite. If I give Sakic an 86 rating for his regular season performance, I'd give him a 92 rating for his playoff performance...from star/near-superstar to near-elite/elite. Jagr may still have been marginally the better overall performer, but Sakic upped his game significantly in the playoffs on several occasions and surpassed baseline expectations of him, for lack of a better term. Forsberg did the same on several occasions. Jagr merely continued performing at a (now slightly) higher overall baseline level. That's kind of how I see it.

I will also say that having Sakic and Forsberg in the lineup presented the Avs coaching staff with the ability to deploy either of them in more defensive focused roles, like Hartley did with Sakic in the 2000 playoffs. Finally, I'll point out that Sakic recorded 9 points in the 2001 Stanley Cup final against one of the better defensive teams in the dead-puck era, with Forsberg absent, and with a second line of Drury/Nieminen/Hinote. Not much of a decision to be made by Robinson in that case on who to match up Stevens/Rafalski and Madden or Holik up against...

 

[MadLuke]

The Avs and Wings were superteams in those years.

What made the last 2 round of the Avs a superteam outside having Sakic, was Roy-Blake-Bourque-Foote, it was Legion of Doom single line level of throwing everything you had at the Sakic line situation, not different than Jagr-Lemieux in 2001 when they played together.

Lemieux-Straka-kovalev-Lang not that different than Hedjuk-Tanguay-Drury-Yelle support cast.

That said, like mentionned multiple time, 2001 2 goals in the playoff Jagr lost to the Devils in the conference finals, is the only clear big let down during his playoff prime that come to mind, and almost every stars that played enough in the playoff has bad one, (and sometime they can have a lots of points in a bad playoff, Crosby against the Flyers some year for example, where he scored quite a bit, but lost his cool and composure, bleeded goals and had terrible leadership) .

Well he scored a single goal, -3, against the Panthers... maybe he just did not had the scrutiny and spotlight of the usual 60 goals-150 points stars, because of Mario.

 

[JackSlater]

I wouldn't exactly call a team with Lemiuex, Kovalev, Nedved, Robitaille, Lang, etc. "bad."

Compared to the top teams in the NHL I'd call those Pittsburgh teams bad, and by the time Jagr was at his peak most of those guys were gone and he played with some pretty weak players. Even in the leanest years Jagr still performed well, but the team wasn't going anywhere. I'd need really compelling evidence to take guys like Sakic and Forsberg over Jagr, not a few playoffs where Jagr was still generally elite playing in worse circumstances.

 

[MadLuke]

Compared to the top teams in the NHL I'd call those Pittsburgh teams bad, and by the time Jagr was at his peak most of those guys were gone and he played with some pretty weak players

He often played with Hall of Famer, the D-goaltending was not at the level of other teams, no Holik-Ricci-Primeau on the third line, but in terms of offensive support on your line or rest of the the top 6, it was often not too bad.

Post 1993, Jagr playoff (91-92-93 obviously that as good of a top 6 support you can dream of):

1994: Lemieux/Tocchet/Stevens/Francis
1995: Francis/Robitaille/Stevens/Sandstrom
1996: Lemieux-Nedved-Francis* (injured)-Smolinkski-Murray*(young)
1997: Lemieux-Francis-Nedved
1998: Francis-Barnes-Straka-Lang
------ post Francis, could indeed get quite bare, Kovalev can be strong star with you, can be absent.
1999: Straka-Kovalev
2000: Hrdina-Straka-Lang-Kovalev
2001: Lemieux-Straka-Kovalev-Lang

There could be 3 phenomenon going on, a bit of overlooking Ron Francis and not considering 94-98 Jagr to be fully in his prime despite him leading the league in points by a lot (or just 99-00 being more recent), some kind of mental pass until Lemieux retire, there was only 2 playoff as a Penguins where he did not had a first ballot HHOF I think.

They were not built to win the cup more often than that obviously... but it is not like Jagr did not had the best ppg in the playoff of his generation either, not winning but scoring a lot seem the expected result and exactly what he did.

 

[WarriorofTime]

What made the last 2 round of the Avs a superteam outside having Sakic, was Roy-Blake-Bourque-Foote

Have to imagine they had really good puck possession metrics with such a blue line.

 

[BraveCanadian]

They were not built to win the cup more often than that obviously... but it is not like Jagr did not had the best ppg in the playoff of his generation either, not winning but scoring a lot seem the expected result and exactly what he did.

I guess Lemieux is due for the same criticism with his name all over this list too?

The Penguin teams where Jagr was the guy were largely horrible besides his line. Bad depth, bad defence, bad goaltending and bad coaching. Which series should the Pens have won if only Jagr has tried a little harder?

 

[Sentinel]

The Avs and Wings were superteams in those years.

Of course... but those Penguins were NOT A BAD TEAM. In fact, their forwards were second to none. The only thing that the Wings had on the Pens was defense.

 

[MadLuke]

I guess Lemieux is due for the same criticism with his name all over this list too?

Yes (at least in 96), by 2001 comeback he was a bit more in a extra-bonus round.

Lemieux winning only 2 cups and never reaching the final again certainly should be under scrutiny, a lot of the year they could have realistically done better 93-94-96-97-01, Mario was there. 98 they could have easily done better, home ice against MTL, but Jagr played really well.

The Penguin teams where Jagr was the guy were largely horrible besides his line. Bad depth, bad defence, bad goaltending and bad coaching. Which series should the Pens have won if only Jagr has tried a little harder?

My comments included: the D-goaltending was not at the level of other teams and They were not built to win the cup more often than that obviously... but it is not like Jagr did not had the best ppg in the playoff of his generation either, not winning but scoring a lot seem the expected result and exactly what he did.

To comment was ore about did he play with solid player on his line and the PP to produce (and produce he did, more than anyone of that era).

For that reason, has for the series they could have won with Jagr doing more (would it be healthy to do it or trying more) 1996 Panthers would be the obvious one, there is no one that should have beat the 2001 Devils, but 0 points against them did not help.

1998 Montreal was a possible one to win, with Barrasso in net, but he was by far the best player on the ice and played 27 minutes a night.... MTL kind of slowing him in the last 2 games was some spectacular effort and luck if my long ago memory is right, it had become a bit of a one man show that series.

 

[The Panther]

I get what @JackSlater is saying. Jágr is typically under-rated for his playoff performance, and I think too many people lazily look at point totals in his prime, forgetting that (a) it was the DPE and (b) he was on a bit of an island in Pittsburgh after 1997 (and even the 1997 team, with Mario, wasn't great).

If you look at Jágr's points in the first three playoffs after Mario retired (which is sort of Jagr's peak), he put up 37 points in 26 games, which is a pace of 117 points over 82 games. (The club was 14-16 over these three playoffs.) Those are exceptionally good numbers for the DPE.

Jágr's enormous contribution to the 1992 Cup is often overlooked, I find, or it's dismissed as "he was on a stacked team". Yeah, he was on a stacked team, but he scored 11 goals and 24 points. Even more impressively, he was easily #1 in the entire playoff in ES points, with 19. (Mario Lemieux had 14.) He was still second-unit PP, was age-eligible for junior hockey, and yet led the entire NHL playoffs in ES scoring. That's staggering.

So, yeah, imagine if the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Penguins had had a second-line like the Avs and Red Wings had (or the '92 Pens), and then checkers couldn't have entirely focused on Jágr. Instead of a 117 point pace, he might have scored at a 140-point pace...

Players on one-line teams always suffer in production in the playoffs.

 

[JackSlater]

I get what @JackSlater is saying. Jágr is typically under-rated for his playoff performance, and I think too many people lazily look at point totals in his prime, forgetting that (a) it was the DPE and (b) he was on a bit of an island in Pittsburgh after 1997 (and even the 1997 team, with Mario, wasn't great).

If you look at Jágr's points in the first three playoffs after Mario retired (which is sort of Jagr's peak), he put up 37 points in 26 games, which is a pace of 117 points over 82 games. (The club was 14-16 over these three playoffs.) Those are exceptionally good numbers for the DPE.

Jágr's enormous contribution to the 1992 Cup is often overlooked, I find, or it's dismissed as "he was on a stacked team". Yeah, he was on a stacked team, but he scored 11 goals and 24 points. Even more impressively, he was easily #1 in the entire playoff in ES points, with 19. (Mario Lemieux had 14.) He was still second-unit PP, was age-eligible for junior hockey, and yet led the entire NHL playoffs in ES scoring. That's staggering.

So, yeah, imagine if the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Penguins had had a second-line like the Avs and Red Wings had (or the '92 Pens), and then checkers couldn't have entirely focused on Jágr. Instead of a 117 point pace, he might have scored at a 140-point pace...

Players on one-line teams always suffer in production in the playoffs.

Yeah that's pretty much it. I don't know what level he was expected to score at for people. Peak Jagr was 1999 and 2000. In 1999 in the playoffs he got hurt early against New Jersey, still ended up with five points in three games against very strong opposition and was huge in two elimination games. I guess he's punished for only seven points in six games, while injured and playing 1999 hockey, against Toronto when Pittsburgh gets beaten out. Then in 2000 he torches Washington, one of the top defensive teams in the NHL that year, for 10 points in five games as Pittsburgh wins. Then Pittsburgh loses in six against Philadelphia, another of the top defensive teams in the NHL and one of the best overall, and Jagr has six points in six games, though admittedly he went scoreless in the final three games.

Peak Jagr was going to score points even in a low scoring environment against strong defensive teams. He could do that even when hurt. He could do that as by far his team's best offensive player. He's not a Stamkos or Thornton (lesser degree than Stamkos) who scores a lot in the regular season and then disappears come spring. He can also contribute in a secondary role as shown in 1992. Playoffs are not a problem for Jagr. To be fair, they aren't either for McDavid, whom I would consider to be on basically the same level, but McDavid never got to start on teams like the early 1990s Pittsburgh teams.

 

[MadLuke]

I get what @JackSlater is saying. Jágr is typically under-rated for his playoff performance, and I think too many people lazily look at point totals in his prime, forgetting that (a) it was the DPE and (b) he was on a bit of an island in Pittsburgh after 1997 (and even the 1997 team, with Mario, wasn't great).

I am not even sure they take that steps, Jagr 101 pts from 94-01 is not a particularly low numbers at all and if they look using with nhl.com:

https://www.nhl.com/stats/skaters?reportType=season&seasonFrom=19931994&seasonTo=20002001&gameType=3&sort=points,goals,assists&page=0&pageSize=50

They would see that 1.22 ppg next to it is higher than everyone else that played a lot of games there.

It could even be a step before that (and not necessarily a bad one per say), he never reached a final after 1992 has a main part of an nhl team (not counting past 40 years old Bruins here). Only 4 players in nhl history has more playoff points, he his +30..... I am not sure that Jagr playoff points if you lazily look at them can make him look bad (same for prime playoff Ovechkin), you need to cherry pick, o no production when they lost that serie, when they lost that one, etc... because his prime scoring total look really good, arguably the best of his generation.

Ovechkin playoff critics would not come from someone that lazily look at how much he scored in the playoff during his prime (50pts, 25 goals in 37 games of that era, that among the best to ever play the game type of scoring).... and he was criticized a lot for his playoffs, because he lost all the time, probably a bit of the same going for post 92 Jagr.

Of that top 30 all-time playoff scorer:

Rank	Player	Years	PTS
1.	Wayne Gretzky*	1979-99	382
2.	Mark Messier*	1979-04	295
3.	Jari Kurri*	1980-98	233
4.	Glenn Anderson*	1980-96	214
5.	Jaromír Jágr	1990-18	201
	Sidney Crosby	2005-24	201
7.	Paul Coffey*	1980-01	196
8.	Brett Hull*	1986-06	190
9.	Doug Gilmour*	1983-03	188
	Joe Sakic*	1988-09	188
11.	Steve Yzerman*	1983-06	185
12.	Nicklas Lidström*	1991-12	183
13.	Bryan Trottier*	1975-94	182
14.	Ray Bourque*	1979-01	180
	Evgeni Malkin	2006-24	180
16.	Jean Béliveau*	1950-71	176
	Sergei Fedorov*	1990-09	176
18.	Denis Savard*	1980-97	175
19.	Mario Lemieux*	1984-06	172
20.	Peter Forsberg*	1994-11	171
21.	Nikita Kucherov	2013-24	167
22.	Denis Potvin*	1973-88	165
23.	Gordie Howe*	1946-80	160
	Mike Bossy*	1977-87	160
	Bobby Smith	1978-93	160
	Al MacInnis*	1981-04	160
27.	Claude Lemieux	1983-09	158
28.	Adam Oates*	1985-04	156
29.	Larry Murphy*	1980-01	152
30.	Stan Mikita*	1958-80	150

His Jagr (at the top of it) the only one getting flack for his playoff resume (and the guy won the cup) ?

We could even enlarge as the only one not gaining quite a lot of credit for it, for the high ranked player that shop up here ? Everyone else in that top 10 are playoff legends.

 

[daver]

I am not even sure they take that steps, Jagr 101 pts from 94-01 is not a particularly low numbers at all and if they look using with nhl.com:

https://www.nhl.com/stats/skaters?reportType=season&seasonFrom=19931994&seasonTo=20002001&gameType=3&sort=points,goals,assists&page=0&pageSize=50

They would see that 1.22 ppg next to it is higher than everyone else that played a lot of games there.

It could even be a step before that (and not necessarily a bad one per say), he never reached a final after 1992 has a main part of an nhl team (not counting past 40 years old Bruins here). Only 4 players in nhl history has more playoff points, he his +30..... I am not sure that Jagr playoff points if you lazily look at them can make him look bad (same for prime playoff Ovechkin), you need to cherry pick, o no production when they lost that serie, when they lost that one, etc... because his prime scoring total look really good, arguably the best of his generation.

Ovechkin playoff critics would not come from someone that lazily look at how much he scored in the playoff during his prime (50pts, 25 goals in 37 games of that era, that among the best to ever play the game type of scoring).... and he was criticized a lot for his playoffs, because he lost all the time, probably a bit of the same going for post 92 Jagr.

Of that top 30 all-time playoff scorer:

Rank	Player	Years	PTS
1.	Wayne Gretzky*	1979-99	382
2.	Mark Messier*	1979-04	295
3.	Jari Kurri*	1980-98	233
4.	Glenn Anderson*	1980-96	214
5.	Jaromír Jágr	1990-18	201
	Sidney Crosby	2005-24	201
7.	Paul Coffey*	1980-01	196
8.	Brett Hull*	1986-06	190
9.	Doug Gilmour*	1983-03	188
	Joe Sakic*	1988-09	188
11.	Steve Yzerman*	1983-06	185
12.	Nicklas Lidström*	1991-12	183
13.	Bryan Trottier*	1975-94	182
14.	Ray Bourque*	1979-01	180
	Evgeni Malkin	2006-24	180
16.	Jean Béliveau*	1950-71	176
	Sergei Fedorov*	1990-09	176
18.	Denis Savard*	1980-97	175
19.	Mario Lemieux*	1984-06	172
20.	Peter Forsberg*	1994-11	171
21.	Nikita Kucherov	2013-24	167
22.	Denis Potvin*	1973-88	165
23.	Gordie Howe*	1946-80	160
	Mike Bossy*	1977-87	160
	Bobby Smith	1978-93	160
	Al MacInnis*	1981-04	160
27.	Claude Lemieux	1983-09	158
28.	Adam Oates*	1985-04	156
29.	Larry Murphy*	1980-01	152
30.	Stan Mikita*	1958-80	150

His Jagr (at the top of it) the only one getting flack for his playoff resume (and the guy won the cup) ?

We could even enlarge as the only one not gaining quite a lot of credit for it, for the high ranked player that shop up here ? Everyone else in that top 10 are playoff legends.

As mentioned before, Jagr, like Hull, Ovechkin, and McDavid to this point, IMO, lose nothing when their playoff resume is added to their regular season resume. Unlike players like Dionne and Thornton, they put up league best PPGs and/or points during their peak/primes.

But they do not gain anything like Beliveau, Richard and Messier clearly do.

While Mario and Orr have some playoff disappointments on their resume, they also have two Cup runs befitting their regular season level of domination i.e. Big 4 worthy.

Howe, like Crosby, did not have a Cup winning run during his 4 year peak that was befitting his regular season dominance but did one year later although it can be argued that Beliveau's '56 run was superior. IMO, Howe's playoff numbers after his '55 run until '64 cement his legacy as being on a level above his era peers (Hull, Beliveau and Mikita).

Crosby's playoff legacy by age 21 is unmatched and his post-peak Cup wins, along with his three international wins, make him the "Beliveau" of his era. His overall playoff body of work is befitting his regular season status as the best offensive player during his prime. Like his regular season resume, there is a lack of a Cup winning run that inarguably rates among the best of the era.

 

[bobholly39]

As mentioned before, Jagr, like Hull, Ovechkin, and McDavid to this point, IMO, lose nothing when their playoff resume is added to their regular season resume. Unlike players like Dionne and Thornton, they put up league best PPGs and/or points during their peak/primes.

But they do not gain anything like Beliveau, Richard and Messier clearly do.

While Mario and Orr have some playoff disappointments on their resume, they also have two Cup runs befitting their regular season level of domination i.e. Big 4 worthy.

Howe, like Crosby, did not have a Cup winning run during his 4 year peak that was befitting his regular season dominance but did one year later although it can be argued that Beliveau's '56 run was superior. IMO, Howe's playoff numbers after his '55 run until '64 cement his legacy as being on a level above his era peers (Hull, Beliveau and Mikita).

Crosby's playoff legacy by age 21 is unmatched and his post-peak Cup wins, along with his three international wins, make him the "Beliveau" of his era. His overall playoff body of work is befitting his regular season status as the best offensive player during his prime. Like his regular season resume, there is a lack of a Cup winning run that inarguably rates among the best of the era.

You're trying too hard to lump McDavid into a group he doesn't belong in.

Jagr, Hull and Ovechkin don't lose anything for their playoff resumes. I agree with that, yes. All 3 performed well. Ovechkin was mostly consistent, with strong peak performances, and an eventual strong smythe run. Jagr has cups early on, and very strong/consistent offensive play in his peak despite lack of cups/team success. Hull is somewhat similar too.

But McDavid is already in a different category (up to age 27 of course - still a long way to go, and more longevity needed too).

McDavid 22 playoffs - for 2 rounds, I feel as though McDavid in 22 was comparable to peak Gretzky, or very close. It's literally one of the best 2 round efforts of all-time. None of Hull, Jagr, or Ovechkin ever did anything like that. 26 points in 12 games. Great all around game, defensively also, etc.

McDavid 24 playoffs - it's probably the strongest playoff run of the cap era. So stronger than Malkin or Giguere or Quick, etc. Stronger than any of Crosby's run, or Ovechkin or Jagr, etc.

I think both the 2022 and 2024 playoffs are absolutely huge moments for McDavid, and I think he gains a LOT out of them. In fact - I made this thread asking "can McDavid break up the big 4" - and I promise you that I absolutely would not have made it without the 2022 playoffs (nor bumped it a year later after the 2024 playoffs). His 22 and 24 playoff runs are "all-time great" level stuff, and a very worthy addition to his regular season resume.

He's only 27. His overall playoff resume certainly doesn't match the likes of Crosby or Messier or many other all-time greats yet. We'll see if he gets there. But for peak, his playoffs is very significant and he definitely gains something from it.

I do think winning a cup (at least 1) will be very important to his legacy - but at the same time I feel pretty confident he will, so it doesn't bother me so much.

 

[VistamarCroissants]

Orr is a lock in the top 4.

Goalies, ya, there's no real argument for a goalie top 4. I don't have any goalie top 10.

I think goalies and skaters shouldn't be ranked on the same list.

Different jobs, different tasks

 

[MadLuke]

You're trying too hard to lump McDavid into a group he doesn't belong in.

If we take this year for example

Smythe: Mack
Lindsay: Mack
Ross: Kucherov
69 goals Matthews

Was McDavid entered an age that an part of his body will bother him at some point every year and if an other player has a peak season can compete with him now ? Are we reopening some who the best fun debate ?

That all seem in an already distinct past, if we add the playoff, in a way I am unsure would apply for the others names.

Would he be barely the best playoff scorer of his generation like Jagr, while his direct competition won cups and not him, sure, but he is all alone (well with Drai) in his own playoff tier.

 

[VanIslander]

McDavid hasn't surpassed Jagr or Richard or Beliveau or the two goalies yet, let alone Bourque and Harvey.

Marginal top 10? (with POTENTIAL upside)

... sounds about right...

A career takes -well- a career to make!

The guy ain't 28 yet (so marginal top 10 all time should be a COMPLIMENT!). He could Orr it out of the league with injuries or hammer it like Howe, Gretzky.

We're here for it!

 

[daver]

You're trying too hard to lump McDavid into a group he doesn't belong in.

Jagr, Hull and Ovechkin don't lose anything for their playoff resumes. I agree with that, yes. All 3 performed well. Ovechkin was mostly consistent, with strong peak performances, and an eventual strong smythe run. Jagr has cups early on, and very strong/consistent offensive play in his peak despite lack of cups/team success. Hull is somewhat similar too.

But McDavid is already in a different category (up to age 27 of course - still a long way to go, and more longevity needed too).

McDavid 22 playoffs - for 2 rounds, I feel as though McDavid in 22 was comparable to peak Gretzky, or very close. It's literally one of the best 2 round efforts of all-time. None of Hull, Jagr, or Ovechkin ever did anything like that. 26 points in 12 games. Great all around game, defensively also, etc.

McDavid 24 playoffs - it's probably the strongest playoff run of the cap era. So stronger than Malkin or Giguere or Quick, etc. Stronger than any of Crosby's run, or Ovechkin or Jagr, etc.

I think both the 2022 and 2024 playoffs are absolutely huge moments for McDavid, and I think he gains a LOT out of them. In fact - I made this thread asking "can McDavid break up the big 4" - and I promise you that I absolutely would not have made it without the 2022 playoffs (nor bumped it a year later after the 2024 playoffs). His 22 and 24 playoff runs are "all-time great" level stuff, and a very worthy addition to his regular season resume.

He's only 27. His overall playoff resume certainly doesn't match the likes of Crosby or Messier or many other all-time greats yet. We'll see if he gets there. But for peak, his playoffs is very significant and he definitely gains something from it.

I do think winning a cup (at least 1) will be very important to his legacy - but at the same time I feel pretty confident he will, so it doesn't bother me so much.

Draisaitl also had 26 points thru 2 rounds in 2022 and was ahead of McDavid this year well into the Dallas series.

I am not as impressed with his SCF as his numbers would suggest. It was similar to Crosby's 2008 SCF; satisfactory but ultimately a losing cause. A difference may be that noone gave the Pens a chance against the best Cup winner in the past 20 to 25 years.

If you are going to cherrypick playoff performances then Crosby's 2nd and 3rd round in 2009 rival McDavid's or his 2nd round vs. the Caps is arguably the best playoff round of the post lockout era.

How about Hull's '63 performance? Seems unfair to compare two rounds of hockey in 2022 to two rounds in the O6. And Hull didn't have a linemate matching him point for point.

Jagr has two Cups where he produced well for his age and did enough after that to offset the disappointment of another Mario/Jagr Cup run.

I think you are too caught up in raw point totals sometimes.