Can Connor McDavid break up the "big 4"?

[Dennis Bonvie]

No it doesn't - at least not according to many (I don't personally concur). Bobby Orr played less than half a career. Mario Lemieux played only 54% as many games as Gordie howe.

For many people, these massive deficiencies amount to basically nothing.

So to those people, McDavid must already be a top 5 ish player. At least, if they were consistent that would be the base.

Correct.

A top 5ish player, not a top 5ish career.

If you are going to be honest, neither Orr nor Mario are top 10 based on their careers.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Ya McDavid isn't 22 anymore. We've seen enough. He's at what, 6 or 7 years now as the consensus best player in the world? How many guys have even achieved that?

He's led the league in scoring 5 times and playoffs twice. That is the kind of thing that will be remembered 100 years from now. We're not talking about a young unproven McDavid.

At worst, he's fourth best forward born 1966-2005. He will overtake Gretzky for games played as an Oiler this season.

To update one of my older threads:

Games played at top-1 PPG pace (1927-2024)

Player	1st
Wayne Gretzky	872
Gordie Howe	567
Mario Lemieux	452
Connor McDavid	408
Phil Esposito	406
Sidney Crosby	339
Stan Mikita	324
Bill Cowley	274
Guy Lafleur	234
Alex Ovechkin	233

Games played at top-3 PPG pace (1927-2024)

Player	3rd
Wayne Gretzky	1,103
Gordie Howe	950
Mario Lemieux	743
Stan Mikita	703
Jean Beliveau	693
Connor McDavid	682
Jaromir Jagr	680
Phil Esposito	649
Maurice Richard	555
Sidney Crosby	544

Games played at top-5 PPG pace (1927-2024)

Player	5th
Gordie Howe	1,587
Wayne Gretzky	1,103
Maurice Richard	849
Sidney Crosby	784
Stan Mikita	783
Bobby Hull	775
Mario Lemieux	743
Jean Beliveau	693
Connor McDavid	682
Jaromir Jagr	680

Games played at top-10 PPG pace (1927-2024)

Player	10th
Gordie Howe	1,669
Wayne Gretzky	1,267
Jean Beliveau	1,088
Maurice Richard	1,013
Bobby Hull	933
Sidney Crosby	865
Mario Lemieux	818
Stan Mikita	783
Ted Lindsay	774
Andy Bathgate	733
... Connor McDavid (16th place)	682

 

[JackSlater]

Correct.

A top 5ish player, not a top 5ish career.

If you are going to be honest, neither Orr nor Mario are top 10 based on their careers.

I agree. Bourque has more career value than Orr, but essentially no one puts him ahead because at its core the key thing is which player was best.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I agree. Bourque has more career value than Orr, but essentially no one puts him ahead because at its core the key thing is which player was best.

IMO the entire purpose of being a member of a team is to contribute as much as possible to the team's success.

Whereas you think the objective is to prove a point, and then who cares what happens to the team after that point is reasonably well-established?

 

[The Panther]

IMO the entire purpose of being a member of a team is to contribute as much as possible to the team's success.

Whereas you think the objective is to prove a point, and then who cares what happens to the team after that point is reasonably well-established?

There are obviously degrees here. Unless you personally rank Ray Whitney higher than Bobby Orr...? Whitney scored more points than Orr. Appeared in twice as many games. Won a Cup.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There are obviously degrees here. Unless you personally rank Ray Whitney higher than Bobby Orr...? Whitney scored more points than Orr. Appeared in twice as many games. Won a Cup.

The degree is that concentrated peak play significantly increases the likelihood of a team winning, and therefore is worth much more than compiled stats as reviewed on a per-point or per-goal basis.

 

[JackSlater]

IMO the entire purpose of being a member of a team is to contribute as much as possible to the team's success.

Whereas you think the objective is to prove a point, and then who cares what happens to the team after that point is reasonably well-established?

The point of what? These aren't players that we can draft and have their career play out in the exact same manner. Even if you could miraculously bring a player out of a time machine only a fool would expect things to play out identically. By all means compare careers if you want, but most people are talking about comparing players. Comparing players means how good the players were, which encompasses multiple things but not just looking for an approximate value that someone just accumulates over time.

If Orr got figured out by the NHL and was useless in his 30s that would be one thing, but he got injured until he couldn't play. That makes his career worse, but doesn't really make him worse (ignoring that injuries limited even his prime years). Bourque doesn't just hang around long enough (as an elite player) and become better than Orr in year 22 or 23 or something. That's something that most people inherently understand. However good McDavid is, if he plays for another ten years putting up exactly a point per game it doesn't really make him a better player even if that player would be very valuable for ten years. It makes his career better, which is great for him and whoever employs him and cheers for his team. It shouldn't move the needle for him much when we're talking about the greatest players ever though.

 

[TheSecondSeason]

He already has in my opinion.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The degree is that concentrated peak play significantly increases the likelihood of a team winning, and therefore is worth much more than compiled stats as reviewed on a per-point or per-goal basis.

So you are arguing in favor of both sides now?

 

[MadLuke]

There are obviously degrees here. Unless you personally rank Ray Whitney higher than Bobby Orr...? Whitney scored more points than Orr. Appeared in twice as many games. Won a Cup.

And if Orr was better for a team than having 2 Whitney over easy replacement on the team ?

By the end, Marleau in some years of his contract could have had negative value.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So you are arguing in favor of both sides now?

I mean, yeah?

 

[daver]

And arguably second best single season and second best single playoffs.

What about Crosby's 2018 playoffs? 1.75 PPG, 9 goals in 12 games, in on 50% of his team's goals. Lost to eventual Cup champion. His series against Ottawa in 2010 was arguably his best, 14 points thru 5 games, 66% of his team's offense.

This tends to get forgotten because of his four SCF runs, the perception that the Pens were a better team than the Oilers effectively at all times throughout their careers, and the disappointment of the post 2009 Pens not meeting dynastic expectations.

McDavid has certainly made up for a disappointing playoff resume after 6 seasons and, unlike Crosby, is hitting his playoff peak production in conduction with his regular season peak; which is always a great look.

It is fair to penalize Crosby for simply not putting up at least one healthy full peak season but it is also fair to point out that at the end of the day, he is a winner in the NHL and in the international setting; and won wearing many different hats (generational offense, strong two-way play, clutch scoring, great leadership).

 

[Midnight Judges]

The point of what?

The point that they can play at the highest level.

These aren't players that we can draft and have their career play out in the exact same manner. Even if you could miraculously bring a player out of a time machine only a fool would expect things to play out identically. By all means compare careers if you want, but most people are talking about comparing players. Comparing players means how good the players were, which encompasses multiple things but not just looking for an approximate value that someone just accumulates over time.

You don't need to assume a career plays out identically if removed to a different circumstance. -That's a needless reductio ad absurdum argument. It is possible to assess general quality of play and reasonably transpose that across eras.

It's also reasonable to base a judgement on the opportunities given and what they did with those opportunities over the course of their entire careers. It's not hard to recognize opportunities missed due to environmental factors (like WWII, lockouts, COVID, 50 game or 70 game seasons) vs things that are due to player attributes: Durability, quitting, choosing to play in a lessor league like the WHA or KHL, or declining play.

If Orr got figured out by the NHL and was useless in his 30s that would be one thing, but he got injured until he couldn't play. That makes his career worse, but doesn't really make him worse (ignoring that injuries limited even his prime years). Bourque doesn't just hang around long enough (as an elite player) and become better than Orr in year 22 or 23 or something. That's something that most people inherently understand. However good McDavid is, if he plays for another ten years putting up exactly a point per game it doesn't really make him a better player even if that player would be very valuable for ten years. It makes his career better, which is great for him and whoever employs him and cheers for his team. It shouldn't move the needle for him much when we're talking about the greatest players ever though.

We just fundamentally disagree on this point.

As I said, the entire purpose (IMO) of being a team member is to contribute as much as possible to the team.

IMO the entire benefit of being a better player is to provide more value to the team in a shorter period of time, therefore providing a greater value over the course of an entire career.

Whereas you think Orr proved the point - that he could be one of the best players ever - and so you are satisfied. End of story. The fact that Bourque went on to provide 13 additional high caliber seasons after that apparently is worth almost nothing to you. But in real life, it's worth a helluva lot to the team.

So yeah, I do think players like Bourque can surpass players who were better on a per-game basis - because I value longevity as well as peak. If longevity has no chance of ever surpassing peak, then longevity's value is precisely zero.

Put another way, if I'm a GM and I can draft Ray Bourque knowing that I get his total career in terms of general quality of play and games played and years played, and knowing that I can draft Bobby Orr with his total career in terms of general quality of play and games played and years played, I might very well take Bourque. IMO if you take a typical NHL franchise and add Ray Bourque, you may win more championships in that same period of time than if you take that same franchise and add Bobby Orr who is utterly useless for 11 of those 22 seasons.

That is my measure of greatness. Yours is almost entirely focused on peak play. I think most of us would describe that as "best" but not actually "greatest."

But again, it's odd to focus on best when the whole purpose of being the best is to become the greatest - at least if you are assuming the purpose of a teammate in a team sport is to contribute to the team, which again.

Or you could take the opinion that no, the purpose is to dazzle some people for some short period of time, and who cares about the team.

 

[Midnight Judges]

McDavid has certainly made up for a disappointing playoff resume after 6 seasons

Your distortions for Crosby are off the charts.

McDavid's playoff PPG is 1.58.

Crosby's is 1.12.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Points per game is back, baby!

 

[Midnight Judges]

It is fair to penalize Crosby for simply not putting up at least one healthy full peak season but it is also fair to point out that at the end of the day, he is a winner in the NHL and in the international setting; and won wearing many different hats (generational offense, strong two-way play, clutch scoring, great leadership).

The next time Sidney Crosby has "strong two way play" will be the first.

Here in real life, the Penguins bleed goals against with Crosby on the ice. Crosby has always been deployed overwhelmingly for offense, he's never shut anyone down, and he rarely is a penalty killer aside from hopping over the boards after the real penalty killers get the final clear.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The point that they can play at the highest level.



You don't need to assume a career plays out identically if removed to a different circumstance. -That's a needless reductio ad absurdum argument. It is possible to assess general quality of play and reasonably transpose that across eras.

It's also reasonable to base a judgement on the opportunities given and what they did with those opportunities over the course of their entire careers. It's not hard to recognize opportunities missed due to environmental factors (like WWII, lockouts, COVID, 50 game or 70 game seasons) vs things that are due to player attributes: Durability, quitting, choosing to play in a lessor league like the WHA or KHL, or declining play.



We just fundamentally disagree on this point.

As I said, the entire purpose (IMO) of being a team member is to contribute as much as possible to the team.

IMO the entire benefit of being a better player is to provide more value to the team in a shorter period of time, therefore providing a greater value over the course of an entire career.

Whereas you think Orr proved the point - that he could be one of the best players ever - and so you are satisfied. End of story. The fact that Bourque went on to provide 13 additional high caliber seasons after that apparently is worth almost nothing to you. But in real life, it's worth a helluva lot to the team.

So yeah, I do think players like Bourque can surpass players who were better on a per-game basis - because I value longevity as well as peak. If longevity has no chance of ever surpassing peak, then longevity's value is precisely zero.

Put another way, if I'm a GM and I can draft Ray Bourque knowing that I get his total career in terms of general quality of play and games played and years played, and knowing that I can draft Bobby Orr with his total career in terms of general quality of play and games played and years played, I might very well take Bourque. IMO if you take a typical NHL franchise and add Ray Bourque, you may win more championships in that same period of time than if you take that same franchise and add Bobby Orr who is utterly useless for 11 of those 22 seasons.

That is my measure of greatness. Yours is almost entirely focused on peak play. I think most of us would describe that as "best" but not actually "greatest."

But again, it's odd to focus on best when the whole purpose of being the best is to become the greatest - at least if you are assuming the purpose of a teammate in a team sport is to contribute to the team, which again.

Or you could take the opinion that no, the purpose is to dazzle some people for some short period of time, and who cares about the team.

I think the distinction you are making between "best' and "greatest" is really just semantics to support an argument.

Trying to say Bourque was really a greater player than Orr just seems silly.

 

[JackSlater]

The point that they can play at the highest level.



You don't need to assume a career plays out identically if removed to a different circumstance. -That's a needless reductio ad absurdum argument. It is possible to assess general quality of play and reasonably transpose that across eras.

It's also reasonable to base a judgement on the opportunities given and what they did with those opportunities over the course of their entire careers. It's not hard to recognize opportunities missed due to environmental factors (like WWII, lockouts, COVID, 50 game or 70 game seasons) vs things that are due to player attributes: Durability, quitting, choosing to play in a lessor league like the WHA or KHL, or declining play.



We just fundamentally disagree on this point.

As I said, the entire purpose (IMO) of being a team member is to contribute as much as possible to the team.

IMO the entire benefit of being a better player is to provide more value to the team in a shorter period of time, therefore providing a greater value over the course of an entire career.

Whereas you think Orr proved the point - that he could be one of the best players ever - and so you are satisfied. End of story. The fact that Bourque went on to provide 13 additional high caliber seasons after that apparently is worth almost nothing to you. But in real life, it's worth a helluva lot to the team.

So yeah, I do think players like Bourque can surpass players who were better on a per-game basis - because I value longevity as well as peak. If longevity has no chance of ever surpassing peak, then longevity's value is precisely zero.

Put another way, if I'm a GM and I can draft Ray Bourque knowing that I get his total career in terms of general quality of play and games played and years played, and knowing that I can draft Bobby Orr with his total career in terms of general quality of play and games played and years played, I might very well take Bourque. IMO if you take a typical NHL franchise and add Ray Bourque, you may win more championships in that same period of time than if you take that same franchise and add Bobby Orr who is utterly useless for 11 of those 22 seasons.

That is my measure of greatness. Yours is almost entirely focused on peak play. I think most of us would describe that as "best" but not actually "greatest."

But again, it's odd to focus on best when the whole purpose of being the best is to become the greatest - at least if you are assuming the purpose of a teammate in a team sport is to contribute to the team, which again.

Or you could take the opinion that no, the purpose is to dazzle some people for some short period of time, and who cares about the team.

I don't really care to reply to all of this since I think our positions and disagreement are established. I will say that I do think you are at least consistent in following your point to a logical conclusion and that your claim that some people are inconsistent in this is true.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think the distinction you are making between "best' and "greatest" is really just semantics to support an argument.

Trying to say Bourque was really a greater player than Orr just seems silly.

I haven't actually drawn that conclusion just yet.

But yeah I don't think it's out of the question.

I think the best counter argument is to try and show a typical NHL team wins more championships with 9 ish seasons of Orr than 22 seasons of Bourque.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think the best counter argument is to try and show a typical NHL team wins more championships with 9 ish seasons of Orr than 22 seasons of Bourque.

You might find this thread interesting - Discounted career point totals

A lot of it is theoretical, but I try to establish why players with short but high peaks are more conducive to helping a team win, rather than ones with longer, more consistent primes.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I haven't actually drawn that conclusion just yet.

But yeah I don't think it's out of the question.

I think the best counter argument is to try and show a typical NHL team wins more championships with 9 ish seasons of Orr than 22 seasons of Bourque.

Sounds kind of impossible to me.

No way to define typical NHL team.

What I do know is that Orr's teams actually did win more championships than Bourque's teams.

And Orr won more scoring championships, Conn Smythe trophies, Norris trophies and Hart trophies in 9 seasons than Bourque did in 22 seasons.

 

[Boxscore]

In terms of talent, offensive dominance, charisma, eye-popping sorcery, and high-speed theatrics, McDavid is definitely Top-5 already, imho. The only players with a combo of breathtaking skill, dominance, peak, and pedigree that surpass McDavid are Gretz, Mario, and Orr. I'm sure it can also be argued that Gordie is also, but I've always believed the secret sauce that made Gordie "Mr. Hockey" was his physicality, intangibles, and remarkable longevity combined with his excellent skill and offensive dominance.

When it comes to a talent package, I've seen enough of McDavid to have him ahead of other legends such as Jagr, Dionne, Esposito, Crosby, Ovechkin, Hull Sr., Lafleur, Bossy, Bure, Yzerman, etc. Where it gets tricky is when we compare McDavid (or any modern superstar) to past players blessed with an insane amount of intangibles and layers to their games, like Messier, Beliveau, Forsberg, Clarke, Trottier, and the previously-mentioned Howe, etc.

 

[daver]

In terms of talent, offensive dominance, charisma, eye-popping sorcery, and high-speed theatrics, McDavid is definitely Top-5 already, imho. The only players with a combo of breathtaking skill, dominance, peak, and pedigree that surpass McDavid are Gretz, Mario, and Orr. I'm sure it can also be argued that Gordie is also, but I've always believed the secret sauce that made Gordie "Mr. Hockey" was his physicality, intangibles, and remarkable longevity combined with his excellent skill and offensive dominance.

When it comes to a talent package, I've seen enough of McDavid to have him ahead of other legends such as Jagr, Dionne, Esposito, Crosby, Ovechkin, Hull Sr., Lafleur, Bossy, Bure, Yzerman, etc. Where it gets tricky is when we compare McDavid (or any modern superstar) to past players blessed with an insane amount of intangibles and layers to their games, like Messier, Beliveau, Forsberg, Clarke, Trottier, and the previously-mentioned Howe, etc.

How can you not have Crosby with the latter group?

He is as versatile of an offensive player as any of those players (primarily a playmaker who has won two Rockets and the era best playoff goal total with Ovechkin), has the most diverse championship resume of any of them while being a Captain for every winning team save the 2010 Olympics, added a solid to very good defensive game as he came into his peak, and has an elite level of play longevity (19 seasons) that is only rivalled by Howe and Wayne among forwards.

If he plays a mere 40 to 50 more games at specific times in his career, he is the consensus #5 player at this point.

 

[Video Nasty]

Eddie Shore had 4 Hart trophies.
McDavid has yet to.

Shore won 4 Harts in a league that shrunk from 10 to 7 teams. He had 3 additional finalist nominations and an additional top 5. This was over the course of 13 seasons. All four wins were close.

McDavid has won 3 Harts in a 30-32 team league. He has 3 additional finalist nominations and 2 additional top 5’s. These 8 top 5 nominations have been done consecutively. He has a unanimous Hart win and was one vote shy of doing it a second time. This has been over the course of 9 seasons.

McDavid has the more impressive Hart history already and it will likely only continue to improve (though I expect him to win just one more Hart in his career due to voter fatigue and competing against his own high standards).