Connor Bedard 2022/2023 season comparing to other great juniors seasons

How far did they live? I mean, did they play some hockey together?

Gavin McKenna is from Whitehorse in the Yukon (he is not from Yellowknife). He just finished playing for the Yukon team at the Canada Winter games. Connor McDavid is from North Vancouver. I doubt they played any organised hockey as Bedard is over 2 years older, and lives in a different province.
 
I think it's fair to have doubts for any prospect and easy to set expectations too high.
While true, we have yet to see someone in that stratosphere of a prospect not become a Crosby-Lemieux-McDavid nhl talent, but it will happen one day has anything possible tend to always end up happening if you give it enough time. And there an alternate world easy to imagine where Lafleur do not achieve to ever bloom out.

But Daigle did not make team canada has a 16 years old and scored 0 goal has a 17, only 2 has a 19 years old.

Daigle led his teams by 6 pts his draft years, Connor led his team by 31 pts during his draft -1 year, it is a completely different tier.

Would I be in a deciding chair having a decision to make (possibility to trade to get more lottery pick and what not), I would not put too much doubt on Bedard.

I think one thing that happen is that many prospects get a lot of the same cannot miss treatment when they were not at that level.
 
Last edited:
While true, we have yet to see someone in that stratosphere of a prospect not become a Crosby-Lemieux-McDavid nhl talent, but it will happen one day has anything possible tend to always end up happening if you give it enough time. And there an alternate world easy to imagine where Lafleur do not achieve to ever bloom out.

But Daigle did not make team canada has a 16 years old and scored 0 goal has a 17, only 2 has a 19 years old.

Daigle led his teams by 6 pts his draft years, Connor led his team by 31 pts during his draft -1 year, it is a completely different tier.

Would I be in a deciding chair having a decision to make (possibility to trade to get more lottery pick and what not), I would not put too much doubt on Bedard.

I think one thing that happen is that many prospects get a lot of the same cannot miss treatment when they were not at that level.

Outside of Quebec and the front cover of The Hockey News, it didn't feel like Daigle got much respect or hype. I don't think Team Canada thought much of him either.

The Lindros hype train tour had just ended in Ontario. At least that's what my younger self remembers. I think Lindros was in that stratosphere with Gretzky, Lemieux and Crosby, I mean he played on Team Canada before playing 1 NHL game. His legend kept growing, his refusal to go to Quebec, the trade, 1992 Olympics. He walked the walk and backed it up with a Memorial Cup and a 70-goal season the following year. He was something entirely different.

Lindros was called the next one and compared to Howe and Messier, no small shoes to fill. Just different. I still think only Quebec really cared and overrated Daigle.

I'm pulling for Bedard, but I got a bad feeling he is going to end up in a terrible situation and a badly run team and just have his career ruined or fall very short of what people are expecting. It would be nice to see another McDavid level player gunning it out.
 
And it is not like Lindros did not deliver big time:


In his prime he lead the league in gpg games, almost matched jagr ppg (1.49 vs 1.42), tie with Federov for highest +/- per game, winning 60% of the faceoff once the stat started to be counted, almost leading the league there has well.

Lindros hype train was not an isolated Ontario phenomenon, look at the package Philadelphia ownership-GM team gave for him, maybe because Quebec was firmly in the first overall draft race but I am remember him being talked about quite a bit in school in the very east of Quebec.

Has for Daigle, again I doubt only Quebec has he went first overall over Pronger-Gratton-Kariya, if you mean talked about him has some next big thing instead of your average first (and not even a near universal for all teams number 1) overall maybe yes.
 
This thread makes me wonder... why wasn’t Pat Lafontaine drafted first overall in 1983? And perhaps more intriguing, why was he drafted behind Sylvain Turgeon despite having a substantially better year in the same league?

Further to this discussion from upthread, in this March 85 article from SI, Barrasso, Yzerman, and Turgeon are mentioned as being players Min passed over to take Lawton, and Nanne says he regrets not having taken Barrasso. There is no mention of Lafontaine.

He has been sent down to the minors three separate times this season. "You don't keep a guy up just so you don't look bad," says Nanne, who doesn't look good after choosing Lawton over such stars-to-be as Tom Barrasso of Buffalo, Sylvain Turgeon of Hartford and Steve Yzerman of Detroit. "If I had it to do over again, I'd take Barrasso. I'm not an idiot," says Nanne, who rarely second-guesses himself.

I suspect similar sentiments would have been expressed after the 85/86 and 86/87 seasons, and that Lafontaine wasn't generally considered a better pick than Turgeon until later.

Goals and Points per 80 games
Through 85/86
Yzerman 31 and 83
Turgeon 43 and 79.
Lafontaine 34 and 69

Through 86/87
Yzerman 31 and 85
Turgeon 43 and 78
Lafontaine 35 and 69

Were it not for Turgeon's injuries, their production may have remained close for longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pbgoalie
From a goalscoring standpoint, he is even more of a standout:

His GPG is 70% better than the avg. GPG of the next best five goalscorers in the W this season.

Other notables:

Mario (83/84) - 94% better
Crosby (04/05) - 66% better
Lafontaine (82/83) - 49% better
Lindros (90/91) - 39% better
McDavid (14/15) - 29% better
 
From a goalscoring standpoint, he is even more of a standout:

His GPG is 70% better than the avg. GPG of the next best five goalscorers in the W this season.

Other notables:

Mario (83/84) - 94% better
Crosby (04/05) - 66% better
Lafontaine (82/83) - 49% better
Lindros (90/91) - 39% better
McDavid (14/15) - 29% better
Are you including last night's four goal game?
 
Really interesting stuff. Obviously need to take adjusted stats with a grain of salt at the best of times, and throw in the wildness of the the CHL compared to the NHL too, but the correlation between four of the Top 5 and their NHL careers makes sense.

- Strength of team makes a huge difference for a player like Drouin.

- Surprised Lindros isn't higher as the I thought given the gap between him and the next best 10/20 scorers was close to McDavid level. Need to take a closer look at this.

- I totally forgot that Wayne's OHL season in 77/78 was his age 16 season. How would that season line up on this list?* I suspect pretty high. I would also be curious where Crosby's 16 year old season lines up too.*


* I appreciate the work you put into this. I have wasted, I mean spent usefully, many hours calculating these types of stats. I do not want to presume that you can calculate these at request.
Gretzky's D-1 year in 77-78 would be the 2nd best pre-draft year ever, though it's before the scope of my study. I started when the draft age changed in the 79 draft. Even still, this is the year before, so there's no reason it wouldn't count.

CrosbyQ03-04
59​
135​
2.288136​
3.36​
2.72​
GretzkyO`77-78
63​
182​
2.888889​
4.49​
2.57​
TavaresO`07-08
59​
118​
2​
3.45​
2.32​
LemieuxQ82-83
66​
184​
2.787879​
5.4​
2.07​
McDavidO`13-14
56​
99​
1.767857​
3.55​
1.99​
BedardW`21-22
62​
100​
1.612903​
3.37​
1.91​

Crosby and Gretzky's D-1 years would still be the 5th and 6th best ever, if they were a full year older when they achieved those results.
 
Gretzky's D-1 year in 77-78 would be the 2nd best pre-draft year ever, though it's before the scope of my study. I started when the draft age changed in the 79 draft. Even still, this is the year before, so there's no reason it wouldn't count.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Crosby[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]03-04[/TD]

[TD]
59​
[/TD]

[TD]
135​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.288136​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.36​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.72​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gretzky[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`77-78[/TD]

[TD]
63​
[/TD]

[TD]
182​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.888889​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.49​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.57​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tavares[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`07-08[/TD]

[TD]
59​
[/TD]

[TD]
118​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.45​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.32​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lemieux[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]82-83[/TD]

[TD]
66​
[/TD]

[TD]
184​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.787879​
[/TD]

[TD]
5.4​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.07​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]McDavid[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`13-14[/TD]

[TD]
56​
[/TD]

[TD]
99​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.767857​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.55​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.99​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bedard[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]`21-22[/TD]

[TD]
62​
[/TD]

[TD]
100​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.612903​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.37​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.91​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Crosby and Gretzky's D-1 years would still be the 5th and 6th best ever, if they were a full year older when they achieved those results.
How about Tavares D-2 when he scored 70? Where would that rank among these?
 
Last edited:
How about Tavares D-2 when he scored 70? Where would that rank among these?

These are the only D-2 numbers I have compiled at this time, they are by no means meant to be the three best that have occurred:

BedardW`20-21
15​
28​
1.866667​
3.33​
2.24​
TavaresO`06-07
67​
134​
2​
3.73​
2.14​
LemieuxQ81-82
64​
96​
1.5​
4.92​
1.22​

Tavares is a really weird case. Considering the size of Bedard's sample, we must consider JT's D-2 season to be the best ever, probably by a good, wide margin. Gretzky and Crosby don't have one, McDavid's would only be about as good as Mario's, and so on. But then in D-1, he barely progresses, to 2.32. Then, in a nearly unprecedented occurrence, he regresses to just 2.17 in his draft year. And his career has been more befitting a player in that range, as opposed to one who was at those other levels at 15 & 16. And probably for 6 years or so after the draft, he was just a good 1OA pick, the word "generational" had probably not been used since 2008 . And by now, he's the clear 2nd best player from his own draft.

In 2006 and 2007 I was telling my Leafs fans friends, this is when we accept we are a bad team and need to bottom out. Start now so we can get this Tavares kid. He's gonna be one of the greatest players of all-time. And in 2006 and 2007.... the evidence of that was firmly on my side! 17 years later, he's just a borderline HOF case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy
These are the only D-2 numbers I have compiled at this time, they are by no means meant to be the three best that have occurred:

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Bedard[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]`20-21[/TD]

[TD]
15​
[/TD]

[TD]
28​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.866667​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.33​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.24​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tavares[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`06-07[/TD]

[TD]
67​
[/TD]

[TD]
134​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.73​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.14​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lemieux[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]81-82[/TD]

[TD]
64​
[/TD]

[TD]
96​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.5​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.92​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.22​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Tavares is a really weird case. Considering the size of Bedard's sample, we must consider JT's D-2 season to be the best ever, probably by a good, wide margin. Gretzky and Crosby don't have one, McDavid's would only be about as good as Mario's, and so on. But then in D-1, he barely progresses, to 2.32. Then, in a nearly unprecedented occurrence, he regresses to just 2.17 in his draft year. And his career has been more befitting a player in that range, as opposed to one who was at those other levels at 15 & 16. And probably for 6 years or so after the draft, he was just a good 1OA pick, the word "generational" had probably not been used since 2008 . And by now, he's the clear 2nd best player from his own draft.

In 2006 and 2007 I was telling my Leafs fans friends, this is when we accept we are a bad team and need to bottom out. Start now so we can get this Tavares kid. He's gonna be one of the greatest players of all-time. And in 2006 and 2007.... the evidence of that was firmly on my side! 17 years later, he's just a borderline HOF case.

Tavares as a junior is an interesting case. Reminds me a bit of the Mike Ricci situation. Tavares played four full OHL seasons before he was even drafted. Ricci played three. Both guys were hyped very early on as sure-fire 1st overall picks. But playing so long in junior actually hurt their cases. Well, probably less so Tavares since he still went 1OA but still. In both cases that’s a very long time to be in the limelight and provides a lot of time for scouts and fans to pick apart their games, focus on flaws, and start looking to other players. Basically it’s too much exposure. Ricci was passed by Nolan, Nedved, Primeau and to many Jagr as well by the time the draft was approaching. Tavares was by no means a sure-thing to go 1st anymore. I remember a few scouting services had Hedman 1st and a lot of fans started preferring him. I even remember some 1OA hype surrounding Matt Duchene as the draft was approaching. This was all unfathomable a year or two earlier. But people tired of Tavares and he regressed a bit.

It’s an interesting thought wondering what would have happened if Bedard played four full WHL seasons, for example. I know he’s absolutely dominating and is the better prospect, but would fans have tired of him in the same way they did with Tavares and Ricci? Would he have grown tired of being the best player on the ice by a long shot and perhaps it could have lead to some regression or stagnation in the eyes of scouts and fans? I know it’s a silly hypothetical, but it does make you wonder.
 
If we are going since Lemieux in 1984 then I think you can argue Bedard is right up there as #2 since then. Lindros being #1 since Lemieux. All three of Crosby, McDavid and Bedard are very close in terms of their draft year.
 
If we are going since Lemieux in 1984 then I think you can argue Bedard is right up there as #2 since then. Lindros being #1 since Lemieux. All three of Crosby, McDavid and Bedard are very close in terms of their draft year.
Why is Lindros #1?

Subjectively based on assessing the hype, one could make the case. But otherwise, the numbers don't agree
 
Why is Lindros #1?

Subjectively based on assessing the hype, one could make the case. But otherwise, the numbers don't agree

If had to pick, it would be Lindros. The hype for sure, but also the dominant World Junior. The x-factor is the insane combination of physical play and skill never seen before. I don't think since either. 149 points in 57 games and a guy who terrified his opponents in other ways. I am guessing if you had Lindros in his draft year and Bedard in his draft year and could pick one that most coaches pick Lindros.
 
If had to pick, it would be Lindros. The hype for sure, but also the dominant World Junior. The x-factor is the insane combination of physical play and skill never seen before. I don't think since either. 149 points in 57 games and a guy who terrified his opponents in other ways. I am guessing if you had Lindros in his draft year and Bedard in his draft year and could pick one that most coaches pick Lindros.

There was a story from former Slovak national team coach Jozef Golonka about World Cup 1996:
One Slovak player should go to ice, where was also Lindros. He turned afraid to coach with words: "But there is Lindros!"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crosby2010
Why is Lindros #1?

Subjectively based on assessing the hype, one could make the case. But otherwise, the numbers don't agree

It would be interesting given how much Lindros' size and physicality was valued at the time but would it be valued as much today?

Crosby and McDavid clearly hit higher offensive ceilings than Lindros as prospects and as pros, and Crosby brings a very solid two-way game and leadership to compliment his game (but this wasn't necessarily apparent when he was a prospect)

Out of the four, Bedard's size may push him to #4, while there still may be more of a hype factor for Lindros' size that pushes him to #1 in the current era.

I think it would have been

1A - Lindros
1B - Crosby
3 - McDavid
4 - Bedard
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord
There was a story from former Slovak national team coach Jozef Golonka about World Cup 1996:
One Slovak player should go to ice, where was also Lindros. He turned afraid to coach with words: "But there is Lindros!"...

That is the x-factor with Lindros. A lot of things with his opponents were psychological. Lindros as a junior and Lindros as a Flyer when healthy was a sight to behold. His complete package went beyond just scoring goals. He struck fear into players. Crosby, McDavid and Bedard all are pretty equal when it comes to their hype in their draft year. This was all in the internet age while Lindros' wasn't. So we got a bit better of a gauge to compare the other three. But maybe I am missing something with people saying Lindros' offense wasn't similar to the rest. I think it was:

Lindros 149 points in 57 games = 2.61PPG
Crosby 168 points in 62 games = 2.70PPG
McDavid 120 points in 47 games = 2.55PPG
Bedard 124 points in 49 games = 2.53 PPG (games remaining in season)

All 4 players won gold for Canada in the World Juniors that year. All of them played well in that tournament, although I think either one of Lindros or Bedard (probably Bedard) comes to mind as to who played the best. All three of Lindros, Crosby and McDavid were insane in their team's playoff runs that spring too. Crosby being the only one who made the Memorial Cup and losing to the only team that could stop him in the legendary 2005 London Knights. Lindros won the Memorial Cup in 1990, the year before. It is true that all three leagues had different scoring levels at different times in their career, but if you look at the raw numbers, it is all very close. Only McDavid didn't average a goal per game that season. To me it is such a wash offensively with the 4 of them, and to isolate it more the three post-Lindros prospects. So if it is close, I think once you add in the physical factor with Lindros, the hitting, the fighting the fear driven into the opponent, then it becomes a clear issue with Lindros at #1. We know how it turned out, Lindros was made of glass in the NHL, but without knowing that I wouldn't pass him up over the other three in their draft years. I don't know who goes #2-4 but to me it is Lindros at #1.
 
But maybe I am missing something with people saying Lindros' offense wasn't similar to the rest. I think it was:

That's right, you are, The OHL that Lindros played in was 27%, 30% and 40% higher scoring than the leagues that McDavid, Bedard and Crosby played in.

He still has the 13th highest scoring draft year since 1980:


Right you are. In case anyone is curious, here are the 35 that came out over 2.0. As you can see, there's a very high correlation between placing very high on this list and scoring at a generational level in the NHL, but it doesn't follow that those just below them are NHL superstars.

After the top-4, the next 16 have 0 generational, 3 superstars, 3 stars, 2 very good player (incl. 1 who should be), 5 run-of-the-mill NHL players, and 2 busts.

The next 15 have 0 generational 3, superstars, 3 stars, 4 very good players (incl. 1 who should be), 2 run-of-the-mill NHLers, and 3 busts,

The superstar-or-better players on this list are 1st, 2nd, (3rd), 4th, 5th, 13th, 15th, 21st, 33rd and 35th.

Run-of-the-mill and busts can be found at 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 25th, 26th, 29th and 30th. There's no pattern to be found.

Top-5 on the list appear sure of success. After that, nearly anything can still happen.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Crosby[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]`04-05[/TD]

[TD]
62​
[/TD]

[TD]
168​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.709677​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.19​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.40​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lemieux[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]83-84[/TD]

[TD]
70​
[/TD]

[TD]
282​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.028571​
[/TD]

[TD]
5.01​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.22​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bedard[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]`22-23[/TD]

[TD]
43​
[/TD]

[TD]
111​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.581395​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.43​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.01​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]McDavid[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`14-15[/TD]

[TD]
47​
[/TD]

[TD]
120​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.553191​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.5​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.92​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kane[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`06-07[/TD]

[TD]
58​
[/TD]

[TD]
145​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.5​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.73​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.68​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lafreniere[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]`19-20[/TD]

[TD]
52​
[/TD]

[TD]
112​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.153846​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.46​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.49​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spezza[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]00-01[/TD]

[TD]
56​
[/TD]

[TD]
116​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.071429​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.33​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.49​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lafontaine[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]82-83[/TD]

[TD]
70​
[/TD]

[TD]
234​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.342857​
[/TD]

[TD]
5.4​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.48​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Drouin[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]`12-13[/TD]

[TD]
49​
[/TD]

[TD]
105​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.142857​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.49​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.46​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Briere[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]95-96[/TD]

[TD]
67​
[/TD]

[TD]
163​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.432836​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.02​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.42​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gagner[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`06-07[/TD]

[TD]
53​
[/TD]

[TD]
118​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.226415​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.73​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.39​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Daigle[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]92-93[/TD]

[TD]
53​
[/TD]

[TD]
137​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.584906​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.38​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.36​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lindros[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]90-91[/TD]

[TD]
57​
[/TD]

[TD]
149​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.614035​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.47​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.34​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bouchard[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]`01-02[/TD]

[TD]
69​
[/TD]

[TD]
140​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.028986​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.49​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.33​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Marner[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`14-15[/TD]

[TD]
63​
[/TD]

[TD]
126​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.5​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.29​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Brendl[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]98-99[/TD]

[TD]
68​
[/TD]

[TD]
134​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.970588​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.51​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.25​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rossi[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`19-20[/TD]

[TD]
56​
[/TD]

[TD]
120​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.142857​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.86​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.22​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tkachuk[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`15-16[/TD]

[TD]
57​
[/TD]

[TD]
107​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.877193​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.4​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.21​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]D.Strome[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`14-15[/TD]

[TD]
68​
[/TD]

[TD]
129​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.897059​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.5​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.17​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tavares[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`08-09[/TD]

[TD]
56​
[/TD]

[TD]
104​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.857143​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.43​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.17​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hawerchuk[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]80-81[/TD]

[TD]
72​
[/TD]

[TD]
183​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.541667​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.7​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.16​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hall[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]09-`10[/TD]

[TD]
57​
[/TD]

[TD]
106​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.859649​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.48​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.14​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Abid[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]97-98[/TD]

[TD]
68​
[/TD]

[TD]
135​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.985294​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.72​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.13​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lecavalier[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]97-98[/TD]

[TD]
58​
[/TD]

[TD]
115​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.982759​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.72​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.13​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Murray[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]94-95[/TD]

[TD]
62​
[/TD]

[TD]
128​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.064516​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.92​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.11​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Petan[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]`12-13[/TD]

[TD]
71​
[/TD]

[TD]
120​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.690141​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.21​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.11​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Reinhart[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]`13-14[/TD]

[TD]
60​
[/TD]

[TD]
105​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.75​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.34​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.10​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M.Savard[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]94-95[/TD]

[TD]
66​
[/TD]

[TD]
139​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.106061​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.04​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.09​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wellwood[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]00-01[/TD]

[TD]
68​
[/TD]

[TD]
118​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.735294​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.33​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.08​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Derkatch[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]82-83[/TD]

[TD]
67​
[/TD]

[TD]
179​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.671642​
[/TD]

[TD]
5.16​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.07​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jarvis[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]`19-20[/TD]

[TD]
58​
[/TD]

[TD]
98​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.689655​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.27​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.07​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]P.Turgeon[/TD]
[TD]Q[/TD]
[TD]86-87[/TD]

[TD]
58​
[/TD]

[TD]
154​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.655172​
[/TD]

[TD]
5.14​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.07​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thornton[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]96-97[/TD]

[TD]
59​
[/TD]

[TD]
122​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.067797​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.01​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.06​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Brown[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]85-86[/TD]

[TD]
69​
[/TD]

[TD]
173​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.507246​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.97​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.02​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stamkos[/TD]
[TD]O[/TD]
[TD]`07-08[/TD]

[TD]
61​
[/TD]

[TD]
105​
[/TD]

[TD]
1.721311​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.45​
[/TD]

[TD]
2.00​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy
That's right, you are, The OHL that Lindros played in was 27%, 30% and 40% higher scoring than the leagues that McDavid, Bedard and Crosby played in.

He still has the 13th highest scoring draft year since 1980:

So I was interested in seeing where things finished in the scoring race. I know all but McDavid (Bedard too) finished at the top of their league's scoring race. Lindros had 149 while 2nd place was Chris Taylor at 128. He was an 18 year old. Most telling though is the gap between the points per game. 2.61 for Lindros, Rob Pearson who was 19 years old had 2.31, no one else at 2.0.

McDavid was 2.55 PPG to the next best Mitch Marner (!) 2.00. McDavid lost games to the World Juniors and getting his hand hurt in a fight. Other than that he wins the scoring race.

Crosby was 2.71 PPG the next best was 1.69, and there are a couple of other 1.6 players, both of whom were his linemates.

Crosby wins here on that count. Of course there are other factors like how the QMJHL had such weak talent around that time, and still does in a way. I think out of the three non-Lindros prospects Crosby wins here if I had to pick one. He certainly was the talk of the NHL in 2005 especially with the lockout. Just by looking at a glance the OHL in 1991 probably had the strongest competition.

Lindros
Crosby
Bedard/McDavid

But there is not a bad pick here by any means. Someone has to be 3rd and 4th. But like I said the physicality, the size and the strength of Lindros is too mouth watering.
 
Last edited:
Even with Bedard dominating the world juniours like he did at 17. Let's not forget crosby led the iihf men's worlds in scoring at 18. Won the art ross at 19 and led the Stanley cup playoffs in scoring at 20. Will be hard to match that off the jump
 
That is the x-factor with Lindros. A lot of things with his opponents were psychological. Lindros as a junior and Lindros as a Flyer when healthy was a sight to behold. His complete package went beyond just scoring goals. He struck fear into players. Crosby, McDavid and Bedard all are pretty equal when it comes to their hype in their draft year. This was all in the internet age while Lindros' wasn't. So we got a bit better of a gauge to compare the other three. But maybe I am missing something with people saying Lindros' offense wasn't similar to the rest. I think it was:

Lindros 149 points in 57 games = 2.61PPG
Crosby 168 points in 62 games = 2.70PPG
McDavid 120 points in 47 games = 2.55PPG
Bedard 124 points in 49 games = 2.53 PPG (games remaining in season)

All 4 players won gold for Canada in the World Juniors that year. All of them played well in that tournament, although I think either one of Lindros or Bedard (probably Bedard) comes to mind as to who played the best. All three of Lindros, Crosby and McDavid were insane in their team's playoff runs that spring too. Crosby being the only one who made the Memorial Cup and losing to the only team that could stop him in the legendary 2005 London Knights. Lindros won the Memorial Cup in 1990, the year before. It is true that all three leagues had different scoring levels at different times in their career, but if you look at the raw numbers, it is all very close. Only McDavid didn't average a goal per game that season. To me it is such a wash offensively with the 4 of them, and to isolate it more the three post-Lindros prospects. So if it is close, I think once you add in the physical factor with Lindros, the hitting, the fighting the fear driven into the opponent, then it becomes a clear issue with Lindros at #1. We know how it turned out, Lindros was made of glass in the NHL, but without knowing that I wouldn't pass him up over the other three in their draft years. I don't know who goes #2-4 but to me it is Lindros at #1.
I find Bedard much less hyped than McDavid and Crosby (also Lindros) were. His statistics measure up decently and his WJC performance certainly boosted his profile but there didn't seem the be the years long build for Bedard at the same level.
 
I find Bedard much less hyped than McDavid and Crosby (also Lindros) were. His statistics measure up decently and his WJC performance certainly boosted his profile but there didn't seem the be the years long build for Bedard at the same level.
I wonder it is just a general down shift about the importance of hockey in Canada a more and more split cultural world.

I feel that if Ovechkin-Crosby would have scored like McDavid did and say Crosby would have won the Ross in 11-12-13-14 it would have felt more hyped than McDavid right now, his half 2011 season felt bigger in some ways than actual full season of Conor.

Could just be Montreal being so bad for so long now + east coast vs west coast bias, but a bit like Trout being possibly the best at baseball in the history of the sport did not feel has big of a story like Tiger-Messi-James-Mahomes being possibly the best at their sport ever, McDavid I am not sure he even transcended the hockey world to be known culturally at large by people that know nothing about hockey (like we know McGregor even if we are not able to name who has the actual belt).

Trout is maybe not Ken Griffey Jr. marketable, but also baseball declined by a giant amount since when the arguably best of all time Bond entered the MLB era and the little hiccup back of popularity during the homeruns records race.

And Bedard do not feel like 33% of the hype of the previous big Lemieux-Lindros-Crosby-McDavid
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad