Connor McDavid will go down as the 2nd best player of all-time

[nbwingsfan]

The thing keeping him out of the top-5 right now is longetivity and cup wins, not more individual awards. Adding another Art Ross isn't going to change that.

I mean if he manages to win let’s say 2/3 next Art Ross trophies (including this season) and then suffers a catastrophic injury, there’s still no way in hell he isn’t in the top 5.

A guy who won more trophies than anyone not named Gretzky is easily a top 5 player and how “long” he played for or how terrible his team construction has been won’t change that.

That’s a level of dominance only seen by the big 4, and one of those guys only played 657 games.

There’s no one who even comes remotely close to that level, and just playing longer as an outside the top 10 player doesn’t make you better all time.

I could get behind this as long as he finishes his career with multiple cups. He can’t compete with the great ones until he has cups.

I don’t see how that matters.

In an imaginary scenario where McDavid bring the Oilers to game 7 of the SCF, scoring 3ppg along the way but then Skinner pulls a Skinner and lets in 5G in 12 shots in a 5-4 loss… how would that have ANY reflection on McDavid as a player?

 

[Hank Plank]

In an imaginary scenario where McDavid bring the Oilers to game 7 of the SCF, scoring 3ppg along the way but then Skinner pulls a Skinner and lets in 5G in 12 shots in a 5-4 loss… how would that have ANY reflection on McDavid as a player?

Maybe unfair but no Cup means not in the elite club.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Hasek won in 2002 as a starter

Regardless. When I think of his career I think of the harts and vezinas with Buffalo not his time as still a very good player on a powerhouse wings team, nor do I care that he lost his job to Chris Osgood in 2008

 

[Warh1ppy]

Nobody has ever made a serious argument for Jagr at #2, come off it.

Ok.

Full disclosure I am not suggesting Jagr is/was the 2nd best player of all time. 1-2 goes Wayne Mario period. But OP has a suggestion regarding points and if that IS the metric than we need to seriously consider by that metric alone Jagr is the 2nd best player/point getter in the NHL.

This isn't PPG, or the like this is based simply on overall point totals. As the OPs argument suggests

 

[Hockey Outsider]

No, as good as Ray was, he doesn’t rank for me. Even his cup is suspect for me.

How so?

 

[nbwingsfan]

Maybe unfair but no Cup means not in the elite club.

So you think if he were to put up 3ppg dragging an awful team to game 7 of the SCF with a goalie who had let’s say a .800sv% would have any effect on his greatness?

Purely ridiculous

Regardless. When I think of his career I think of the harts and vezinas with Buffalo not his time as still a very good player on a powerhouse wings team, nor do I care that he lost his job to Chris Osgood in 2008

Exactly. The cup argument is just plain ridiculous in a team sport.

 

[Score08]

I mean if he manages to win let’s say 2/3 next Art Ross trophies (including this season) and then suffers a catastrophic injury, there’s still no way in hell he isn’t in the top 5.

A guy who won more trophies than anyone not named Gretzky is easily a top 5 player and how “long” he played for or how terrible his team construction has been won’t change that.

That’s a level of dominance only seen by the big 4, and one of those guys only played 657 games.

There’s no one who even comes remotely close to that level, and just playing longer as an outside the top 10 player doesn’t make you better all time.


I don’t see how that matters.

In an imaginary scenario where McDavid bring the Oilers to game 7 of the SCF, scoring 3ppg along the way but then Skinner pulls a Skinner and lets in 5G in 12 shots in a 5-4 loss… how would that have ANY reflection on McDavid as a player?

The great ones find ways to win regardless.

 

[Video Nasty]

All factually true, but margin of victory is such a noisy metric.

Crosby has an impressive margin in 2014, what if one of Malkin-Kane-Stamkos would have had one as well ? What does it tell us.

Yzerman 155 pts season is almost negative 25%, what does it tell us versus Jamie Benn Art Ross win ?

Looking at the 7th best point finish in 1951 vs 2021 do seem also a bit unfair.

Jagr-Esposito-McDavid before the last season-Howe were quite similar I think

While I have sometimes used margin of victory in arguments myself, it is also sometimes really dependent on external circumstances and essentially a perfect storm of key players not playing.

For instance, Crosby’s highly touted 2013-2014 Art Ross and his high margin of victory of 19.5%, was heavily aided by most of the top scorers missing significant time.

His own teammate, who had the second highest PPG, missed 22 games and according to folks most of the time, he would have scored 96 points in 80 games, cutting Crosby’s margin of victory cleanly in half.

Tavares, Stamkos, and Zetterberg were 4th, 5th, and 6th in PPG. They missed 23, 45, and 37 games respectively. Give them 80 games and we might have 4 more scorers hit at least 90, when reality had Crosby as the only one who topped 87. Coincidentally, the other three scorers among the actual top 6, who didn’t miss as much time, Getzlaf, Hall, and Seguin, played less than Crosby and could have trimmed that percentage.

Contrast that with McDavid’s win last year. MacKinnon and Matthews were his only competition inside the top 30 who missed more than 4 games, with 11 and 8 respectively.

If we are kind and prorate MacKinnon to 128 points, tied with Drai for second, McDavid’s margin of victory remains the same and is a true 19.5%.

These margins of victory need additional context like everything else.

 

[Score08]

How so?

He had to ask for a trade a stacked team to get his cup. Great ones find ways to win.

 

[Lshap]

I thought this was common knowledge tbh

Dude is insane and is way better than Crosby was

Crosby's impact is deeper than raw point totals. He's led Olympic teams and his Penguins to multiple championships. I know it's hard to measure leadership, but you can't deny Crosby's track record as a Captain is a huge part of his greatness.

 

[HSF]

Crosby's impact is deeper than raw point totals. He's led Olympic teams and his Penguins to multiple championships. I know it's hard to measure leadership, but you can't deny Crosby's track record as a Captain is a huge part of his greatness.

Mcdavid can't do much about the Olympics and I mean its going to be way harder to win now with how strong the USA is.

Stanley cups I try not to measure individual success as its dependent on a team as whole but Mcdavid has time to win a cup.

If Ovy reaches Gretzky he may move past Crosby

 

[Cup or Bust]

McDavid likely sill has another 10 to 12 years yet. He is definitely one of the best players ever and in terms of forwards he is certainly in the most talented and gifted players ever with Gretzky and Lemieux. Where his career will rank when all is said and done is a bit silly to try and predict right now.

 

[Stephen]

In an imaginary scenario where McDavid bring the Oilers to game 7 of the SCF, scoring 3ppg along the way but then Skinner pulls a Skinner and lets in 5G in 12 shots in a 5-4 loss… how would that have ANY reflection on McDavid as a player?

That's a dangerous imaginary scenario, because it would go back to the Mark Spector question of "hey Connor would you rather win 8-5 or..." That scenario would haunt McDavid forever.

 

[nturn06]

Maybe unfair but no Cup means not in the elite club.

I never understood this idea.

Are you telling me that if he does not win any cup until 40, but as a 42 years old he joins a team, plays a couple games in the playoffs and his team wins the cup, suddenly his legacy is different?

The great ones find ways to win regardless.

Yes, that's why Wayne won soo many cups after leaving Edmonton.

 

[Coffey]

Yes, that's why Wayne won soo many cups after leaving Edmonton.

Clearly he's not that great.

I never understood this idea.

Are you telling me that if he does not win any cup until 40, but as a 42 years old he joins a team, plays a couple games in the playoffs and his team wins the cup, suddenly his legacy is different?

People have a self imposed mental block with these scenarios.

I never understood this idea.

Are you telling me that if he does not win any cup until 40, but as a 42 years old he joins a team, plays a couple games in the playoffs and his team wins the cup, suddenly his legacy is different?

People have a self imposed mental block with these scenarios.

 

[HFpapi]

Again. Does McDavid become a worse player if you take out the current Euros?

Please try to keep up.

Again...

The "Howe never had to play against Americans or Euros" was brought up in response to Howe's margin of victory over 2nd place scorer.

In that case yes it absolutely matters if you take out current euros when directly comparing McDavid's margin of victory to Howe's.

Removing Euros and Americans removes a ton of supremely talented players that McDavid needs to compete against. Just last season the #2 scorer was Draisaitl and then a pretty big drop off to Mackinnon. Remove Draisaitl and McDavid's margin of victory over 2nd place indeed gets bigger.

McDavid's goal finishes also improve drastically if you remove Matthews, Pastrnak, Draisaitl, Rantanen, etc from the equation.

If you can't understand the relevance of this to the topic at hand I don't know how to help you.

 

[Score08]

I never understood this idea.

Are you telling me that if he does not win any cup until 40, but as a 42 years old he joins a team, plays a couple games in the playoffs and his team wins the cup, suddenly his legacy is different?


Yes, that's why Wayne won soo many cups after leaving Edmonton.

4 cups to none is huge difference.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

He had to ask for a trade a stacked team to get his cup. Great ones find ways to win.

That ignores the fact that Bourque was one of the most important reasons Colorado won. He was runner-up for the Norris trophy that year (2001). He averaged 28+ minutes per game in the playoffs (logging heavy minutes in all situations). Colorado most likely wouldn't have won the Cup if not for Bourque's contributions. It seems unfair to penalize him for winning - it's not like he was playing 12 minutes per game on the defense third pairing.

Is your position that players shouldn't get credit for their Cups, if they don't win it with their first team, and are then traded to a better team? If that's the case, we'll have to penalize these all-time greats because they couldn't "find ways to win" - Dominik Hasek, Phil Esposito, Chris Pronger, Scott Stevens, Brett Hull, Teemu Selanne, Ed Belfour, Ron Francis, Doug Gilmour, Marian Hossa, Luc Robitaille, Brendan Shanahan, etc. Seems like a strange argument to make against some of the greatest players of all-time.

Using your logic, how "great" was Gretzky? He never "found a way to win" after leaving the Oilers, but the Oilers won two years after he left.

 

[Sniper99]

He had to ask for a trade a stacked team to get his cup. Great ones find ways to win.

Thats pretty weak. The guy was near the end of his career. Boston wasnt anywhere near cup contending.

but what if that player leaves in free agency and wins with a stacked team somewhere else?

 

[Score08]

That ignores the fact that Bourque was one of the most important reasons Colorado won. He was runner-up for the Norris trophy that year (2001). He averaged 28+ minutes per game in the playoffs (logging heavy minutes in all situations). Colorado most likely wouldn't have won the Cup if not for Bourque's contributions. It seems unfair to penalize him for winning - it's not like he was playing 12 minutes per game on the defense third pairing.

Is your position that players shouldn't get credit for their Cups, if they don't win it with their first team, and are then traded to a better team? If that's the case, we'll have to penalize these all-time greats because they couldn't "find ways to win" - Dominik Hasek, Phil Esposito, Chris Pronger, Scott Stevens, Brett Hull, Teemu Selanne, Ed Belfour, Ron Francis, Doug Gilmour, Marian Hossa, Luc Robitaille, Brendan Shanahan, etc. Seems like a strange argument to make against some of the greatest players of all-time.

Using your logic, how "great" was Gretzky? He never "found a way to win" after leaving the Oilers, but the Oilers won two years after he left.

I think 77 was a different case, bourque played on Bruins teams that were close enough but ended up bailing bailing because he couldn’t seal the deal. That severely altered how I viewed his career in totality . I’m not arguing his contributions to Colorado weren’t instrumental, but looking at his whole career from a bigger perspective it just looked like a legacy move to put the icing on a career that was largely defined by regular season accolades. I say all this as life long bruins, born and raised in greater Boston area so I’m not particularly fond of hating on bruins players as general rule, but bourque leaving the way he did has always bothered me. I’ll freely admit my perspective is probably a little jaded on this . I think I’ll always look negatively on great pro athletes that cash in their chips at the end of their careers for a lay up championship.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I think 77 was a different case, bourque played on Bruins teams that were close enough but ended up bailing bailing because he couldn’t seal the deal. That severely altered how I viewed his career in totality . I’m not arguing his contributions to Colorado weren’t instrumental, but looking at his whole career from a bigger perspective it just looked like a legacy move to put the icing on a career that was largely defined by regular season accolades. I say all this as life long bruins, born and raised in greater Boston area so I’m not particularly fond of hating on bruins players as general rule, but bourque leaving the way he did has always bothered me. I’ll freely admit my perspective is probably a little jaded on this . I think I’ll always look negatively on great pro athletes that cash in their chips at the end of their careers for a lay up championship.

Here's my thoughts on it. If bourque won a cup in 1988 or 1990, would that really change his place in history? Would that one "legitimate" in your mind cup place him above nik lidstrom and his 8 Norris trophies? How about if hasek won in 98? Would we consider him better than we already do?

In the end, cup wins don't matter nearly as much for a players legacy as some pretend they do.

 

[Score08]

Here's my thoughts on it. If bourque won a cup in 1988 or 1990, would that really change his place in history? Would that one "legitimate" in your mind cup place him above nik lidstrom and his 8 Norris trophies? How about if hasek won in 98? Would we consider him better than we already do?

In the end, cup wins don't matter nearly as much for a players legacy as some pretend they do.

I think if you’re debating the greatest players to have ever played the game, a cup win is a minimum to be in that conversation, If mcdavid doesn’t win a cup in his career it excludes him from the great category. The bourque situation is an outlier and an entirely different situation IMO.

 

[crowfish]

"The great ones find a way to win"

Howe - He found a way to win by beating the other 5 teams in the league. Yes, he had a 17% chance, at random (per season), of being on the Stanley Cup-winning team, but that's not why he won. He won because he is great. His first Cup was a sign of true greatness, when he played 1 game and scored 0 goals and 0 assists. Take notes Connor, that's how you get it done.

Gretzky - Against all odds he found a way to win despite only having 5 HOF teammates and playing for a literal dynasty. For some reason, when he went to a different team at the prime age of 28, he was never able to win again. Maybe greatness doesn't travel well?

Lemiuex - He found a way to win coincidently right after Ron Francis and Paul Coffey & Jagr joined the team. For some reason, he had only made the playoffs once in the 6 seasons prior to that. But as soon as he had 5 HOF teammates, his greatness was able to flourish.

Orr - He found a way to win, which is probably not surprising since he was the best talent the game had ever seen and had the 2nd best player in the league at that time on his team. The Bruins were the top team in the league 4 times during his run of 8 straight Norris trophies, despite that he only won 2 Cups. You would think his greatness + those circumstances would have meant 5-6 Cups, but I guess greatness works in mysterious ways.

Can we start using our brains, eyes & intuition to evaluate players? Because everything screams transcendent talent when I watch Connor McDavid play hockey, and frankly the idea that he needs to "win" to be truly great I find offensive because of how stupid it is.

 

[blundluntman]

When it comes to discussions of "the greats", things are far more narrative-driven than they are about the eye test or the quality of the player in question. It's like those mythological tales about great conquerors/kings where the story/appeal retroactively defines the reality of the situation. I personally hope McDavid wins a cup because players like that belong in history and in the same conversations as other champions. But if he doesn't win one, I'm not gonna lie to myself and say "he didn't do enough" or pretend players on better rosters should be ranked above him. Honestly, I'm starting to think the word "great" should be removed from conversations about top 5/10/25/50 players. Saying "Connor McDavid is a top 5 player of all time based on his dominance/career achievements" just sounds right. Greatness however is a bit more complicated and conditional.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I think if you’re debating the greatest players to have ever played the game, a cup win is a minimum to be in that conversation, If mcdavid doesn’t win a cup in his career it excludes him from the great category. The bourque situation is an outlier and an entirely different situation IMO.

So you think if Hasek didn't end up on one of the greatest teams ever assembled we'd look differently at his career?