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

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Luckily there is more to hockey than goal scoring. Lemieux wouldn’t be able to put 97 assists in 71 games through a shredder. That’s an assist per game and assist total that he never hits when translated to today’s game. He also only marginally passes 64 goals in 2023 levels (66 is the figure for his ‘89 year). He is a better peak player than McDavid but he isn’t demolishing him at anything. McDavid’s first 9 are as good as his first 9.

If he could demolish gretzky. He could demolish anybody

 

[NoName]

McDavid is really really good, but isn't it premature to be declaring him the 2nd best player of all time, with well over a century of NHL hockey history when he hasn't even reached a Cup Final forget about win a Cup? I am not going to say he can't eventually reach that, but it seems silly to compare him to other guys who also have absurd statistics like Lemieux and Orr who also led their teams to multiple Stanley cups or even full-fledged dynasties.

 

[paracord]

Luckily there is more to hockey than goal scoring. Lemieux wouldn’t be able to put 97 assists in 71 games through a shredder. That’s an assist per game and assist total that he never hits when translated to today’s game. He also only marginally passes 64 goals in 2023 levels (66 is the figure for his ‘89 year). He is a better peak player than McDavid but he isn’t demolishing him at anything. McDavid’s first 9 are as good as his first 9.

I disagree, plus Lemieux is up two cups and two Smythe's after 9 years. No one would say McDavid is as good a goal scorer as Lemieux and not many would say McDavid is a better playmaker.

And Lemieux had 114 assists while scoring 85 goals one year. Come on. You can "adjust" that any way you want, but it's not passing the smell test.

Lemieux never went a day where he wasn't both the best goal scorer and playmaker on his team (until he was like 40 with Crosby), and that's with teammates like Jagr, Francis, Coffey, etc.

McDavid has gone his whole career not even being the best goal scorer on his own team. He's great but comparing him to Lemieux and Gretzky is inaccurate. He's not at their level. He's definitely at Crosby's level, minus winning so far.

 

[Video Nasty]

He's definitely at Crosby's level, minus winning so far.

He’s below Gretzky and Lemieux, but certainly above Crosby, and he’s closer to those two than Crosby is to him. This will be clear once a couple of more seasons are in the books.

 

[WalterLundy]

If he could demolish gretzky. He could demolish anybody

This being brought up I always find hysterical. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 91 Gretzky were all superior to 89 Gretzky. The year in which Lemieux “demolished” Gretzky. Yes Lemieux in what I believe to be his best season (definitely his best full season but I understand those who say 93 Lemieux) is definitely better than Gretzky in his 9th best season. Reverse the roles and if Gretzky in his best year (84 or 86) went up against Lemieux’s 9th best year it would be a crime scene.

Plus even in 1988-89 which is far down the list for best Gretzky seasons Gretzky was very close to Lemieux in even strength scoring that year. 102 in 76 (1.34) for Lemieux and 100 in 78 (1.28) for Gretzky. Both players had really good shorthanded seasons 15 SHP for Gretzky and 18 (a career high) for Lemieux. The difference in their numbers for this year comes down to the power play. Without powerplay 115 in 78 for Gretzky (1.47) and 120 in 76 for Lemieux (1.58). Lemieux had 79 power play points to Gretzky’s 53. The Penguins had 491 opportunities that year to 395 for LA. The Penguins scored 119 powerplay goals to 82 for LA. Conversion rates are .21 for the Kings and .24 for the Penguins. Lemieux’s share on the Penguins 119 PPGs was 0.66 and Gretzky’s share on the 82 PPGs was 0.65. The only major difference in their years was the power play opportunities. With the Penguins PPO’s Gretzky’s year goes up to 181 in 78 (2.32) and this is Gretzky’s true 9th best year or so.

With that context Gretzky’s 9th best year being 89% as good as Lemieux’s first or second best year isn’t exactly something to spout out proudly.

 

[WalterLundy]

I disagree, plus Lemieux is up two cups and two Smythe's after 9 years. No one would say McDavid is as good a goal scorer as Lemieux and not many would say McDavid is a better playmaker.

And Lemieux had 114 assists while scoring 85 goals one year. Come on. You can "adjust" that any way you want, but it's not passing the smell test.

Lemieux never went a day where he wasn't both the best goal scorer and playmaker on his team (until he was like 40 with Crosby), and that's with teammates like Jagr, Francis, Coffey, etc.

McDavid has gone his whole career not even being the best goal scorer on his own team. He's great but comparing him to Lemieux and Gretzky is inaccurate. He's not at their level. He's definitely at Crosby's level, minus winning so far.

I’m not arguing that ‘24 McDavid is better than ‘89 Lemieux. The only years you can even try are ‘21 and ‘23 and I’d still go Lemieux. This year however he is clearly better for assists and assists per game when you actually account for the difference in scoring levels than Lemieux ever was in a single season. Mario is a better goal scorer but McDavid relatively is a better playmaker. Jagr also had a better goals per game than Lemieux did in 1997. I was there at the games (15 that year) and remember that year well. Jagr was a better goal scorer at that point and he was better at even strength in both ‘96 and ‘97. McDavid may have two cups as well if he played with no salary cap on a team with 7-8 other HOF players as well. Not taking away from that part of the argument though you have to win.

Gretzky, Lemieux and then McDavid in that order for the players I’ve seen and I’ve been watching since the late 70s. Again Lemieux at his best is definitely better than McDavid but for regular season his first 9 are as good as Mario’s but with more GP.

 

[paracord]

This being brought up I always find hysterical. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 91 Gretzky were all superior to 89 Gretzky. The year in which Lemieux “demolished” Gretzky. Yes Lemieux in what I believe to be his best season (definitely his best full season but I understand those who say 93 Lemieux) is definitely better than Gretzky in his 9th best season. Reverse the roles and if Gretzky in his best year (84 or 86) went up against Lemieux’s 9th best year it would be a crime scene.

Plus even in 1988-89 which is far down the list for best Gretzky seasons Gretzky was very close to Lemieux in even strength scoring that year. 102 in 76 (1.34) for Lemieux and 100 in 78 (1.28) for Gretzky. Both players had really good shorthanded seasons 15 SHP for Gretzky and 18 (a career high) for Lemieux. The difference in their numbers for this year comes down to the power play. Without powerplay 115 in 78 for Gretzky (1.47) and 120 in 76 for Lemieux (1.58). Lemieux had 79 power play points to Gretzky’s 53. The Penguins had 491 opportunities that year to 395 for LA. The Penguins scored 119 powerplay goals to 82 for LA. Conversion rates are .21 for the Kings and .24 for the Penguins. Lemieux’s share on the Penguins 119 PPGs was 0.66 and Gretzky’s share on the 82 PPGs was 0.65. The only major difference in their years was the power play opportunities. With the Penguins PPO’s Gretzky’s year goes up to 181 in 78 (2.32) and this is Gretzky’s true 9th best year or so.

With that context Gretzky’s 9th best year being 89% as good as Lemieux’s first or second best year isn’t exactly something to spout out proudly.

Lemieux beat Gretzky by 31 goals that year. Sometimes you have to stop looking at the stats and just use common sense.

Also, how many PP opportunities were drawn by Lemieux because he was blowing by someone getting ready to score? Probably a ton.

 

[sxvnert]

Its a tough call between Lemieux and McDavid.

 

[WalterLundy]

Lemieux beat Gretzky by 31 goals that year. Sometimes you have to stop looking at the stats and just use common sense.

Also, how many PP opportunities were drawn by Lemieux because he was blowing by someone getting ready to score? Probably a ton.

The Lemieux drawing more powerplays has been debunked on this site several times.

As for ‘89 Lemieux being better than ‘89 Gretzky which is like his 9th best season I mean that’s expected. All I was doing was adding context.

McDavid will never approach Gretzky all time but the point of this thread is about McDavid’s potential as the second best ever for a career. It’s not a guarantee but it’s possible and I’m not sure why that bothers so many even when Orr and Lemieux will always have better peaks and be known as the better player at their best. Nothing about the potential of McDavid’s career is unreasonable and all I’ve tried to do is show how the case can be made by how great his first 9 have been relatively and what it would take from here on out.

 

[Spirits]

That wasn’t my original point? I’m saying Bourque leaving Boston and winning a cup didn’t affect his legacy. It won’t if Mcdavid wins his outside of Edmonton.

Ah, I disagree. McDavid is a #1 center and widely considered the best player in the NHL. If he needs to leave Edmonton to a stacked team to get carried to a cup it won't mean much to me.

 

[daver]

The Lemieux drawing more powerplays has been debunked on this site several times.

And Lemieux relying on PPs to produce has been debunked.

 

[BB79]

There, I said it.

It's not too late to delete it

 

[rogking65]

I dunno. Maybe he does. But he's got to win some Stanley Cups to be properly considered. This is a team sport, if your team doesn't win it all then all those individual awards are just mantle pieces.

those mantle pieces mean you will earn 5 to 10 times more salary than your colleagues at your workplace. I don't know about you, but I am taking the mantle pieces

 

[JungleBeat]

Hands like Kane, playmaking ability like Crosby and the fastest NHL player in history. He could win zero cups and it wouldn’t matter really.

Aside from Draisaitl, he also plays with scrubs.

 

[WalterLundy]

And Lemieux relying on PPs to produce has been debunked.

I never said he relied on powerplays to produce. It is a fact though that his best seasons (88, 89, 93 and 96) all had insanely high power play scoring environments with 88, 89 and 93 being the three highest in league history. Couple that with the Penguins (with or without Lemieux in the lineup) being at/near the top of the league in PPOs and you have a very beneficial environment for arguably the best powerplay practitioner to ever do it. He was also great at even strength and shorthanded so of course he’d have gotten his points even with lost powerplay time but to say that this didn’t help an all time great powerplay producer at his peak is a tough sell.

The post was about Gretzky’s ‘89 and Lemieux’s ‘89 being close with the gap being created by the powerplays.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Ah, I disagree. McDavid is a #1 center and widely considered the best player in the NHL. If he needs to leave Edmonton to a stacked team to get carried to a cup it won't mean much to me.

So back to my original point, does Bourques cup not mean much then?

 

[paracord]

I never said he relied on powerplays to produce. It is a fact though that his best seasons (88, 89, 93 and 96) all had insanely high power play scoring environments with 88, 89 and 93 being the three highest in league history. Couple that with the Penguins (with or without Lemieux in the lineup) being at/near the top of the league in PPOs and you have a very beneficial environment for arguably the best powerplay practitioner to ever do it. He was also great at even strength and shorthanded so of course he’d have gotten his points even with lost powerplay time but to say that this didn’t help an all time great powerplay producer at his peak is a tough sell.

The post was about Gretzky’s ‘89 and Lemieux’s ‘89 being close with the gap being created by the powerplays.

Again, losing to someone by 31 goals isn't "close." That's just common sense. Gretzky's '89 was not "close" to Lemieux's.

Gretzky won the Hart that year in one of the biggest robberies ever because of all the hoopla when he went to LA and he helped the team improve quite a bit, but it really wasn't "close" on the ice.

 

[Phil68]

MCDavid will be 3rd all time when all said and done.

 

[AvalancheFan19]

He’s below Gretzky and Lemieux, but certainly above Crosby, and he’s closer to those two than Crosby is to him. This will be clear once a couple of more seasons are in the books.

This. It's absolutely comical how people cannot already see this. McDavid has surpassed Crosby. Hang onto team achievements all you want but Connor McDavid has been far more dominant in the NHL than Sidney Crosby and it really is not all that close. If McDavid steals the Art Ross this year then the wide gap increases more so.

 

[WalterLundy]

Again, losing to someone by 31 goals isn't "close." That's just common sense. Gretzky's '89 was not "close" to Lemieux's.

Gretzky won the Hart that year in one of the biggest robberies ever because of all the hoopla when he went to LA and he helped the team improve quite a bit, but it really wasn't "close" on the ice.

Without the powerplay differences that I’ve gone over it wasn’t a blowout. I went to many Pens games that year and I believe that ‘89 Lemieux was his best version I truly believe that. I’m not arguing that Gretzky that year was better and I’ve been clear about that repeatedly.

I was upset at the time about Lemieux losing the Hart in 1989 and I do believe he deserved it but these things do happen. Gretzky not winning the Ted Lindsay in 1986 when he had the record breaking 215 points and 163 assists is a robbery as well.

As for being close on the ice (even though this isn’t what you meant) it really never was head to head for Lemieux against Gretzky. There has even been a clip from a 1987 game (that I was there for) where pregame they quoted Lemieux for being nervous playing against him. It was obvious to me the viewer as well. Even though this has no bearing on what has been discussed I’ll keep up the trend. Everyone else is doing it.

Career head to head:
WG: 25 GP: 15 G, 45 A, 60 PTS, +23
ML: 25 GP: 11 G, 27 A, 38 PTS, -18

It was like this at every stage of their careers. Not just in Edmonton from 85-88 (26 to 13 in points and +8 to -7) for those years the matchups happened either. Even in the 92-97 span when Lemieux was in his prime on great teams and when Gretzky was past his prime on teams that weren’t close, Gretzky still outscored him head to head 19 to 15 and +9 to -5. I was fortunate enough to attend every matchup they had at the civic arena but one over the years.

I bring this up because it has absolutely zero relevance to the thread title at all. Just like ‘89 Lemieux being better than ‘89 Gretzky. Gretzky is untouchable for anyone so McDavid challenging him is a ship that never even had an opportunity to sail. Passing the shortened careers of Orr and Lemieux though? That is something that is within the realm of possibility. And for the millionth time no McDavid isn’t a better player at his best than those two but for career it can be different. Would I bet on McDavid being the second best player for a career by the end? I’m not sure but I think there is a big enough chance for this thread to exist and for it to be taken seriously.

 

[paracord]

Without the powerplay differences that I’ve gone over it wasn’t a blowout. I went to many Pens games that year and I believe that ‘89 Lemieux was his best version I truly believe that. I’m not arguing that Gretzky that year was better and I’ve been clear about that repeatedly.

I was upset at the time about Lemieux losing the Hart in 1989 and I do believe he deserved it but these things do happen. Gretzky not winning the Ted Lindsay in 1986 when he had the record breaking 215 points and 163 assists is a robbery as well.

As for being close on the ice (even though this isn’t what you meant) it really never was head to head for Lemieux against Gretzky. There has even been a clip from a 1987 game (that I was there for) where pregame they quoted Lemieux for being nervous playing against him. It was obvious to me the viewer as well. Even though this has no bearing on what has been discussed I’ll keep up the trend. Everyone else is doing it.

Career head to head:
WG: 25 GP: 15 G, 45 A, 60 PTS, +23
ML: 25 GP: 11 G, 27 A, 38 PTS, -18

It was like this at every stage of their careers. Not just in Edmonton from 85-88 (26 to 13 in points and +8 to -7) for those years the matchups happened either. Even in the 92-97 span when Lemieux was in his prime on great teams and when Gretzky was past his prime on teams that weren’t close, Gretzky still outscored him head to head 19 to 15 and +9 to -5. I was fortunate enough to attend every matchup they had at the civic arena but one over the years.

I bring this up because it has absolutely zero relevance to the thread title at all. Just like ‘89 Lemieux being better than ‘89 Gretzky. Gretzky is untouchable for anyone so McDavid challenging him is a ship that never even had an opportunity to sail. Passing the shortened careers of Orr and Lemieux though? That is something that is within the realm of possibility. And for the millionth time no McDavid isn’t a better player at his best than those two but for career it can be different. Would I bet on McDavid being the second best player for a career by the end? I’m not sure but I think there is a big enough chance for this thread to exist and for it to be taken seriously.

But since when is the powerplay not a part of hockey? You're penalizing someone for scoring on the powerplay? He also had 13 short handed goals that year too. That's the all time record. Do those count double?

I'm not seeing your logic here. 31 goals is 31 goals. That's a huge difference, regardless of whether they were even strength, shorthanded, or on the power play.

 

[Spirits]

So back to my original point, does Bourques cup not mean much then?

It means quite a bit to Borque and hockey, but not to me. Winning a cup in your 22nd season vs in your prime as the primary driver are two distinctly different things. Had Karl Malone won a title with the Lakers in 2004 as a hanger-on it wouldn't have meant much either. He needed to win with the Jazz when he was THE factor. This is all kind of obvious sports 101 type stuff.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It means quite a bit to Borque and hockey, but not to me. Winning a cup in your 22nd season vs in your prime as the primary driver are two distinctly different things. Had Karl Malone won a title with the Lakers in 2004 as a hanger-on it wouldn't have meant much either. He needed to win with the Jazz when he was THE factor. This is all kind of obvious sports 101 type stuff.

It's all "obvious sports 101 type" stuff, and yet you acknowledge that Bourque's Cup win did mean a lot to hockey.

But not to you personally, which I guess you're saying is the more important criterion?

 

[ozzie]

Mcdavid has far more defensive accountability than Lemieux ever had and is not given the same freedom to float at the other teams blue line.

 

[Spirits]

It's all "obvious sports 101 type" stuff

Yes, this is obvious sports 101 type of stuff.