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

[RJMA]

Orr and Howe dominated an era of middle of period cigarette smoking Canadians.

The sport wasn’t yet professional or competitive. Hardly any European players. No soviets. No dominant Americans from places like Arizona. No diversity of race or region in the NHL back then. Small league with small time stars going up against guys that had second jobs. Bush league goalies too. Goons all over the ice.

Most Goalies were jokes back then. Played to midget level of today. Nope. I can’t consider those players great. They were amazing in a non professional era for the sport.

It’s not their fault they are undone by the era in which they played. But it wasn’t a competitive time full of athletic excellence all over the ice like today. A dude like Matt Nieto would have been a super star in 1968.

Where's the "/sarcasm"?

 

[HFpapi]

The gap between Orr and any other player in the game was enormous. He was miles ahead of any d-man. He won two scoring titles as a D-man. He was a +124 one year. Must have been Cheevers? The only argument against him is longevity. And it's a legit argument that I accept. But if you take the five best years of any player in history, nobody beats him. His performance in severe pain in 1976 Canada Cup is legendary. If you didn't see him play, you missed out.

I hate the Bruins and Cherry but Orr was something else.

I don't want to turn the thread into Gretzky vs Orr and while I respect the hell out of Orr and how good/revolutionary he was, I just feel like putting anyone other than Wayne as #1 is trying to be too cute.

Gretzky has a legitimate argument for being the most statistically dominant athlete of all-time in ANY sport. We all know the stats. More assists than any other player has points while also being the all-time leader in goals (for now). Fastest player to 1000 points and 2nd fastest player to 1000 points. 10 scoring titles, 9 MVPs. Very long and (mostly) healthy career so no need for "what ifs" and "could've beens," he really did the thing.

Gretzky is probably a top 10 athlete of all-time.

I really don't see it with Crosby.

"Only" two Art Ross, two rockets and 2 Hart trophies

Thats not in the same league as the others.

Assuming McDavid finishes min. 5th best of all-time, who do you have in that 6 slot then if not Sid?

 

[McJedi]

Where's the "/sarcasm"?

It’s probably frustrating since how can you account for era but the game was lousy back in the 1950s-1970s.

Easy era to dominate because it was so uncompetitive and unprofessional. No salary cap. Hardly any European players. Goalies just barely throwing their legs out at the puck in a half ass attempt to stop it.

You guys want to ignore this but I can’t. It’s the reality of the game. Orr and Howe creamed a bunch of semi pro and beer league level players with a handful of legit NHLers sprinkled in. Montreal won 16 titles from 1950-1979.

They’ve won two since, none since the 1990s. The league grew up and got legit. It wasn’t back then.

And no. I’m not impressed by Montreal winning all those titles either. Wasn’t a competitive era. No team could come remotely close to being that dominant today. Well… same thing goes for the players. Was a much easier era to win and/or put up huge stats if you had the best players.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

I don't want to turn the thread into Gretzky vs Orr and while I respect the hell out of Orr and how good/revolutionary he was, I just feel like putting anyone other than Wayne as #1 is trying to be too cute.

Gretzky has a legitimate argument for being the most statistically dominant athlete of all-time in ANY sport. We all know the stats. More assists than any other player has points while also being the all-time leader in goals (for now). Fastest player to 1000 points and 2nd fastest player to 1000 points. 10 scoring titles, 9 MVPs. Very long and (mostly) healthy career so no need for "what ifs" and "could've beens," he really did the thing.

Gretzky is probably a top 10 athlete of all-time.


Assuming McDavid finishes min. 5th best of all-time, who do you have in that 6 slot then if not Sid?

Not an attempt to be cute. I saw Orr. He was mind-bending. The question with him is aways how far his short career knocks him down. I say the same thing for Hasek. Not to the same degree. But people put Brodeur ahead of Hasek for greatest goalie and it's so crazy.

 

[RJMA]

It’s probably frustrating since how can you account for era but the game was lousy back in the 1950s-1970s.

Easy era to dominate because it was so uncompetitive and unprofessional. No salary cap. Hardly any European players. Goalies just barely throwing their legs out at the puck in a half ass attempt to stop it.

You guys want to ignore this but I can’t. It’s the reality of the game. Orr and Howe creamed a bunch of semi pro and beer league level players with a handful of legit NHLers sprinkled in. Montreal won 16 titles from 1950-1979.

They’ve won two since, none since the 1990s. The league grew up and got legit. It wasn’t back then.

And no. I’m not impressed by Montreal winning all those titles either. Wasn’t a competitive era. No team could come remotely close to being that dominant today. Well… same thing goes for the players. Was a much easier era to win and/or put up huge stats if you had the best players.

I'm gonna let the HoH regulars have fun with you.

 

[Pengwins]

he needs to win a Cup

he's not better than Mario

Crosby is 3rd all time not 5th

 

[Bfan14]

I don't want to turn the thread into Gretzky vs Orr and while I respect the hell out of Orr and how good/revolutionary he was, I just feel like putting anyone other than Wayne as #1 is trying to be too cute.

Gretzky has a legitimate argument for being the most statistically dominant athlete of all-time in ANY sport. We all know the stats. More assists than any other player has points while also being the all-time leader in goals (for now). Fastest player to 1000 points and 2nd fastest player to 1000 points. 10 scoring titles, 9 MVPs. Very long and (mostly) healthy career so no need for "what ifs" and "could've beens," he really did the thing.

Gretzky is probably a top 10 athlete of all-time.


Assuming McDavid finishes min. 5th best of all-time, who do you have in that 6 slot then if not Sid?

He may have the 6th spot, but there's a clear gap from those other 5.

 

[HFpapi]

Not an attempt to be cute. I saw Orr. He was mind-bending. The question with him is aways how far his short career knocks him down. I say the same thing for Hasek. Not to the same degree. But people put Brodeur ahead of Hasek for greatest goalie and it's so crazy.

The difference with Hasek vs Brodeur is you are talking about a clearly superior peak vs a longer and more consistent career. I don't think you can say Orr had a superior peak to a guy scoring 215 points in a season. At best they are even when you account for Orr being a defender and being good on that side of the puck as well but Wayne did it for twice as long.

 

[HFpapi]

It’s probably frustrating since how can you account for era but the game was lousy back in the 1950s-1970s.

Easy era to dominate because it was so uncompetitive and unprofessional. No salary cap. Hardly any European players. Goalies just barely throwing their legs out at the puck in a half ass attempt to stop it.

You guys want to ignore this but I can’t. It’s the reality of the game. Orr and Howe creamed a bunch of semi pro and beer league level players with a handful of legit NHLers sprinkled in. Montreal won 16 titles from 1950-1979.

They’ve won two since, none since the 1990s. The league grew up and got legit. It wasn’t back then.

And no. I’m not impressed by Montreal winning all those titles either. Wasn’t a competitive era. No team could come remotely close to being that dominant today. Well… same thing goes for the players. Was a much easier era to win and/or put up huge stats if you had the best players.

I think you're a bit too extreme in your view, don't think we have to discredit the players of old, they deserve their due for their dominance relative to their era and peers.

That said, the balance as far as comparing across eras is clearly too heavily skewed in favour of players from decades ago. Suggesting that Howe is untouchable for a player as dominant as Mcdavid is a crazy take IMO hence why I made the thread.

When Howe played, the league was comprised of only Canadian players when Canada had about 16 million people. That would be like a league today being comprised of only players born in the Netherlands. Howe didn't have Germans, Russians, Czechs, Swedes, or even really Americans chasing him down in the scoring race.

McDavid is currently being trailed by a German, a Russian, an American, a Czech, an American again, a Swede, another Swede, an American again, and then a Canadian 39 points back.

 

[Cup or Bust]

It is difficult to to compare guys from different eras, but in my opinion there have only been 3 true superstars in NHL history. Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr. Then the next group of great star players after that. Connor McDavid is the only player I have ever watched besides Gretzky and Lemieux that I felt I was watching a true superstar player. For about 30 years it has been Gretzky, Lemieux and no one else felt like they belonged in that group. I think by the time McDavid is done his career the conversation will be Gretzky, Lemieux, and McDavid. Not necessarily who is better, just when talking about the truly elite superstars of the past. That in itself would be pretty amazing to achieve. McDavid is only 26, I still want to see what he can do in the next 10 years.

 

[McShogun99]

If he stays healthy and plays until he's 38 he could hit 2000 points which would make him top 2 in scoring but not top 2 overall. It's going to be almost impossible to be considered better then Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I don't want to turn the thread into Gretzky vs Orr and while I respect the hell out of Orr and how good/revolutionary he was, I just feel like putting anyone other than Wayne as #1 is trying to be too cute.

Gretzky has a legitimate argument for being the most statistically dominant athlete of all-time in ANY sport. We all know the stats. More assists than any other player has points while also being the all-time leader in goals (for now). Fastest player to 1000 points and 2nd fastest player to 1000 points. 10 scoring titles, 9 MVPs. Very long and (mostly) healthy career so no need for "what ifs" and "could've beens," he really did the thing.

Gretzky is probably a top 10 athlete of all-time.


Assuming McDavid finishes min. 5th best of all-time, who do you have in that 6 slot then if not Sid?

I mean your opinion is valid. I think that if you want to base this conversation around stats then fine, it’s Wayne and there is no point in talking about it.

Some things are black and white, like Mario > Jagr since they played in the same era. However putting the best players from each era against each other and having a different opinion is completely valid IMO.

If you were old enough to have seen Lafleur and have him as the best to ever do it during the peak he had, that’s perfectly valid. Not really sure how you could conclusively argue against that opinion.

 

[Fitzy]

4th best. Can’t see how he surpasses Lemiuex or Orr. But I think he’s better than Crosby, from an offensive perspective

I think the only way to justify him above Orr or Lemieux is to take generational differences in the sport into consideration, which is always tough. Like measuring Alex Rodriguez against Babe Ruth.

150 years ago the fastest human mile run was like 4:45. We're getting better.

 

[Kiekura]

Did I imagine Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck, Joseph, Lindbergh, Liut. etc.

Chelios, Leetch, MacInnis, Lidstrom, Bourque, Langway, Salming, Howe, etc.

?

Do we need to get into the forwards, too?

You can list more If you want. NHL and its players in general were much more worse than they are now. League in general is so much more professional than it was back then.

Who seriously thinks that players are getting worse as time goes on?

 

[snag]

#2 after Bedard (and nobody remembers #2)

Oh, I remember you Alexandre

 

[RJMA]

You can list more If you want. NHL and its players in general were much more worse than they are now. League in general is so much more professional than it was back then.

Who seriously thinks that players are getting worse as time goes on?

Ohhh, you're one of those "ghengis khan's army would get f***ed up today by Bolivia's tanks" guys.

The future is always better, amirite?

 

[Random Comment]

Nobody is ever going to put up the numbers Gretzky did. Nobody. Circumstances are different now. So relatively speaking, there is no debate.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t better players than Gretzky. From an absolute stand point, Mcdavid is a much more talented player than Gretzky was. There are many in this era who are. People get all confused when they argue, but need to keep this separation in mind.

Give Mcdavid the same gear Gretzky had and compare them getting around the ice, passing, stickhandling, and shooting. It would be Mcdavid by a landslide.

 

[HFpapi]

I think the only way to justify him above Orr or Lemieux is to take generational differences in the sport into consideration, which is always tough. Like measuring Alex Rodriguez against Babe Ruth.

150 years ago the fastest human mile run was like 4:45. We're getting better.

I mean, the argument over Orr would clearly be one based around longevity.

Orr had a peak so insanely high that his games played wasn't enough to place any other player above him other than Wayne and Mario.

McDavid is the only other player outside of Wayne & Mario that we've seen peak anywhere in the same ballpark as Orr (even if it's still a bit below).

McDavid will essentially match Orr in games played at the end of next season (provided good health).

If McDavid matches Orr in games played next season with 6 scoring titles under his belt and then still has 10 more years of his career left to play, I think you have to start asking questions.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Nobody is ever going to put up the numbers Gretzky did. Nobody. Circumstances are different now. So relatively speaking, there is no debate.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t better players than Gretzky. From an absolute stand point, Mcdavid is a much more talented player than Gretzky was. There are many in this era who are. People get all confused when they argue, but need to keep this separation in mind.

Give Mcdavid the same gear Gretzky had and compare them getting around the ice, passing, stickhandling, and shooting. It would be Mcdavid by a landslide.

Gretzky never had the best skating stickhandling or shooting.


You're not really understanding why Gretzky was considered the best by a landslide, but it wasn't his raw skills.

 

[tsujimoto74]

I didn’t exist during the Howe era, but I find that anybody who played in the 50’s are nowhere near the fitness and skill level of todays game. Extrapolating what he would’ve done today is just unreasonable given the multitude of factors.

Yeah. When comparing players from completely different eras, I feel like it's somewhere between unfair and impossible to do anything other than look at what they did relative to their peers.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I half agree with you, but I also think more teams = a dilution of the talent pool. Every expansion team adds a rotation of 30-40 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough to make the NHL.

More teams also means more visibility, which gets more kids playing the sport, which increases the size of the talent pool that you can draw from. It wasn't that long ago that NHL talent came exclusively from Canada and the Northern US. Would OV even be in the NHL during the O6 era? What about Draisaitl? Or Jagr? Or <insert European/Russian name here>? Would Matthews even know what hockey is if he was born in Arizona back in the O6 era?

 

[Coffey]

Ohhh, you're one of those "ghengis khan's army would get f***ed up today by Bolivia's tanks" guys.

The future is always better, amirite?

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Yeah. When comparing players from completely different eras, I feel like it's somewhere between unfair and impossible to do anything other than look at what they did relative to their peers.

100%


McDavid wouldn't be nearly as effective with a Red Line, a wooden stick, and shitty 80's skates he can't properly skate with.

Also, whoever 2-hand cross checked him in the face would only get a 10-game suspension (Suter on Kariya and Gretzky)



I'm saying all of this as an Oiler fan who watched Gretzky in his prime in Edmonton.

 

[UnSandvich]

For me it’s:
Gretzky
Orr

Howe/Lemieux

The rest of the field
——————————————
At current pace I think Top 20 is a guarantee, and is probably there or close already. Top 10 is likely. Top 5 is possible. Top 3? I dunno man

 

[HFpapi]

Yeah. When comparing players from completely different eras, I feel like it's somewhere between unfair and impossible to do anything other than look at what they did relative to their peers.

Which is 100% true and fair. The all-time ranking exercise falls apart immediately if you don't place players in their proper historical context. In a vacuum, Travis Konecny is a better hockey player than Howe but we know it would be very stupid to claim he's therefore better in an all-time sense.

The issue that I have is the pendulum swings so far the other way that we only consider their own era and then build up and mythologize players from the past to the point we close the door on the idea McDavid could ever be better than Howe.

McDavid will likely match and then surpass Howes' 6 scoring titles and most other achievements which is even more impressive when you factor in the discrepancy in competition levels.