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

[blundluntman]

Personally I think Gretz is. Unpopular opinion I get it, he was good, no doubt. Still a top 5 of all time in my books, which sounds crazy since I said he was the most overrated in history. People talk of him as so much better than anyone else by a landslide, but I also look at the talents he played with and how they no doubt inflated his numbers. Messier, Coffey, Kurri - all top 50 players all time as well, and Anderson top 100.

Gretzky broke the NHL scoring record with 164 points before Messier and Anderson were even PPG players (Coffey had 32 points that year). Neither Messier or Kurri were even in the top 25 in scoring when Gretzky broke it again in 82 with his 212 point season. He was scoring double the amount of points as those guys on a regular basis during his prime and won 4 art rosses without Messier or Coffey in his time in LA. His numbers weren't inflated because of them. If anything, it was the other way around.

Every player in the Big 4 had HoF talents "inflating their numbers" anyway by this logic. Mario had Coffey in 89 when he finally scored 199, and had Francis and Jagr in the 90s with Pittsburgh. Orr had Phil Esposito and Johnny Bucyk in Boston. Howe had Ted Lindsay and Sid Abel.

 

[I am toxic]

Gretzky broke the NHL scoring record with 164 points before Messier and Anderson were even PPG players (Coffey had 32 points that year). Neither Messier or Kurri were even in the top 25 in scoring when Gretzky broke it again in 82 with his 212 point season. He was scoring double the amount of points as those guys on a regular basis during his prime and won 4 art rosses without Messier or Coffey in his time in LA. His numbers weren't inflated because of them. If anything, it was the other way around.

Every player in the Big 4 had HoF talents "inflating their numbers" anyway by this logic. Mario had Coffey in 89 when he finally scored 199, and had Francis and Jagr in the 90s with Pittsburgh. Orr had Phil Esposito and Johnny Bucyk in Boston. Howe had Ted Lindsay and Sid Abel.

This.

Gretzky made the players around him better. Period.

Slats talks about how - long before there was video and video coaches - he would use Gretzky as a human video machine. Gretzky could recall plays and explain them, and Slats would use it as a learning tool. That is just one example. It is no coincidence the number of HoF players that grew alongside him in his prime.

McDavid is a great player. He is not Gretzky level. Hopefully people will be able to deal with that.

 

[TheSuperElite]

Personally I think Gretz is. Unpopular opinion I get it, he was good, no doubt. Still a top 5 of all time in my books, which sounds crazy since I said he was the most overrated in history. People talk of him as so much better than anyone else by a landslide, but I also look at the talents he played with and how they no doubt inflated his numbers. Messier, Coffey, Kurri - all top 50 players all time as well, and Anderson top 100.

the boldest opinion ever shared on these boards? respect.

 

[nowhereman]

Personally I think Gretz is. Unpopular opinion I get it, he was good, no doubt. Still a top 5 of all time in my books, which sounds crazy since I said he was the most overrated in history. People talk of him as so much better than anyone else by a landslide, but I also look at the talents he played with and how they no doubt inflated his numbers. Messier, Coffey, Kurri - all top 50 players all time as well, and Anderson top 100.

The guy was regularly outscoring legends like Bossy, Trottier and Dionne by almost 100 points. A big reason those players you mentioned are looked at with such esteem was because of #99.

I don't think it's possible to overrate Gretzky.

 

[TheBeard]

The guy was regularly outscoring legends like Bossy, Trottier and Dionne by almost 100 points. A big reason those players you mentioned are looked at with such esteem was because of #99.

I don't think it's possible to overrate Gretzky.

I do. Many casual fans see Gretz as the undisputed greatest of all time by a country mile and I don't agree with it.

 

[The Great Mighty Poo]

He'll never be Jansen Harkins level.

 

[koyvoo]

The guy was regularly outscoring legends like Bossy, Trottier and Dionne by almost 100 points. A big reason those players you mentioned are looked at with such esteem was because of #99.

I don't think it's possible to overrate Gretzky.

He was also out scoring his teammates by similarly ridiculous, never close to seen before or after, numbers as well.

 

[jj cale]

Wayne Gretzky overrated.............now I have truly heard it all.

The guy was a prodigy and was heads and shoulders better then everyone was at every level, the guys level of dominance in hockey was mind boggling, it will likely never be repeated.

It's not a question of if he is the greatest player of all time, of course he is. The question is where does he rank on the list of all time greatest athletes, and it's pretty high.

Few guys have ever dominated a decade in their sport the way he did..........................there's only one Wayne Gretzky. Our sense of history was offended when he started doing what he did.

Only a very few select athletes you can say that about.

 

[pi314]

He'll never be Jansen Harkins level.

Finally someone said it.

 

[authentic]

I do. Many casual fans see Gretz as the undisputed greatest of all time by a country mile and I don't agree with it.

Well when it comes down to the career he had he really does stand alone at the top, seeing as how his two peak comparables had less healthy seasons than he had Hart and/or Art Ross trophies.

 

[yeaher]

Gretzky broke the NHL scoring record with 164 points before Messier and Anderson were even PPG players (Coffey had 32 points that year). Neither Messier or Kurri were even in the top 25 in scoring when Gretzky broke it again in 82 with his 212 point season. He was scoring double the amount of points as those guys on a regular basis during his prime and won 4 art rosses without Messier or Coffey in his time in LA. His numbers weren't inflated because of them. If anything, it was the other way around.

Every player in the Big 4 had HoF talents "inflating their numbers" anyway by this logic. Mario had Coffey in 89 when he finally scored 199, and had Francis and Jagr in the 90s with Pittsburgh. Orr had Phil Esposito and Johnny Bucyk in Boston. Howe had Ted Lindsay and Sid Abel.

Yeah, Gretzky never puts up a fight because he knows he's the best ever. I will say Gretaky rates Lemieux as his tier and a better goal scorer though, he said it himself when they were talking about Canada cup 87

 

[TheBeard]

Well when it comes down to the career he had he really does stand alone at the top, seeing as how his two peak comparables had less healthy seasons than he had Hart and/or Art Ross trophies.

I honestly don't like to factor in injury as I don't think it's fair when comparing. Sandy Koufax is widely considered the greatest pitcher of all time and his career was cut severely short because of injury. I apply the same standard to Bobby Orr, who I do opine as the best ever. I also won't fault Lemieux for much of what he went through considering he lost so much time due to cancer, and frankly, considering what he had to endure injury-wise and still put up the numbers he did is more impressive than playing healthy with a HoF surrounding cast and a personal bodyguard on the ice at all time. I'm not knocking Wayne for his accomplishments and what he did for the game, especially in California, I just have Bobby and Mario ahead of him. Just my opinion. No one has to agree.

 

[wetcoast]

the boldest opinion ever shared on these boards? respect.

Actually it's not even close.

One guy who was obviously a Habs fan and did understand hockey to know better had Gretzky as the 7th best playoff performer of all time but ya the Beard is way off on that hot take with Gretzky as the case for him being #1 or all time is greater and stands up to a critical look than any other player in history.

I also think that had Orr not had those knee surgeries it would be really interesting for #1 of all time.

 

[Gary Nylund]

If you think McDavid has a chance to finish 2nd all time, Howe should be the final frontier, not Lemieux/Orr. Howe has just as many art rosses as Lemieux, double the amount of Harts, double the amount of 1st AST finishes and proved he wasn't a product of a less competitive era by putting up superstar level numbers at 40 in a league with Orr, Esposito, Hull and Mikita.

Lemieux and Orr are often ranked 2nd/3rd because of their peaks, not accolades/accomplishments (although that definitely plays a role as well, especially with Orr).McDavid simply will never catch Lemieux and Orr as far as peaks go; his only chance is to finish ahead in awards/accolades/longevity. If you think that's what's going to propel him to #2, your rankings should be:

Gretzky
Howe
Orr/Lemieux

Orr is #1 for me but it's close. It's also hard to compare players who played in different eras so I'll just say that Howe/Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux are the consensus top 4, you could argue the order but it's a pointless exercise, should be taken as entertainment only and you really can't go wrong with any of them. I believe Crosby is #5 for most people right now and IMO when McDavid and Crosby are done, they'll be #5/6 in whatever order.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I honestly don't like to factor in injury as I don't think it's fair when comparing. Sandy Koufax is widely considered the greatest pitcher of all time and his career was cut severely short because of injury. I apply the same standard to Bobby Orr, who I do opine as the best ever. I also won't fault Lemieux for much of what he went through considering he lost so much time due to cancer, and frankly, considering what he had to endure injury-wise and still put up the numbers he did is more impressive than playing healthy with a HoF surrounding cast and a personal bodyguard on the ice at all time. I'm not knocking Wayne for his accomplishments and what he did for the game, especially in California, I just have Bobby and Mario ahead of him. Just my opinion. No one has to agree.

You can like Lemieux better but could you do it for real reasons?

All of Lemieux’s success was when he had other Hall of Famers around and the Pens were stacked during the Cup runs. And back in the day when it was in vogue, the Pens had goons to protect him just the same.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Personally I think Gretz is. Unpopular opinion I get it, he was good, no doubt. Still a top 5 of all time in my books, which sounds crazy since I said he was the most overrated in history. People talk of him as so much better than anyone else by a landslide, but I also look at the talents he played with and how they no doubt inflated his numbers. Messier, Coffey, Kurri - all top 50 players all time as well, and Anderson top 100.

In only his second NHL year at only 20 years old Gretz outscored Kurri by around 90 points. Do you know how hard it is to outscore your own teammates/linemates by 90 points? The next year he outscored his nearest teammate by 107 points. Who else has done anything like that? Only one close was Mario but was a little older. Gretz and Wayne were the best along with Bobby.

 

[Albatros]

I also think that had Orr not had those knee surgeries it would be really interesting for #1 of all time.

Though without the surgeries he'd either have had to retire much earlier or alternatively play a completely different game to avoid the injuries to start with.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Connor is great and could possibly finish ahead of Howe but no way does he ever pass Wayne, Mario or Bobby.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

is it possible that Howe may become the most overrated player in history?

As a thought experiment, let's assume that Gordie Howe retired after the 1963-64 season (at the age of 35). That would be old for that era, but not particularly unusual (there were seven active players older than him that year).

Here's what his legacy would have looked like had he retired at 35 (instead of playing in the NHL until 42, spending six years in the WHA, and a final season in the NHL at age 52). For context, this means we're excluding 33% of his NHL career (578 of 1,767 regular season games) and 46% of his professional career (997 of 2,786 regular season games):

• He still would have retired as the NHL's all-time leader in goals, assists, and points in the regular season (he'd have 1,285 points - with only two players in NHL history (one being his longtime linemate) scoring more than 800)
• He still would have retired as the NHL's all-time leader in assists and points in the playoffs
• At one point, he would have had four of the five highest-scoring regular seasons in NHL history (a record that, admittedly, didn't last long, as leaguewide scoring rose dramatically soon after)
• At one point, he would have had the highest-scoring single playoff run in NHL history (by the end of the Original Six era, he would have had four 15+ point playoffs - roughly equivalent to a 30 point playoff today since there were only two rounds back then - his linemate had three and nobody else had more than two)
• He still would have won six Hart trophies (something that, in the entire history of the NHL, has only been topped by Wayne Gretzky)
• He would have been a Hart trophy finalist ten times (something that also has only been topped by Wayne Gretzky)
• He still would have won six Art Ross trophies (something that, in the entire history of the NHL, has only been topped by Wayne Gretzky - tied with Mario Lemieux)
• He still would have earned six playoff scoring titles (something that, in the entire history of the NHL, has never been beaten - Wayne Gretzky tied it, and nobody else has more than three playoff scoring titles)

Some will try to dismiss these accomplishments as being a product of a different era. There's some truth to that - but also consider this. The three best forwards of the Original Six era, after Howe, are Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, and Bobby Hull. Even if he retired at 35, Howe still would have won more Art Ross trophies than the three of them combined. He still would have won more Hart trophies than the three of them combined. He still would have earned more playoff scoring titles than the three of them combined. On top of that, he was clearly a better defensive player than Richard and Hull, and was, at worst, equal to Beliveau.

Sure, Howe's freakish longevity allowed him to push his career totals even higher, and he was able to pick up a few more years as a Hart finalist and top-five scorer after 1963-64. But I don't think his legacy fundamentally changes if he retired at the comparatively "young" age of 35. In some ways, it may have helped, because it would have made it harder for people to dismiss him as "only" being a player who was good because he played so many years.

 

[NickyFotiu]

As a thought experiment, let's assume that Gordie Howe retired after the 1963-64 season (at the age of 35). That would be old for that era, but not particularly unusual (there were seven active players older than him that year).

Here's what his legacy would have looked like had he retired at 35 (instead of playing in the NHL until 42, spending six years in the WHA, and a final season in the NHL at age 52). For context, this means we're excluding 33% of his NHL career (578 of 1,767 regular season games) and 46% of his professional career (997 of 2,786 regular season games):

• He still would have retired as the NHL's all-time leader in goals, assists, and points in the regular season (he'd have 1,285 points - with only two players in NHL history (one being his longtime linemate) scoring more than 800)
• He still would have retired as the NHL's all-time leader in assists and points in the playoffs
• At one point, he would have had four of the five highest-scoring regular seasons in NHL history (a record that, admittedly, didn't last long, as leaguewide scoring rose dramatically soon after)
• At one point, he would have had the highest-scoring single playoff run in NHL history (by the end of the Original Six era, he would have had four 15+ point playoffs - roughly equivalent to a 30 point playoff today since there were only two rounds back then - his linemate had three and nobody else had more than two)
• He still would have won six Hart trophies (something that, in the entire history of the NHL, has only been topped by Wayne Gretzky)
• He would have been a Hart trophy finalist ten times (something that also has only been topped by Wayne Gretzky)
• He still would have won six Art Ross trophies (something that, in the entire history of the NHL, has only been topped by Wayne Gretzky - tied with Mario Lemieux)
• He still would have earned six playoff scoring titles (something that, in the entire history of the NHL, has never been beaten - Wayne Gretzky tied it, and nobody else has more than three playoff scoring titles)

Some will try to dismiss these accomplishments as being a product of a different era. There's some truth to that - but also consider this. The three best forwards of the Original Six era, after Howe, are Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, and Bobby Hull. Even if he retired at 35, Howe still would have won more Art Ross trophies than the three of them combined. He still would have won more Hart trophies than the three of them combined. He still would have earned more playoff scoring titles than the three of them combined. On top of that, he was clearly a better defensive player than Richard and Hull, and was, at worst, equal to Beliveau.

Sure, Howe's freakish longevity allowed him to push his career totals even higher, and he was able to pick up a few more years as a Hart finalist and top-five scorer after 1963-64. But I don't think his legacy fundamentally changes if he retired at the comparatively "young" age of 35. In some ways, it may have helped, because it would have made it harder for people to dismiss him as "only" being a player who was good because he played so many years.

I wish Gordie stayed in the NHL. 47 year old Gordie outscoring his son Mark Howe is pretty impressive.

 

[Fatass]

If McDavid can lead the Oilers to the Cup he’s definitely in the top 10. He would be 2nd in this era behind Crosby as of now.

 

[rogking65]

even if oilers win the cup, this is one of the absolute weakest years ever for the stanley cup

what does this even mean? dumb comment.... did the league get weaker this year

 

[TheBeard]

In only his second NHL year at only 20 years old Gretz outscored Kurri by around 90 points. Do you know how hard it is to outscore your own teammates/linemates by 90 points? The next year he outscored his nearest teammate by 107 points. Who else has done anything like that? Only one close was Mario but was a little older. Gretz and Wayne were the best along with Bobby.

I mean Mario was 20 in his second year when he outscored his closest by 60 while playing with the likes Randy Cunnyworth and Doug Shedden. In that year there were only two players on the Penguins who finished above a PPG pace where as in Wayne's early years it was pretty common there were 7 to 8 teammates and usually 4 of them were in the 100s. In his first 6 seasons, which many can argue were his best stretch (mostly because of health), he played with maybe one HoFer, and that was only for the last couple seasons (Paul Coffey).

Anyways, we can talk stats and stuff all we want, but for me the eye test was key. I was able to be a nerdy hockey fan for both of them and I just found Lemieux to be a better all around hockey player. Simple as that. You can throw the 212 points or 92 goals or whatnot all you want, it's not going to change my opinion.

You can like Lemieux better but could you do it for real reasons?

All of Lemieux’s success was when he had other Hall of Famers around and the Pens were stacked during the Cup runs. And back in the day when it was in vogue, the Pens had goons to protect him just the same.

If you're talking team success then sure, but you can also argue his individual best years were his first 6 or so before injuries started depriving us. Outside of Coffey you'd be hard pressed to find another HoF (because there wasn't any).

 

[NickyFotiu]

I mean Mario was 20 in his second year when he outscored his closest by 60 while playing with the likes Randy Cunnyworth and Doug Shedden. In that year there were only two players on the Penguins who finished above a PPG pace where as in Wayne's early years it was pretty common there were 7 to 8 teammates and usually 4 of them were in the 100s. In his first 6 seasons, which many can argue were his best stretch (mostly because of health), he played with maybe one HoFer, and that was only for the last couple seasons (Paul Coffey).

Anyways, we can talk stats and stuff all we want, but for me the eye test was key. I was able to be a nerdy hockey fan for both of them and I just found Lemieux to be a better all around hockey player. Simple as that. You can throw the 212 points or 92 goals or whatnot all you want, it's not going to change my opinion.


If you're talking team success then sure, but you can also argue his individual best years were his first 6 or so before injuries started depriving us. Outside of Coffey you'd be hard pressed to find another HoF (because there wasn't any).

I think Mario was great as well. I saw Mario in person in one of his first games. I just laugh when you said Wayne was in your top 5. I think Wayne was #1 but I can't even imagine anyone having him outside the top 3 of Wayne, Mario, and Bobby.

 

[TheBeard]

I think Mario was great as well. I saw Mario in person in one of his first games. I just laugh when you said Wayne was in your top 5. I think Wayne was #1 but I can't even imagine anyone having him outside the top 3 of Wayne, Mario, and Bobby.

I have those three as the top three, but the order backwards. That’s my point. I still think he’s one of the best ever, but many who aren’t anything more than casual hockey fans see Wayne as the Goat and then there’s a MASSIVE gap after him. I can understand the arguments for him being 1, I just don’t agree with it.