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

[LTIR]

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

Weakest because lowly Oilers made it to finals?

 

[bleedgreen]

I’m fine with the arguments about Mcdavid deserving to be up there up until the nicest goal ever, best highlight reel and best playoff goal. I’ve got a couple of playoff goals in mind and a few I’d put in the nicest goal ever category which are both so painfully subjective as is the highlight reel. For me Mario and Datsyuk can both put up a fight there.

 

[HFpapi]

I think as time passes, people tend to either forget or perhaps the past player's accomplishments have less current impact / effect, as people tend to think of the here and now, which is why oftentimes on many lists of greatest of all time for many sports and even in the music and movies space, contemporary artists and athletes tend to be over-represented.

See, I think it suffers from the opposite more than as you've described.

I do think younger and maybe more casual fans will be quick to place guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, Yzerman, Sakic etc near the top and overlook the Beliveau, Harvey, Richard's of the world but in general I think players get frozen in place and mythologized to the point that any conversation of current players being better than them gets shut down immediately.

Look at the History boards most recent top 100 and how populated it is with people who played in the 1960's and earlier.

In the top 30 we have Howe, Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Harvey, Richard, Morenz, Shore, Kelly, Plante, Nighbor, Mikita, Hall.

Now, what's the realistic chance that roughly 35% of the top 30 players ever were produced at a time when the entire NHL was Canadian when Canada had about 13 million people?

There's 10 players on the list born in the 1800's (played in the 1920's). So in 100 years of hockey there's basically a perfect 10% of the best ever players who played in the 1920's (10 each decade). What are the chances of that when you consider how immensely the talent pool has grown? I mean, there was probably more registered hockey players globally last year alone than there were in the first 20 years of the NHL's existence combined.

 

[Praetorian Caps]

The bloke is absolutely amazing is all I know?

 

[crowfish]

I’m fine with the arguments about Mcdavid deserving to be up there up until the nicest goal ever, best highlight reel and best playoff goal. I’ve got a couple of playoff goals in mind and a few I’d put in the nicest goal ever category which are both so painfully subjective as is the highlight reel. For me Mario and Datsyuk can both put up a fight there.

I mean it's technically subjective but we all know it's true. Like if I said a Ferrari looks nicer than a Honda Civic, subjective yet 100% true. Go watch his 35 minute top 100 plays video on youtube if your bored.

McDavid skates like Bure, stickhandles like Datsyuk and passes like Crosby. It would be hard to argue against the Rangers 1v4 goal as the best goal of all-time (from a skill & aesthetics perspective). His playoff goal the other night I said was "one of the nicest playoff goals", not THE nicest.

 

[thegazelle]

See, I think it suffers from the opposite more than as you've described.

I do think younger and maybe more casual fans will be quick to place guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, Yzerman, Sakic etc near the top and overlook the Beliveau, Harvey, Richard's of the world but in general I think players get frozen in place and mythologized to the point that any conversation of current players being better than them gets shut down immediately.

Look at the History boards most recent top 100 and how populated it is with people who played in the 1960's and earlier.

In the top 30 we have Howe, Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Harvey, Richard, Morenz, Shore, Kelly, Plante, Nighbor, Mikita, Hall.

Now, what's the realistic chance that roughly 35% of the top 30 players ever were produced at a time when the entire NHL was Canadian when Canada had about 13 million people?

There's 10 players on the list born in the 1800's (played in the 1920's). So in 100 years of hockey there's basically a perfect 10% of the best ever players who played in the 1920's (10 each decade). What are the chances of that when you consider how immensely the talent pool has grown? I mean, there was probably more registered hockey players globally last year alone than there were in the first 20 years of the NHL's existence combined.

All very good points. I do see a disparity in lists depending on who you talk to.

I remember recently my daughter's school had a thing about "The Great Canadians"...they had the presentation in the class and she asked me my thoughts. I gave her who I thought historically were the greatest, including a number of Canadians who were before my time and who in my view had instrumental contributions to Canadian culture, socio-political advances, technology and medicine, intangible inspirations, etc.

To my absolute shock, the class list for top 10 Canadians of all time included...Drake...and Justin Trudeau.... I was appalled, but looking at young people, they would not fully recognize the contributions of certain Canadians in the past, because perhaps they don't see the personal connection. Contemporary nature / the present always seems to contribute increased bias. With hockey of course, some of this could also be an apples to oranges comparison, between eras where the equipment and technology was not as advanced, the understanding of nutrition and training aren't as exact as they are now, etc. Some people use that to diminish past hockey players' contributions, while others see it as overcoming obstacles in a particular era.

 

[bleedgreen]

I mean it's technically subjective but we all know it's true. Like if I said a Ferrari looks nicer than a Honda Civic, subjective yet 100% true. Go watch his 35 minute top 100 plays video on youtube if your bored.

McDavid skates like Bure, stickhandles like Datsyuk and passes like Crosby. It would be hard to argue against the Rangers 1v4 goal as the best goal of all-time (from a skill & aesthetics perspective). His playoff goal the other night I said was "one of the nicest playoff goals", not THE nicest.

Datsyuk went 1v4 a couple of times. The key is isolating one guy, which both guys did well. Mcdavid didn’t actually beat four guys, three watched as he beat one of them.

We’ve all seen Mcdavids big goals, I’ve watched those videos. He’s one of the best ever for sure. That one’s not even the nicest goal of Mcdavids imo. To me the 1v3 against TO was better, and I’d also choose the crossover dribble on Reilly. That’s how subjective it is.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

I think your probably right

 

[Kasperi kapanen]

If McDavid wins a cup this year, he is easily in discussion for top 5 all time. As of now i’d have Gretzky, Mario, Orr, Howe, Sid with McDavid at 6. McDavid will definitely pass Crosby though pretty soon and will end up as a top 3-5 player all time. I also love Crosby and really would not like McDavid to leap over him but it’s inevitable.

 

[Video Nasty]

• 3 Harts

You know there are multiple players who have 3 or more Harts. And many of them are not "top five of all time" let alone #2. Ovechkin, Shore, Morenz, Clarke, heck Gordie Howe had SIX Hart Trophies in his time in the NHL, not counting WHA. Orr won three in a row as a defenseman. Hasek won two back to back as a goalie. McDavid never even won back to back, that's how "dominant" he has (or hasn't) been.

How many of the 3 time Hart winners also have an additional 3 finalists and 2 additional top 5s, all done consecutively? How many of the 3 time Hart winners have 5 Art Rosses, 7 consecutive top 2 finishes, and 8 top 2 PPG in a row? How many have 4 Pearsons/Lindsays even if we retroactively award them pre 1970-1971?

He’s also not done adding to these totals. If he goes out next season, is completely healthy, fresh off a Cup win, he very well could drop 160 points, which will see him sweep those three trophies again.

 

[Pig Papi]

I think I agree.

 

[bobbyking]

Weakest because lowly Oilers made it to finals?

no, even if Florida,Rangers,dallas won. still a trash post season.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

no, even if Florida,Rangers,dallas won. still a trash post season.

Think you might literally be the only person that thinks this

 

[heretik27]

no, even if Florida,Rangers,dallas won. still a trash post season.

I think it'll be a competitive finals. It shouldn't be any worse than Tampa vs Montreal or Pittsburgh vs San Jose..

 

[Mike C]

If McDavid wins a cup this year, he is easily in discussion for top 5 all time. As of now i’d have Gretzky, Mario, Orr, Howe, Sid with McDavid at 6. McDavid will definitely pass Crosby though pretty soon and will end up as a top 3-5 player all time. I also love Crosby and really would not like McDavid to leap over him but it’s inevitable.

I think Gretzky and Orr stand alone. Howe and Mario together on the notch below. Number 5 is very debatable

 

[GCK]

I think Gretzky and Orr stand alone. Howe and Mario together on the notch below. Number 5 is very debatable

It depends on how you look at it. A case can be made for Mario being the best ever.

 

[Mike C]

It depends on how you look at it. A case can be made for Mario being the best ever.

Stats aside, Gretzky and Orr revolutionized the game

Also, Orr played his last full season at age 26

 

[Coffey]

Gordie dominated a 6 team league. He’s the easiest for McDavid to succeed. Imagine doing what Connor is doing in a 32 team league.

 

[Oak]

I think he is better than Gretzky bc of how much tougher the league is now, but yes he will go down as #2.

 

[MTL Dirty Birdy]

I could see him being seen ahead of howe

Tough to put him ahead of gretzky lemieux Orr unless he shifts another gear.

I'd say he is still in the crosby level for now

I’ve always felt that when looking at the GOATs you can’t just stat watch. I feel they need to have changed the way the game was played and game planned for. Orr is one of the best examples. I feel McDavid coming in really upped the tempo of the league and it’s young talent coming in. How many mobile D do we see year after being sought after? To defend against guys like McJesus. Just my opinion

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

no, even if Florida,Rangers,dallas won. still a trash post season.

whats a "good" postseason look like?

 

[Deas]

Nervous?

And also @Craft Beer Lover

Your responses seem to indicate the assumption I’m emotionally invested and would be sad - or the ”butthurt fanboy” - if Mcdavid would trump Lemieux’s most dominant P/G win margins. Not at all. I would love to see it happen. I’d say it’s very unlikely in general and now also due to Mackinnon and Kucherov but it’d be super cool to watch.

 

[Deas]

If those peers are of equal value. If there is more parity between players the gap between player A and Player B won’t be as large.

If I go to a school of 50 ppl who are all bookish and I’m the star of the basketball team I might not make a team for a massive high school.

So comparing against generations can never be accurate.

With increase in world population, more countries participating, increased training the gap would naturally shrink. Never mind, changes in the way game is played, coached. I’m not arguing for either player, just saying compared to peer may not tell the whole story.

Yes. Variation in peers quality level/competition I agree is the best argument against the described take.

It’s still my favourite take however. Regardless of an era’s playing style, goalie quality level or whatever going into overall goal averages, it is about what you do vs your own peers and we can look at that in a way that treats everyone the same. Looking at the P/G winner’s win margin vs top 10’s average P/G would also exclude the outlier factor, as in not ”punishing” an historic season by a player due to the 2nd place player in P/g also doing a somewhat historic season. I haven’t gone that deep into every season though


So I guess I think two things at once:

• It’s still the best take to compare
• Your point about variation in peer quality level is valid of course

 

[Adam da bomb]

Yes. Variation in peers quality level/competition I agree is the best argument against the described take.

It’s still my favourite take however. Regardless of an era’s playing style, goalie quality level or whatever going into overall goal averages, it is about what you do vs your own peers and we can look at that in a way that treats everyone the same. Looking at the P/G winner’s win margin vs top 10’s average P/G would also exclude the outlier factor, as in not ”punishing” an historic season by a player due to the 2nd place player in P/g also doing a somewhat historic season. I haven’t gone that deep into every season though


So I guess I think two things at once:

• It’s still the best take to compare
• Your point about variation in peer quality level is valid of course

Site keeps crashing 4th attempt. Yes best measure, but, can never really know can be used so many different variables. Also sprinters are winning by nanoseconds, but, can’t punish past who didn’t have same competition advantages/ disadvantages. As impossible to say a smaller gap, between players is better because “ better league”.

 

[kyne]

Few were as a dangerous as Lemeux one on one. An amazing player. McDavid talent wise is close but a totally different player. So was Gretzky, Crosby, Lafleur, Orr, Howe, Beliveau. Every era has a player that simply stands out. McDavid is the best of the current era replacing an aging Crosby. Will Bedard be better than McDavid?