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

[Rogue Winger]

I'm not yet sold about McDavid being top 4 all time, but the last game was a pivotal moment considering his legacy.

Even if McDavid don't score any more points in the finals or don't ever win the Cup, he showed he can dominate Stanley Cup final game against the better overall team roster. And even more importantly, breaking the Gretzky assist record in playoffs is just huge no matter what.

 

[Albatros]

I'm not yet sold about McDavid being top 4 all time, but the last game was a pivotal moment considering his legacy.

Even if McDavid don't score any more points in the finals or don't ever win the Cup, he showed he can dominate Stanley Cup final game against the better overall team roster. And even more importantly, breaking the Gretzky assist record in playoffs is just huge no matter what.

Running up the score isn't even among his own best games, never mind a pivotal moment. He did score the 4:1, but after that the game was already over.

 

[Rogue Winger]

Running up the score isn't even among his own best games, never mind a pivotal moment. He did score the 4:1, but after that the game was already over.

I hear you, but still the last game was the moment he broke Gretzky record same time he had a 4 point final game. The thing about legacy talks is that most people don't care how the feats are done after years go by.

 

[wetcoast]

I hear you, but still the last game was the moment he broke Gretzky record same time he had a 4 point final game. The thing about legacy talks is that most people don't care how the feats are done after years go by.

This apparently is true to Gretzky and Lemieux here by some as they are indeed great players but scoring the way they did also happened when it did and one has to consider that as well while all too often people look at the gaudy numbers and don't apply enough context to it.

 

[tapi]

McDavid never dominated on the level of Mario, not even close. Then again, so didn't Gretzky (it was close tho)

 

[Beukeboom]

McDavid never dominated on the level of Mario, not even close. Then again, so didn't Gretzky (it was close tho)

How on earth did Mario dominate more than Wayne in any other way than in your imagionary world? Just look at the ten best seasons for even strength points. Gretzky has 8, Lafleur and Mario one each. Mario's best is at #10. In fact Mario only has TWO seasons among the 30 best.

Head to head Wayne crushed Mario. Mario has two seasons of peak Gretzkyesque calibre. That's it.

Is McDavid at Mario's level? No I still don't think so. He doesn't have that separation to the rest of the pack, and has been beaten by Kucherov x2, Mackinnon etc. But who knows when it's all said and done. Actual performance will always beat "what ifs"

 

[KCC]

How on earth did Mario dominate more than Wayne in any other way than in your imagionary world? Just look at the ten best seasons for even strength points. Gretzky has 8, Lafleur and Mario one each. Mario's best is at #10. In fact Mario only has TWO seasons among the 30 best.

Head to head Wayne crushed Mario. Mario has two seasons of peak Gretzkyesque calibre. That's it.

Is McDavid at Mario's level? No I still don't think so. He doesn't have that separation to the rest of the pack, and has been beaten by Kucherov x2, Mackinnon etc. But who knows when it's all said and done. Actual performance will always beat "what ifs"

Mario lived on the pp during his career and not ms y talk about that. Yet when Mcdavid has a few seasons roasting teams on it, ppl here say he’s suddenly a pp merchant. Lol.

 

[tapi]

How on earth did Mario dominate more than Wayne in any other way than in your imagionary world? Just look at the ten best seasons for even strength points. Gretzky has 8, Lafleur and Mario one each. Mario's best is at #10. In fact Mario only has TWO seasons among the 30 best.

Head to head Wayne crushed Mario. Mario has two seasons of peak Gretzkyesque calibre. That's it.

Is McDavid at Mario's level? No I still don't think so. He doesn't have that separation to the rest of the pack, and has been beaten by Kucherov x2, Mackinnon etc. But who knows when it's all said and done. Actual performance will always beat "what ifs"

Despite missing much of his prime due to illness, Mario literally had the higher career PPG, until he came out of retirement in his forties (keep in mind Gretzky was limited to 9 goals over 82 games when he was several years younger). Mario was the more dominant for sure, but we can concede Gretzky did play more games (and thus accumulated more total points), due to Mario's cancer and back problems.

 

[WalterLundy]

Despite missing much of his prime due to illness, Mario literally had the higher career PPG, until he came out of retirement in his forties (keep in mind Gretzky was limited to 9 goals over 82 games when he was several years younger). Mario was the more dominant for sure, but we can concede Gretzky did play more games (and thus accumulated more total points), due to Mario's cancer and back problems.

Comparing 745 games at first retirement to Gretzky’s 1487 games is why. That’s nonsensical. When you play less games your points per game average is more preserved. Gretzky also played significantly injured and post prime for the last 562 games of his career that took his career ppg from 2.32 in 925 games to 1.92. If Gretzky retired after his back was shattered in 91 at 925 games and 2.32 career ppg he’d still have the points record, a comical ppg lead all time, most of his awards and to some people who view what ifs as more important would have a projected 1000 goals and 3200 plus points but that isn’t how it works.

Gretzky at every point in their respective careers had hundreds more points than Lemieux in the same amount of games. It was never even remotely close. The picture I added is just one example of even sample size games in which there is always a massive gap. He dominated his peers to a much higher degree, had a higher peak stretch, absolute peak, prime, even sample size and career for both regular and adjusted. There is no universe that Mario Lemieux was better than Wayne Gretzky and I say that as a fan that was able to see both careers in their entirety. It’s just spewing garbage that has no basis in reality. And that’s with Lemieux being the clear cut number two forward so it’s not even a knock. Gretzky is just as clear of a goat as you have in pro sports.

In fact Gretzky’s assist total in the 915 game sample is closer to Lemieux’s point total than Lemieux’s point total is to Gretzky’s actual point total. I don’t even take any pleasure in doing this because Lemieux is probably my favorite player and saved hockey in my town (I’ve gotten to know him a bit over the years as well) but when I read stuff so inaccurate I have to.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Ok. He LITERALLY did it in 88-89.

But his team was garbage then, remember?

So who cares that he beat them by a ton.

Gretzky was outscoring Hall of Famers by massive margins.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Comparing 745 games at first retirement to Gretzky’s 1487 games is why. That’s nonsensical. When you play less games your points per game average is more preserved. Gretzky also played significantly injured and post prime for the last 562 games of his career that took his career ppg from 2.32 in 925 games to 1.92. If Gretzky retired after his back was shattered in 91 at 925 games and 2.32 career ppg he’d still have the points record, a comical ppg lead all time, most of his awards and to some people who view what ifs as more important would have a projected 1000 goals and 3200 plus points but that isn’t how it works.

Gretzky at every point in their respective careers had hundreds more points than Lemieux in the same amount of games. It was never even remotely close. The picture I added is just one example of even sample size games in which there is always a massive gap. He dominated his peers to a much higher degree, had a higher peak stretch, absolute peak, prime, even sample size and career for both regular and adjusted. There is no universe that Mario Lemieux was better than Wayne Gretzky and I say that as a fan that was able to see both careers in their entirety. It’s just spewing garbage that has no basis in reality. And that’s with Lemieux being the clear cut number two forward so it’s not even a knock. Gretzky is just as clear of a goat as you have in pro sports.

In fact Gretzky’s assist total in the 915 game sample is closer to Lemieux’s point total than Lemieux’s point total is to Gretzky’s actual point total. I don’t even take any pleasure in doing this because Lemieux is probably my favorite player and saved hockey in my town (I’ve gotten to know him a bit over the years as well) but when I read stuff so inaccurate I have to.

915 games is Lemieux's entire career and include stretches where he was retired and gone for cancer treatment.

To reach 915 games for Gretzky, we have to start from his first NHL season until 1990-91. During that stretch, he was quite healthy, missing only 43 (around 5%) games over 12 seasons. Lemieux on the other hand had missed almost 1/3rd of his career by the time he hit 915 games.

The poster you replied to was incorrect, but your assessment isn't much better and fails to contextualize the point being driven. For the record, I don't disagree at all that Gretzky is number 1 but taking their first 915 games suggests a much wider gap than actually existed.

 

[WalterLundy]

915 games is Lemieux's entire career and include stretches where he was retired and gone for cancer treatment.

To reach 915 games for Gretzky, we have to start from his first NHL season until 1990-91. During that stretch, he was quite healthy, missing only 43 (around 5%) games over 12 seasons. Lemieux on the other hand had missed almost 1/3rd of his career by the time he hit 915 games.

The poster you replied to was incorrect, but your assessment isn't much better and fails to contextualize the point being driven. For the record, I don't disagree at all that Gretzky is number 1 but taking their first 915 games suggests a much wider gap than actually existed.

You have to remember that it isn’t Gretzky’s fault that Lemieux missed time and that I’m only matching games played. His assertion is that Lemieux was better per game (never was in any remotely even sample size) and I just wanted to expose that. He said it was longevity that was the difference which is just false.

You can do the same through 745 games for example and it is 1774 to 1494 for the two respectively. Still a 30 plus point gap over 82 games per year. The gaps are still so wide that no amount of context and full health can make up the difference which is why I didn’t bother with adding anything more. Sure it’ll be through different ages and context for both respectively and won’t exactly match up but it’s better than comparing 1487 to 745.

Not saying you are wrong at all but I have to say my mission wasn’t necessarily to contextualize because people know what happened. You could always take the same number of seasons or age to age comparisons and while games played will be higher for WG it’ll still have him with significant numbers gaps. I just took issue with his initial point for accuracy.

 

[BraveCanadian]

915 games is Lemieux's entire career and include stretches where he was retired and gone for cancer treatment..

Pick any stretch you want. Gretzky is clearly ahead in all of them.

 

[sensfan4lifee]

Despite missing much of his prime due to illness, Mario literally had the higher career PPG, until he came out of retirement in his forties (keep in mind Gretzky was limited to 9 goals over 82 games when he was several years younger). Mario was the more dominant for sure, but we can concede Gretzky did play more games (and thus accumulated more total points), due to Mario's cancer and back problems.

Mario didn't come out of retirement in his 40's lol

And Gretzky never accumulated shit, he dominated more than Lemieux ever did.

I'm sick of well if Lemieux was healthy he would have broken Gretzkys records

He wouldn't have, he didnt end of story, stop trying benefit your argument.

Gretz is the GOAT Lemieux isnt and never will be

 

[Hockeyholic]

McDavid has done enough to be a 1st ballot HHofer and likely top 12 forward all time. But he's not retired and other guys career are done with cups.

McDavid still has to surpass the likes of Richard, B. Hull, Messier, Beliveau, Jagr, Ovi (I am probably missing some forwards) and Crosby to get to the 5 spot imo.

 

[Adam da bomb]

Running up the score isn't even among his own best games, never mind a pivotal moment. He did score the 4:1, but after that the game was already over.

Someone posted an old Edmonton Gretzky team scores. They were winning 11-2 so even the great one himself ran up scores and plenty of meaningless points.

 

[TheBeard]

But his team was garbage then, remember?

So who cares that he beat them by a ton.

Gretzky was outscoring Hall of Famers by massive margins.

Ok. In done with the pointless debate. Whomever you think is the best in happy for you. Orr is number one regardless.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I'm not yet sold about McDavid being top 4 all time, but the last game was a pivotal moment considering his legacy.

Even if McDavid don't score any more points in the finals or don't ever win the Cup, he showed he can dominate Stanley Cup final game against the better overall team roster. And even more importantly, breaking the Gretzky assist record in playoffs is just huge no matter what.

He scored a bunch when it didn't matter, a great example why you need to look deeper than the raw numbers. It's hard to think of less meaningful goals than scoring 4 points when your team is already up multiple goals when you're down 3-0 in the series.

 

[wetcoast]

McDavid has done enough to be a 1st ballot HHofer and likely top 12 forward all time. But he's not retired and other guys career are done with cups.

sure and anyone not having him among the top 12 forwards of all time need to explain why.

McDavid still has to surpass the likes of Richard, B. Hull, Messier, Beliveau, Jagr, Ovi (I am probably missing some forwards) and Crosby to get to the 5 spot imo.

The thing is that even if McDavid retired today he would have an extremely strong argument of being in the top half grouping of these 7 (8 including himself) forwards.

Others have some cases of longevity and a mixed bag of that longevity but McDavid's prime really stands out even among this group of all time greats.

8 straight seasons of top 3 scoring (5 Art ross trophies) and 3 straight years of being in the top 6 in playoff scoring and a huge lead over those 3 years to the next non tema mate simply trumps what several of these other players have done already.

Even if one has him say 10-12 all time how much more does he really need to do to rapidly pass the guys right in front of him?

And don't say Sc's at some point McDavid's elite among the elite individual performances trump the non SC in a 32 team league and his playoff scoring over the last 3 years is a huge counterweight against the "but he doesn't have a SC argument"

 

[blundluntman]

He scored a bunch when it didn't matter, a great example why you need to look deeper than the raw numbers. It's hard to think of less meaningful goals than scoring 4 points when your team is already up multiple goals when you're down 3-0 in the series.

Good thing he has those other 34 points (and ppg average in the other 3 SCF games) to balance out his useless 4 point night in an elimination game then.

 

[M4lk1n71]

Imho Crosby is the best of all time. Lemieux second best and Gretzky 3rd best. McDavid maybe 12th.

 

[Video Nasty]

He scored a bunch when it didn't matter, a great example why you need to look deeper than the raw numbers. It's hard to think of less meaningful goals than scoring 4 points when your team is already up multiple goals when you're down 3-0 in the series.

Even Nathaniel tipped his hat after that game. What is wrong with you?

 

[Sol]

When I see these cringey posts about Mario and what not, its hard to take anyone seriously. McDavid is unbelievably the best player in the NHL and its not even close. And when you factor in the talent level in the NHL and modern sport sciences. I have a hard time seeing anyone top this kind of ability in the future. The players from the past deserve respect but also the players of the present and future deserve a ton of respect when they completely outclass their peers by a mile when health and technology has advanced so far ahead then the legends of the past. Being the greatest in the NHL now means a lot more than being the greatest in the NHL 20 years ago.

 

[M4lk1n71]

When I see these cringey posts about Mario and what not, its hard to take anyone seriously. McDavid is unbelievably the best player in the NHL and its not even close. And when you factor in the talent level in the NHL and modern sport sciences. I have a hard time seeing anyone top this kind of ability in the future. The players from the past deserve respect but also the players of the present and future deserve a ton of respect when they completely outclass their peers by a mile when health and technology has advanced so far ahead then the legends of the past. Being the greatest in the NHL now means a lot more than being the greatest in the NHL 20 years ago.

It's cringey to suggest that McDavid would be the best. No cups and doesn't know how to defend. Crosby is the overall best player of all time hands down. 3 cups and he was robbed from his best seasons due to injury. Probably 2-3 more art rosses and cups if he wasn't injured.

 

[blundluntman]

When I see these cringey posts about Mario and what not, its hard to take anyone seriously. McDavid is unbelievably the best player in the NHL and its not even close. And when you factor in the talent level in the NHL and modern sport sciences. I have a hard time seeing anyone top this kind of ability in the future. The players from the past deserve respect but also the players of the present and future deserve a ton of respect when they completely outclass their peers by a mile when health and technology has advanced so far ahead then the legends of the past. Being the greatest in the NHL now means a lot more than being the greatest in the NHL 20 years ago.

This doesn't make any sense. If everybody has the same access to advantages/resources that have made players better, why would dominance in this era be any more impressive than 20 years ago? The playing field today is just as even as it was in the past.. And as far as talent pools are concerned, you must not be aware of how many superstars existed in the 90s.

It's cringey to suggest that McDavid would be the best. No cups and doesn't know how to defend. Crosby is the overall best player of all time hands down. 3 cups and he was robbed from his best seasons due to injury. Probably 2-3 more art rosses and cups if he wasn't injured.

You just accidentally described Bobby Orr