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

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Needs a cup or a finals where he doesn't vanish for 2 games to truly climb that mountain and become a legend. If he had a great game 7 and still lost, I'd probably feel differently. but he and the team should have never been down 3-0.

I agree. 3-0 lead was too much to overcome even for legends.

 

[HFpapi]

To a degree, I wonder whether successive generations are more focused on the player of choice in the here and now, and past great players' accomplishments may not ring as prominently as they were not born/alive/watching hockey during that period.

It's crazy to me that people actually think it's this way instead of what's actually true (which is the other way around). People still put Howie Morenz in the top 10, a guy born in 1902, who they've never watched a single second of. People vastly, vastly overrate players of yesteryear purely based on mythology and name sake.

I posted earlier in this thread. The History of Hockey boards top 100 has more than a third of their top 30 players being guys who played in the 1960's or earlier. You really think 35% of the top players ever were born prior to the 1940's when the entire NHL was comprised only of Canadians (with like 13 million people at the time) and when global hockey registration was a tiny fraction of what it became later on? Does that breakdown of all-time best players make any sense to you given the massive proliferation of global talent that was to come?

A lot of guys in this thread won't even allow themselves to consider that McDavid is better than Howe because it's just entrenched in their head that it's simply not possible or not allowed to be true.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

The thing that people don't understand is that the Oilers are very poorly run and McDavid is shouldering the burden of years of substandard drafting, trading, and signings.

 

[Coffey]

It's crazy to me that people actually think it's this way instead of what's actually true (which is the other way around). People still put Howie Morenz in the top 10, a guy born in 1902, who they've never watched a single second of. People vastly, vastly overrate players of yesteryear purely based on mythology and name sake.

I posted earlier in this thread. The History of Hockey boards top 100 has more than a third of their top 30 players being guys who played in the 1960's or earlier. You really think 35% of the top players ever were born prior to the 1940's when the entire NHL was comprised only of Canadians (with like 13 million people at the time) and when global hockey registration was a tiny fraction of what it became later on? Does that breakdown of all-time best players make any sense to you given the massive proliferation of global talent that was to come?

A lot of guys in this thread won't even allow themselves to consider that McDavid is better than Howe because it's just entrenched in their head that it's simply not possible or not allowed to be true.

Thank you for saying what a lot of us think.
The boners for old dudes playing in a 100 player league is ridiculous.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's crazy to me that people actually think it's this way instead of what's actually true (which is the other way around). People still put Howie Morenz in the top 10, a guy born in 1902, who they've never watched a single second of. People vastly, vastly overrate players of yesteryear purely based on mythology and name sake.

I posted earlier in this thread. The History of Hockey boards top 100 has more than a third of their top 30 players being guys who played in the 1960's or earlier. You really think 35% of the top players ever were born prior to the 1940's when the entire NHL was comprised only of Canadians (with like 13 million people at the time) and when global hockey registration was a tiny fraction of what it became later on? Does that breakdown of all-time best players make any sense to you given the massive proliferation of global talent that was to come?

A lot of guys in this thread won't even allow themselves to consider that McDavid is better than Howe because it's just entrenched in their head that it's simply not possible or not allowed to be true.

The halfway point in Stanley Cup history is 1959. So why would you systematically exclude all the legends from hockey history's first half?

If you want to make an all time list you need to include all time.

There's nothing wrong with making a post war list, or post expansion list, or post WHA list. But all time is all time.

The Athletic just did a top 100 post 1967 list. There's nothing wrong with it. They were just upfront about the time restriction and their ignorance on older periods.

 

[thegazelle]

It's crazy to me that people actually think it's this way instead of what's actually true (which is the other way around). People still put Howie Morenz in the top 10, a guy born in 1902, who they've never watched a single second of. People vastly, vastly overrate players of yesteryear purely based on mythology and name sake.

I posted earlier in this thread. The History of Hockey boards top 100 has more than a third of their top 30 players being guys who played in the 1960's or earlier. You really think 35% of the top players ever were born prior to the 1940's when the entire NHL was comprised only of Canadians (with like 13 million people at the time) and when global hockey registration was a tiny fraction of what it became later on? Does that breakdown of all-time best players make any sense to you given the massive proliferation of global talent that was to come?

A lot of guys in this thread won't even allow themselves to consider that McDavid is better than Howe because it's just entrenched in their head that it's simply not possible or not allowed to be true.

This is very fair. Certainly just like how some people romanticize times in the past, overlooking innovations in current technologies, health care, travel, etc. thinking they would rather live in a previous era - they are only seeing some of the positives, which can be subjective, depending who you talk to. True with conditioning, more regimented routine for training etc., today's athletes are far superior fitness wise and have greater performance. I remember my cousins who got free passes into the Oilers dressing room in the early 1980s tell me they saw players smoking and drinking in there, which is unheard of nowadays. I remember reading this in Clint Malarchuk's book as well, about the physical condition of athletes then and now.

That said though, I think it is also a disservice to summarily dismiss great players of the past only because they played in the past. Like everything else, looking at context is important in assessing anything.

 

[HFpapi]

The halfway point in Stanley Cup history is 1959. So why would you systematically exclude all the legends from hockey history's first half?

If you want to make an all time list you need to include all time.

There's nothing wrong with making a post war list, or post expansion list, or post WHA list. But all time is all time.

The Athletic just did a top 100 post 1967 list. There's nothing wrong with it. They were just upfront about the time restriction and their ignorance on older periods.

Two things

i) It's a fallacy to think of 1959 as a perfect halfway point that should have a 50/50 distribution of all-times players on both sides of the demarcation line. There are probably more registered hockey players in 2024 than there were from 1910-1940 combined. The game has exploded in popularity and talent.

ii) Even though I absolutely agree we need to make "all-time" lists "all-time" and not start disrespecting legends like Bobby Hull, Mikita, Morenz, Howe etc, the fact of the matter is due to the chronology, guys like Howe, Richard, Beliveau get placed in the top "all-time positions." This is obvious, they simply came first.

At one point Maurice Richard was probably the GOAT and after Howe maybe 2nd and after Beliveau maybe 3rd. After 30-40 years of being in that upper echelon he becomes entrenched and it starts to feel natural to have him way up high and people become resistant to the idea of bumping him down.

You'd get laughed off this site for suggesting Nathan Mackinnon > Richard because Richard has just been a default top 10-15 player for 70 years now. Therefore I disagree entirely with the poster suggesting we over value new players when I think it's the total opposite. We undervalue guys like Mackinnon in all all-time sense.

The fact that 32 people have left a laugh emoji on my OP in this thread is proof that under value todays players. There's literally nothing laughable whatsoever about suggesting McDavid might be the 2nd best player of all-time.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Posting this for @Video Nasty (I can't find the specific post where we talked about it):

Career Hart trophy votes, 1947-2024 (normalized so each year is worth the same number of votes)

Wayne Gretzky	4.99
Gordie Howe	3.40
Mario Lemieux	2.43
Bobby Orr	1.98
Sidney Crosby	1.93
Connor McDavid	1.83
Bobby Hull	1.63
Jaromir Jagr	1.61
Jean Beliveau	1.61
Alexander Ovechkin	1.59
Phil Esposito	1.54
Bobby Clarke	1.53
Nathan MacKinnon	1.28
Dominik Hasek	1.22
Mark Messier	1.15
Stan Mikita	1.15
Guy Lafleur	1.14
Maurice Richard (partial)	1.14
Auston Matthews	1.03
Nikita Kucherov	1.00

Data and approach are documented in this thread (the thread still needs to be updated for 2024). Players who earned votes this year are in bold

McDavid currently sits 6th place going back to (approximately) the end of WWII. Barring a career-ending injury, it seems certain that he'll surpass Crosby (who gained 0.01 this year).

 

[Wateredgarden]

I still think Lemieux is the best player of all times, he achieved all that with cancer and multiple career threatening injuries from day one of his career.

 

[Video Nasty]

I still think Lemieux is the best player of all times, he achieved all that with cancer and multiple career threatening injuries from day one of his career.

Not true.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I still think Lemieux is the best player of all times, he achieved all that with cancer and multiple career threatening injuries from day one of his career.

As soon as goalies started evolving gretzkys numbers particularly he was done being a top goal scorer at 28. While 35 year old mario was scoring 35 in 43 in the dead puck era against better goalies with bigger equipment than today. Gretzky came in a perfect storm on a perfect team. Mario is much more era proof

 

[My3Sons]

As soon as goalies started evolving gretzkys numbers particularly he was done being a top goal scorer at 28. While 35 year old mario was scoring 35 in 43 in the dead puck era against better goalies with bigger equipment than today. Gretzky came in a perfect storm on a perfect team. Mario is much more era proof

being old enough to watch both guys extensively both on tv and in person, I'll suggest that to my eyes, Mario was more talented. His physical skills were largely superior to Gretzky with one big exception. Gretzky had the best passing touch of any player I've ever watched. One game he completed with precision accuracy every single pass he made. It was remarkable. Mario was so big and strong and skilled that he was very dangerous anywhere in the offensive zone. But while Mario had an excellent feel for the game Gretzky's was unsurpassed in that era and probably all time. Both won cups and both were recognized as the best among their peers. As old as I am I never saw Howe or Orr before his injuries, but I am skeptical either of them could have been better than Gretzky or Leimieux, even if Orr was probably comparable.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

The halfway point in Stanley Cup history is 1959. So why would you systematically exclude all the legends from hockey history's first half?

If you want to make an all time list you need to include all time.

There's nothing wrong with making a post war list, or post expansion list, or post WHA list. But all time is all time.

The Athletic just did a top 100 post 1967 list. There's nothing wrong with it. They were just upfront about the time restriction and their ignorance on older periods.

The ignorance comment is unwarranted and loaded language from someone heavily involved in the HOH board groupthink. Players who dominated a much less widespread sport should not be compared to the game of the last several decades. Howe dominated a league comprising only a subset of Canadian provinces full of other players who grew up during the Great Depression.

 

[HenrikW]

being old enough to watch both guys extensively both on tv and in person, I'll suggest that to my eyes, Mario was more talented. His physical skills were largely superior to Gretzky with one big exception. Gretzky had the best passing touch of any player I've ever watched. One game he completed with precision accuracy every single pass he made. It was remarkable. Mario was so big and strong and skilled that he was very dangerous anywhere in the offensive zone. But while Mario had an excellent feel for the game Gretzky's was unsurpassed in that era and probably all time. Both won cups and both were recognized as the best among their peers. As old as I am I never saw Howe or Orr before his injuries, but I am skeptical either of them could have been better than Gretzky or Leimieux, even if Orr was probably comparable.

+1 Hard to argue against Gretzky being the greatest of all time. But I will second that. It's not like Mario chose who to play for either. Pittsburgh was one of the worst teams of all time, stats doesnt account for that. Half of the very few teams that had worse teams doesn't even exist today. I digress. I know its subjective.

I will say that if McDavid continue to do what he did this playoffs, and actually do it in the final game of the season too... well not gonna speculate. Might not even replicate

 

[CashMash]

I still think Lemieux is the best player of all times, he achieved all that with cancer and multiple career threatening injuries from day one of his career.

Ifs and buts.
Take away ALL of Gretzky's goals and he still has more points than ANY other player.
And that's WITH having scored the most goals of all time.

It's Gretzky and it will likely always be that way. I have Orr above Lemieux too.

 

[Reality Czech]

Correction, he will be #3 after Wayne and Kravtsov

 

[mattihp]

Is there any iteration of top-10 players in history where Ovechkin would be the only one with just one cup and McDavid the only one with 0?

 

[edog37]

Ifs and buts.
Take away ALL of Gretzky's goals and he still has more points than ANY other player.
And that's WITH having scored the most goals of all time.

It's Gretzky and it will likely always be that way. I have Orr above Lemieux too.

Then you would be wrong.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Is there any iteration of top-10 players in history where Ovechkin would be the only one with just one cup and McDavid the only one with 0?

Ovechkin is most def not a top 10 all time player

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Ovechkin is most def not a top 10 all time player

He will have good case once he moves up as the most goalscorer ever (which goalscoring is always be HARD). For now. maybe not.

 

[mattihp]

Ovechkin is most def not a top 10 all time player

Did you read my post? Some people put him there.

Any iteration. Quite a few would put him there due to his goal scoring prowess. Not all.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Is there any iteration of top-10 players in history where Ovechkin would be the only one with just one cup and McDavid the only one with 0?

McDavid is yet to win.

Hull is going to be in the majority of top 10s. Bourque will be in a lot. Ovechkin also has the one.

Hasek technically won two, but he was a backup for one so depends how you look at it.

Orr, Lemieux, Shore, and Jagr at 2.

Crosby and Morenz at 3.

Gretzky, Howe, Roy, and Lidstrom at 4.

Then Beliveau, Harvey, Richard, and Plante with a bunch.

I think that's everyone you can reasonably argue top 10.

 

[WalterLundy]

I suggest you look up the definition of the word “out-dueled”.


No I’ve brought up many arguments…the most tangible & relevant being number of Cups won. But you wouldn’t know about that as a Flyers fan now would you.


No

Your posts are so riddled with fake history, glaring bias and a complete lack of statistical facts that I forgot to whip out my dictionary before I responded. The penguins beat the capitals. Overall individually Ovechkin was better than Crosby in their meetings in the playoffs.

Then you would be wrong.

About Gretzky over Lemieux? No case for Mario at all at any point. Orr is debatable and not flat out wrong. If anything Lemieux is commonly rated 4th on all time lists and on the one this site compiled.

 

[mattihp]

McDavid is yet to win.

Hull is going to be in the majority of top 10s. Bourque will be in a lot. Ovechkin also has the one.

Hasek technically won two, but he was a backup for one so depends how you look at it.

Orr, Lemieux, Shore, and Jagr at 2.

Crosby and Morenz at 3.

Gretzky, Howe, Roy, and Lidstrom at 4.

Then Beliveau, Harvey, Richard, and Plante with a bunch.

I think that's everyone you can reasonably argue top 10.

Thanks for checking it out, nice work. Hull would surely had a couple had he stayed in the NHL!

 

[GreatGonzo]

Ovechkin is most def not a top 10 all time player

Why not? What’s keeping him out? He has the hardware, stats, and add the goal scoring record.