How would another Stanley Cup Final loss impact McDavid's legacy? | Page 11 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

How would another Stanley Cup Final loss impact McDavid's legacy?

Fatass said:
What? 155 points is 155 points. Sticks were crap back then. Skates were dull. The ice was horrid. McDavid can change his blades in a flash and have sharp skates every shift. He has the advantage of stick tech. And great ice.
Click to expand...
155 is not worth the same in every era.

Sticks and ice sucked in 1955, but scoring was very low. Gordie Howe put up more points at 41 than he did at his physical peak.

Scoring eras change. You have to judge players based on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fledgemyhedge
jigglysquishy said:
155 is not worth the same in every era.

Sticks and ice sucked in 1955, but scoring was very low. Gordie Howe put up more points at 41 than he did at his physical peak.

Scoring eras change. You have to judge players based on it.
Click to expand...
Of course 155 is worth 155, regardless of era. All this adjusting for era is silly. The equipment, ice, and so many other things are different from one era to the other.
Imagine a league with only six clubs. Every player is amazing and plays 200 feet. They’re all tough as nails too. Imagine trying to score in that kind of era.
This is why it’s silly to try and diminish the achievements of one era.
The greatest will be the greatest in any era.
McDavid is great now and he’d be great in the 50’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PistolPete
PistolPete said:
I was referring relative to his peers, not per se.

Remember, the overlap with Lemieux and Gretzky, the two greatest players of all time

All good, which makes him a great player but his numbers were never head and shoulders above the rest like McDavid, Gretzky, Lemieux...
Click to expand...
McDavid's numbers aren't head and shoulders above the rest either except for one season. MacKinnon and Kucherov and Draisaitl are frequently right there with him. The only two forwards who absolutely lapped the rest of the league consistently were 99 and 66.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanscosm
Fatass said:
Of course 155 is worth 155, regardless of era. All this adjusting for era is silly. The equipment, ice, and so many other things are different from one era to the other.
Imagine a league with only six clubs. Every player is amazing and plays 200 feet. They’re all tough as nails too. Imagine trying to score in that kind of era.
This is why it’s silly to try and diminish the achievements of one era.
The greatest will be the greatest in any era.
McDavid is great now and he’d be great in the 50’s.
Click to expand...
McDavid wouldn't put up 153 in the 50s. He wouldn't put up 153 in 2011.

You have to recognize scoring levels change. Players can only play in the era they play in. You have to adjust the context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Washed Up 29YearOld, sanscosm and Fledgemyhedge
jigglysquishy said:
155 is not worth the same in every era.

Sticks and ice sucked in 1955, but scoring was very low. Gordie Howe put up more points at 41 than he did at his physical peak.

Scoring eras change. You have to judge players based on it.
Click to expand...
Relative. Relative. Relative.

This is the key. The 80s weren't so high scoring that every Tom, Dick, and Harry was potting 150 points a year.

And for Gordie Howe, what makes me put him at thr top of GOAT list is whole he led the league in scoring several times, was a Triple Crown winner so to speak (leader in G,, A and P), he never was statistically head and shoulders above his cohort but was a dominant force in all aspects of the game. He was Mark Messier but much better in all regards and a lot better of a human being. Actually, a closer comparison may be Eric Lindros '93 to '98- but still better than that.
 
jigglysquishy said:
McDavid wouldn't put up 153 in the 50s. He wouldn't put up 153 in 2011.

You have to recognize scoring levels change. Players can only play in the era they play in. You have to adjust the context.
Click to expand...
McDavid is great now and would be great in any era. Gordie, Morenz, Mario would be great now. These greats are the best in any era. Yzerman, imo, isn’t in the same tier with the greatest though, even with a 155 point season.
 
PistolPete said:
Relative. Relative. Relative.

This is the key. The 80s weren't so high scoring that every Tom, Dick, and Harry was potting 150 points a year.

And for Gordie Howe, what makes me put him at thr top of GOAT list is whole he led the league in scoring several times, was a Triple Crown winner so to speak (leader in G,, A and P), he never was statistically head and shoulders above his cohort but was a dominant force in all aspects of the game. He was Mark Messier but much better in all regards and a lot better of a human being. Actually, a closer comparison may be Eric Lindros '93 to '98- but still better than that.
Click to expand...
Not 155, but you had secondary stars scoring 120 or 130. You had guys hit 120 and finish outside the top 5 in scoring. That's the relative point. In 1990, he finished behind not just Gretzky and Lemieux, but Messier too. In 1993, he put up 137, only good for fourth though. Even if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux he only leads the league in points once.


Howe was [/] statistically dominant. His 52-53 is the statistically most dominant season outside Gretzky. Lapped everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grate n Colorful Oz
Fatass said:
McDavid is great now and would be great in any era. Gordie, Morenz, Mario would be great now. These greats are the best in any era. Yzerman, imo, isn’t in the same tier with the greatest though, even with a 155 point season.
Click to expand...
Po' Stevie Wonder. Nobody wuvs him. 😏

Maybe my biases are kicking in. Even though I was never a Red Wings fan I just always liked Yzerman and watching him (which growing up in the Toronto and Montreal tv markets was a lot).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fatass
PistolPete said:
Yzerman had three phenomenal seasons that were in McDavid territory but git overshadowed because Lemieux was in Grerzky territory, Bernie Nicholls was a one hit wonder (although to be fair he was a good scorer, but the 70 was a random fluke) and then Hull started his goal scoring fest.
Click to expand...
Three good seasons is a very bad argument to have him over Crosby

Also I don’t get the playoffs = just a tournament angle at all
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fatass
PistolPete said:
Po' Stevie Wonder. Nobody wuvs him. 😏

Maybe my biases are kicking in. Even though I was never a Red Wings fan I just always liked Yzerman and watching him (which growing up in the Toronto and Montreal tv markets was a lot).
Click to expand...
Stevey Y was a very good player. But (imo) he wasn’t even the top guy on his own team. I’d put Lidstrom and Datsyuk ahead of him. And Fedorov was a phenom. Do, to me, Yzerman is 3 or 4 on his own club.
 
You only get so many shots at it. Remember that he was clearly the best player in the game for YEARS before the team became any good at all. Teams fall and rise, so you have to capitalize on the chances you get.

Hockey isnt Basketball though. We dont obsess over championship count. Its too much of a team game to do that. He has carried his teams in the playoffs, so any intelligent watcher will consider it a positive. If he didnt produce and was losing then sure.

Also legacy is always measured in hindsight. If he loses this year then wins one down the line, this won't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HockeyWooot
Fatass said:
Stevey Y was a very good player. But (imo) he wasn’t even the top guy on his own team. I’d put Lidstrom and Datsyuk ahead of him. And Fedorov was a phenom. Do, to me, Yzerman is 3 or 4 on his own club.
Click to expand...
His peak was just before they arrived then he had a few more top seasons and then declined (perhaps that was the time Bowman sat him down for a heart to heart)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fatass
Just like with Ovie, McDavid just needs to win the cup at least once, so it could be later. It would even put two losses in the finals in a positive light. If he never wins it, then it puts those losses in negative light. So, it's just a lot simpler for everyone if he just wins one now
 
Sasha Orlov said:
Three good seasons is a very bad argument to have him over Crosby
Click to expand...
His peak. Where he was anstandout compared to his peers- or at least wouldnhave been except for Lemieux, Gretzky, Hull....
Sasha Orlov said:
Also I don’t get the playoffs = just a tournament angle at all
Click to expand...
You mean my comment about the Conn Smythe? It is in reference to winning the Conn Smythe. Ron Hextall won it but no one would consider him an all time great; It just so happens he had a great PO one year. No different than a one season wonder, which is probably more impressive because it's over the course of 80 games and not just 20 plus games.
 
Crosby2010 said:
That surprises me a bit I think because I thought mentioning McDavid with Cobb, Bonds and Williams might be a tad premature when comparing him to MLB greats. I never thought the NBA names I mentioned would be considered by anyone to be a tier above McDavid.

Anyway, I do agree that he has done his part and Marino did have some games where you were thirsting for a bit more. I am thinking that if someone like Forsberg never won it might be something like that. Forsberg obviously is below McDavid on the all-time list, but in terms of a player who went the distance and did everything he could to win, had he not won I would think it would be something like that. And we all know the great playoff warrior Forsberg was.
Click to expand...
Forsberg would definitely be near the top of best players to never win a Cup. If he didn't. Bourque would be number one had Avs not won.

I do find that the best players in hockey generally win a cup at some point. Just from looking at a top ten list. Whereas you get Trout, Bonds (Had a title if not for Baker), Utah duo not having championships in other sports.

OT, but I always felt Marino's MVP season made it seem for others that he played at that level for the rest of his career. He didn't. He got more mileage off that season than someone driving across the US would.
 
Fourier said:
There is not a single name on that list from the NBA that should be reasonably considered ahead of McDavid relative to their sport. Malone and Stockton might be the closest. But neither are locks for the top 20 all titime.
Click to expand...
Is Harden even a top 35 player of all time?
 
JackSlater said:
The implied logic here is so strange. Surely it is more impressive to make the finals and lose than to lose in an earlier round. Not that team results should be attributed to a player in the first place.
Click to expand...
Key word.

What should be and what is are two different things.

It's unfortunate because he could get 15 points in 7 games this series. Hatrick in game 7. Yet Skinner stinks up the joint in game 7. They lose 4-3.

That would be the story of his career. Which is frustrating.
 
Hockey2Hockey said:
Forsberg would definitely be near the top of best players to never win a Cup. If he didn't. Bourque would be number one had Avs not won.

I do find that the best players in hockey generally win a cup at some point. Just from looking at a top ten list. Whereas you get Trout, Bonds (Had a title if not for Baker), Utah duo not having championships in other
Click to expand...
To he on a winning team you habe to be on a team with a roster capable of winning it and then you have to have some luck on your side since only one team can win it per year and it's not as if the window of opportunity to do so lasts an entire career with that top contender roster.

Look at '76 to '90. Three consecutive dynasties in a row broken up by two outliers. If you were a player in that era, what were you to do?

On the flip side, your logic runs the risk of making a better name of a player not worthy merely by winning a Cup- even if he was a Conn Smythe winner or catalyst otherwise.

This is actually done often where players become.overrated by virtue of playing on a Cup winning team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 3, guests: 3)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom