If McDavid scores 150+ points this season...

[Voight]

I don't think he even needs to score 150 points....we've already seen what McDavid can do, so anything fairly close, for multiple seasons, will do the trick.

There has already been people declare that McDavid is the best hockey player ever....so I assume this will continue, especially if he puts up a few seasons of 140 points, or whatever.

For younger generations, it's likely we're going to see a Big 6 emerge in the coming years....i.e. their current Big 3 - Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux - plus McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby. Especially if Ovechkin sails past 1000 goals (which looks possible), and Crosby continues to put up significant points into his 40s (which also looks possible)....and if McDavid continues what he's doing now for several more seasons.

As is always the case, there are generational differences of opinion of this stuff....but it's clear that the O6 guys - Howe, Hull, Beliveau, etc. - will continue to fall among the hockey world as a whole.

I think Howe for the most part is still recognized/respected by younger fans. He's Mr Hockey for a reason. Heck, just wait until the new DET/Windsor bridge is complete; its named after him which will keep his name in conversations.

 

[bobholly39]

This is increasingly how I see it. The gap between the Big Four and five is strong enough that all but two posters in the last list adhered to it. And only one poster in the 2013 list. There's about a dozen candidates that could be argued at five, which says to me there's room for someone to come in and be better than the field but worse that the Big Four.

McDavid is on his way to his fifth Art Ross, third Hart, and fourth Pearson. He's putting up a resume that is comfortably making him the choice at 5.

He has not been playing at a peak level of a Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr. He is peaking at a level comparable to Howe. It's near impossible for him to keep up to the overall resume of Howe. Howe had 10 seasons of being top 2 in Hart voting amongst forwards. McDavid is about to do 4.

But being the consensus choice at 5 is realistic.

Right now, I see the following being popular choices for 5 (listed chronologically)

Richard
Harvey
Beliveau
Hull
Hasek
Roy
Crosby

That's going to be 95% of the picks for 5. You'll get a few Ovechkin or Jagr or Bourque too.

Looking at forwards only, can McDavid build a resume clearly above Richard/Beliveau/Hull/Crosby? I think he's in the process of doing so.

Being realistic, it'll take a Smythe and Cup to make it consensus.

You can't count Howe's 10 season at being top 2 at hart and expect someone like McDavid or Crosby to do the same for it to be even. It's a lot easier to finish top 5 in hart voting in a league with 6 teams, then it is in a league with 30 teams. You have to adjust for era, or year to year, if you want to do a fair comparison. Same with scoring finishes.

As for McDavid being a consensus #5, he's still a very long way away. Regular season prime is certainly shaping up to be worthy of it, but as of now he's closer to Jagr for prime regular season than anything else, and Jagr is nowhere near consensus #5. He still needs more of it, he needs to age well (easier said then done, Crosby/Ovechkin are doing it but that's super rare), and he obviously needs more in playoffs. Playoffs last year was amazing, but he's disappointed more often then not so far in his career for playoffs. Does it end up the one sole great playoff run over a span of 10 years, or can he have 2-3 more great playoff runs, cup or not? Big difference.

 

[bobholly39]

Canada would've won in 2002 even without Lemieux. Lets not act like he carried the team.

Likewise in 87. He played great, but they probably win that tournament without him.

Oilers are deep enough to win the cup in 85 even if Gretzky is injured and doesn't play. Does it in anyway lessen his playoff run that year, arguably the greatest playoff run ever?

Lemieux's playoff and international legacy is amazing, and he was instrumental in both of those tournaments in leading his team to victory. Whether you think the team could have won without him seems irrelevant

 

[bobholly39]

I think it’s less about winning cups and more about proving yourself on the “big stage”.

McDavid did that big time last playoffs.

He only did it once though, after a few years of disappointment.

Does he do it again, and multiple times? If so, all time great playoff legacy, but if this ends up being his only great playoff run, its still lacking overall.

Forsberg is a good comparable. Remove his 2 cup wins (where he was fine, but not a top 2, maybe not even top 3 player either run), and he still has an all time great playoff legacy outside of it for all of his strong playoff runs in other years. If McDavid can do similar, even with no cup, it would be a very strong playoff resume.

 

[FinProspects]

I'd think he has nothing on Gretzky's, Lemieux's (and maybe Orr's?) absolute peak performances yet, but after that, who else is there?

I think Connor would have something on them if he really would score 150p. It would be a remarkable achievement - here's hoping he will get there.

Nevertheless, Connor is on pace to take over the 5th all time player spot, and I'd think he will challenge top4 eventually. His regular season success is already worthy of top10-15 spot I'd say. The cups, smythes and all that will come at some point, no worries about it.

 

[Voight]

OK, at least as a point-getter, Connor McDavid is in a league of his own at the moment. If he hits 150 points (or more) this regular season, how highly would you rate his performance historically?

I'd think he has nothing on Gretzky's, Lemieux's (and maybe Orr's?) absolute peak performances yet, but after that, who else is there?

What about Howe? People forget how good his peak was.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think Connor would have something on them if he really would score 150p. It would be a remarkable achievement - here's hoping he will get there.

Nevertheless, Connor is on pace to take over the 5th all time player spot, and I'd think he will challenge top4 eventually. His regular season success is already worthy of top10-15 spot I'd say. The cups, smythes and all that will come at some point, no worries about it.

As noted above, his VsX equivalent would still be much lower than Gretzky. He had 7 seasons worth more than 150 points in 21-22, including two over 190 points.

Peak achievements like, having more assists than any player has points AND leading the league in goals by a large margin (82-83, 86-87) are just way above what McDavid is doing.

Or having more EVP than any player has total points (82-83, 83-84, 84-85, 85-86, 86-87). McDavid isn't even first in EVP.



There's a large gap between peak Big Four and peak Jagr/Hull/McDavid. McDavid can have a season that is comfortably better than anything Jagr did while being comfortably lower than anything peak Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr did. Just looking at scoring levels from last year, a peak Gretzky is putting up over 170 points.

The chances of him challenging the Big Four are slim. He hasn't shown the peak performance to do so.

Edit: Out of curiosity here are some other big VsX seasons converted to 21-22.

Howe 52-53 : 179 points
McDavid 20-21: 175 points
Lafleur 76-77: 149 points
Jagr 00-01: 145 points
Hull 65-66: 143 points
Beliveau 55-56: 143 points

Crosby 13-14: 137 points
Jagr 98-99: 136 points


VsX conversions aren't close to perfect. Jagr's best season is 98-99, but it's his third highest VsX. I don't think peak Gretzky hits 190 points in 21-22, but 170 or 180 is doable.

But I think it shows that 21-22 was a really high scoring season. 150 points would be a peak Jagr/Hull/Beliveau/Lafleur level, but not a peak Howe/Gretzky/Lemieux level.

 

[edog37]

You're on the HoH forum. It's HoH voters.

You haven't even presented an argument for Crosby at 5. You're just trying to shout down anyone that disagrees with you.

Why do you place Crosby ahead of Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, Hasek, Roy, Richard?

- Crosby led his teams to 7 different championships (3 Stanley Cups, 2 Olympic Golds, 1 World Cup, 1 World Championship)
- Scored the Golden Goal to win the Gold for Canada
- Youngest captain in NHL history to lead his team to a Cup
- Won his Cups in the salary cap era (much tougher to keep teams together)
- Led the first team in NHL history to win back-to-back Cups in the cap era
- Back-to-back Conn Smythes (only two other guys in NHL history to do that)
- Has more hardware than Beliveau, Hull & Richard (can't really do a comparison of forwards to goaltenders since they are vastly different. Does a save percentage outweigh point totals? If so, how do you compare Lemieux to Roy?)
- Best "grinder" in NHL history
- Youngest player to record 100 points in a season
- Youngest player to record 2 consecutive 100-point seasons
- Youngest Art Trophy winner
- Youngest player to lead the NHL playoffs in scoring

 

[edog37]

Crosby was swept in a Conference finals and I believe was held pointless as well.

against Boston, yes. However, he won in his 4 other trips winning 3 Cups in the process.

 

[edog37]

Canada would've won in 2002 even without Lemieux. Lets not act like he carried the team.

Likewise in 87. He played great, but they probably win that tournament without him.

Highly unlikely to both. Even though he wasn't the same as he was in his prime, Canada hadn't won a Gold Medal in 50 years. It needed a Lemieux just like Calgary needed a Lanny McDonald in '89. And no, Canada doesn't win in '87 either. It took a late goal in the last game against the Soviets to beat them. Both teams were evenly matched & this was Lemieux & Gretzky in their respective primes.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This thread has been thoroughly derailed.

The question was if a 150 point season in 2022-2023 translates to a 200 point season in 1985 or thereabouts.

I think the answer is possibly yes.

 

[MadLuke]

There is no hard rules obviously but say 1985,
Denis Savard 7th best Canadian scorer, Dionne third best, I think despite Dionne age that it is fair competition from a legendary scorer last mini peak season.

200 points is 1.9 times Savard 7th best Canadian scorer and 1.59 times Dionne the third best scorer.

Would this season end up looking like last season (scoring could be continuing to trend up, not sure just a reference)

1.9 time the 7th best Canadian (Duchene) would have been : 163 points
1.59 times Stamkos would have been: 168.5 points

I feel 165 points would be more 1985 200 points mark, we could go in the talk about 1985 Savard versus Matt Ducehne and old Stamkos vs old Dionne but that do not seem to be big advantage Gretzky having much weaker competition.

If scoring creep up this year could be more 168-170, if it is down more 160-163

 

[Staniowski]

I think Howe for the most part is still recognized/respected by younger fans. He's Mr Hockey for a reason. Heck, just wait until the new DET/Windsor bridge is complete; its named after him which will keep his name in conversations.

Yes, he certainly is.....and other O6 guys are too. But they will still decline over time.

In the hockey world - especially among younger generations, which will replace the older generations - Howe has been slowly declining for decades, and this will only continue.

Gretzky, on the other hand, is still ascending (because his support is much stronger among the younger people).

Everything points to Crosby and McDavid (and probably Ovechkin too) surpassing Howe. For lots of people, they already have.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Yes, he certainly is.....and other O6 guys are too. But they will still decline over time.

In the hockey world - especially among younger generations, which will replace the older generations - Howe has been slowly declining for decades, and this will only continue.

Gretzky, on the other hand, is still ascending (because his support is much stronger among the younger people).

Everything points to Crosby and McDavid (and probably Ovechkin too) surpassing Howe. For lots of people, they already have.

It depends on who the young people are.

Amongst casual casual fans, Gretzky is already out. You have people on the main boards arguing things like Datsyuk > Lemieux and that Gretzky wouldn't hit 80 points in his prime today.

Amongst the young fans on this forum, Howe is a lock in the top four. Beliveau, Hull, Harvey, and Richard are locks for top 15.

The biggest PCHA nerd on this forum is in his early 30s

 

[Staniowski]

It depends on who the young people are.

Amongst casual casual fans, Gretzky is already out. You have people on the main boards arguing things like Datsyuk > Lemieux and that Gretzky wouldn't hit 80 points in his prime today.

Amongst the young fans on this forum, Howe is a lock in the top four. Beliveau, Hull, Harvey, and Richard are locks for top 15.

The biggest PCHA nerd on this forum is in his early 30s

Overall among younger and even middle-aged generations, Howe is definitely currently #4 and slowly declining.

Gretzky #1 and still slowly climbing (waiting for those pesky Bobby Orr supporters to finally leave the building).

 

[jigglysquishy]

Overall among younger and even middle-aged generations, Howe is definitely currently #4 and slowly declining.

Gretzky #1 and still slowly climbing (waiting for those pesky Bobby Orr supporters to finally leave the building).

I have Howe at 2 or 3 and am in my early 30s.

Howe climbed on this forum from 3 to 2 between 2009 and 2019.

Amongst learned fans, Howe would get voted in more times higher than 4 than at 4.

It's not all a generational problem.

Sure, blame casual fans. But they couldn't even tell you anything other than the bullet point that he played forever.

 

[Voight]

Yes, he certainly is.....and other O6 guys are too. But they will still decline over time.

In the hockey world - especially among younger generations, which will replace the older generations - Howe has been slowly declining for decades, and this will only continue.

Gretzky, on the other hand, is still ascending (because his support is much stronger among the younger people).

Everything points to Crosby and McDavid (and probably Ovechkin too) surpassing Howe. For lots of people, they already have.

I'm saying Howe is a different beast.

Highly unlikely to both. Even though he wasn't the same as he was in his prime, Canada hadn't won a Gold Medal in 50 years. It needed a Lemieux just like Calgary needed a Lanny McDonald in '89. And no, Canada doesn't win in '87 either. It took a late goal in the last game against the Soviets to beat them. Both teams were evenly matched & this was Lemieux & Gretzky in their respective primes.

Well, this a stretch.

 

[jigglysquishy]

There is no hard rules obviously but say 1985,
Denis Savard 7th best Canadian scorer, Dionne third best, I think despite Dionne age that it is fair competition from a legendary scorer last mini peak season.

200 points is 1.9 times Savard 7th best Canadian scorer and 1.59 times Dionne the third best scorer.

Would this season end up looking like last season (scoring could be continuing to trend up, not sure just a reference)

1.9 time the 7th best Canadian (Duchene) would have been : 163 points
1.59 times Stamkos would have been: 168.5 points

I feel 165 points would be more 1985 200 points mark, we could go in the talk about 1985 Savard versus Matt Ducehne and old Stamkos vs old Dionne but that do not seem to be big advantage Gretzky having much weaker competition.

If scoring creep up this year could be more 168-170, if it is down more 160-163

Extending this 1982-1987

Season	200/3rd Place Canadian	200/7th Place Canadian	3rd Place 21-22 Conversion	7th place 21-22 Conversion
1981-82	1.47	1.75	156	151
1982-83	1.69	1.90	179	163
1983-84	1.70	1.87	180	161
1984-85	1.59	1.90	169	163
1985-86	1.45	1.92	153	165
1986-87	1.87	2.08	198	179

So, a mean value of 168 points in 21-22 is worth the same as 200 points in 1982-1987 using this method.

That seems more correct than the straight VsX method, or just saying 150 because it is a whole number.

Now, Gretzky actually hit 215, which equates to 181 points in 21-22 if 168 is 200.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

against Boston, yes. However, he won in his 4 other trips winning 3 Cups in the process.

While never being the leading scorer on a Cup winner (and only once leading in goals and once in assists) and 2 dud Cup Finals in the 3 wins.

3 pts, -3 in 7 in '08 and 4 pts, even in 6 in '16. He had 1 total goal in the 13 games between those 2 series.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Off-topic, but to respond to an earlier point - obviously, Lemieux was a huge contributor to the 1987 Canada Cup. It's likely Canada loses without him. (They won with him by the narrowest of margins - he finished 2nd in scoring, and scored or assisted on the winning goal in the final two games of the mini-series against the USSR).

2002 is a different story. Lemieux missed the first two games of the round robin. Canada likely doesn't win the third & final round robin game against the Czechs without Lemieux (he scored two of Canada's three goals). But Canada would finish 3rd in their division either way, and would still face Finland.

Canada beat Finland 2-1. Lemieux assisted on Yzerman's game-winning goal. It was a beautiful pass. You'd have to think Canada would have found a way to beat Finland anyway (the gameplay was completely one-sided), but nothing's guaranteed.

Next is a 7-1 blowout against Belarus (nobody expected them to reach the final four - they advanced thanks to that infamous goal that bounced in off Tomi Salo's helmet). Lemieux picked up a couple of assists on Canada's 3rd and 4th goals. Canada was going to win either way.

Then we have the gold medal game. Lemieux picked up one assist (it was "only" a secondary assist from carrying the puck before - but he faked a shot after Pronger passed it to Kariya, which appeared to completely fool Richter). Without Lemieux, Canada may not have scored that goal (tying it at 1-1 with minutes left in the first). But this was probably the greatest game of Sakic's career, as he had two goals and two assists. Canada likely wins this without Lemieux (Sakic had four points, the US team had two goals).

Obviously we're engaging in hypotheticals when we try to imagine how a team would do without one of its players. Ultimately, Lemieux missed two of the six games, and he picked up four of his six points in games that were irrelevant or blowouts. Canada probably wins the other two games (vs Finland and the US) without him. Lemieux did well in the games he actually played in, but I think it's really overstating his value if we're saying that Canada doesn't win the gold without him.

 

[JackSlater]

Off-topic, but to respond to an earlier point - obviously, Lemieux was a huge contributor to the 1987 Canada Cup. It's likely Canada loses without him. (They won with him by the narrowest of margins - he finished 2nd in scoring, and scored or assisted on the winning goal in the final two games of the mini-series against the USSR).

2002 is a different story. Lemieux missed the first two games of the round robin. Canada likely doesn't win the third & final round robin game against the Czechs without Lemieux (he scored two of Canada's three goals). But Canada would finish 3rd in their division either way, and would still face Finland.

Canada beat Finland 2-1. Lemieux assisted on Yzerman's game-winning goal. It was a beautiful pass. You'd have to think Canada would have found a way to beat Finland anyway (the gameplay was completely one-sided), but nothing's guaranteed.

Next is a 7-1 blowout against Belarus (nobody expected them to reach the final four - they advanced thanks to that infamous goal that bounced in off Tomi Salo's helmet). Lemieux picked up a couple of assists on Canada's 3rd and 4th goals. Canada was going to win either way.

Then we have the gold medal game. Lemieux picked up one assist (it was "only" a secondary assist from carrying the puck before - but he faked a shot after Pronger passed it to Kariya, which appeared to completely fool Richter). Without Lemieux, Canada may not have scored that goal (tying it at 1-1 with minutes left in the first). But this was probably the greatest game of Sakic's career, as he had two goals and two assists. Canada likely wins this without Lemieux (Sakic had four points, the US team had two goals).

Obviously we're engaging in hypotheticals when we try to imagine how a team would do without one of its players. Ultimately, Lemieux missed two of the six games, and he picked up four of his six points in games that were irrelevant or blowouts. Canada probably wins the other two games (vs Finland and the US) without him. Lemieux did well in the games he actually played in, but I think it's really overstating his value if we're saying that Canada doesn't win the gold without him.

Joe Thornton was alternate forward should there be a last minute injury, and it makes sense that he fits in that spot if Lemieux isn't there. Based on the 2004 World Cup I think that he could have been a good depth centre for the team, not sure that he would have been ideal slotting in behind Sakic. Because Canada really only needed to win two competitive games to win the tournament the result is probably the same, but Lemieux was also cited by players as a huge presence in terms of calming everyone down. I'm not one to generally buy a player leading his team to victory by force of personality or something, but that team had a massive amount of pressure coming off two best on best losses plus getting decimated by Sweden in the first game. Gretzky took some of the heat off with his rant, but having Mario Lemieux in the room and as the focal point must have helped somewhat.

We can assume that Yzerman would be the captain had Lemieux not been there. Yzerman is a huge hockey name, but he may not have provided the sense of calm that Lemieux could. It also depends on how 23 year old Thornton does in a role that would require him to put up some points and draw defensive attention.

 

[Sentinel]

- Best "grinder" in NHL history

I coughed out my drink.

Thank you for telling us your entire post was in jest.

 

[MadLuke]

Without exaggerating the butterfly effect, I think even in 2002 there is no Canada win even if Y is not there going on.

Canada went 1-1-1 in the first round with a -2 goal differential, the only win being a 3-2 against Germany.

2-1 against Finland, who care Belarus and it was 3-2 against USA in the goal medal with 5 minutes to go before Iginla-Sakic blow it wide.

That was not some 2014 in control type of affair, it was any minuscule change or just replaying it with different bounce and you loose.

The ability to recover from the terrible qualifying round here make it easy to think that a Lemieux presence did matter.

- Youngest player to lead the NHL playoffs in scoring

That list in general is more trivia that all time mattering affair, would the argument be something about Crosby being the third best hockey player before turning 21 ever after Gretkzy-Orr or something of the sort

 

[CokenoPepsi]

I don't see how McDavid doesn't finish ahead of guys like Crosby and Jagr if he keeps up this play.... I mean even if he doesn't win a cup it would be hard to argue against him.

 

[psycat]

By the time this guy is done, we'll have a big 5.

I would strongly contest that there is a big 4 now. There is big 3 and Gretzky far ahead, McDavid could realistically make the trailing group 4 and he is the first player I have seen that I feel that way about unless maybe you count goalies(Hasek).

Only caveat is how Jagr look if there was no Lemieux or if he played today? McDavis is just a step above Crosby/Ovi for me but it's far from a given he eclipse them for career.