So obsessed with raw totals. Do you think it is the best postseason not named lemieux or gretzky? Because you will have a hard time convincing just about anybody who has studied hockey and been around longer than McDavid's rookie season that this run he just came off is better than 1996 Sakic or 1981 Bossy.
In the same season that Kucherov did it too. Again with the raw total numbers to inflate McDavid's accomplishments to make them sound more special than they already are.
So is Yzerman better than McDavid?
I mean the award wasn't even around in Howe's and Orr's day. I am willing to bet more names would be on that list as well. Another weird compilation trophy though, not a trophy that demonstrates dominance above his peers.
same as above.
Noted.
Fair.
We can agree on one thing at least.
Jeez man.
What? Obsessed with Raw totals? What does that even mean? Like, what are you talking about? Those are 2 very distinctive numbers, one of which. Is a record now….and you scoff and say, “you are so obsessed with raw totals.” As opposed to….what? You really don’t make any sense.
His playoff run is certainly up there. How is that arguable? He broke a Gretzky playoff record and won the conn smythe. What you think is or isn’t better or worst is your opinion. You have yours, I have mine. I think it’s the best playoff run we have seen in many years regardless of the outcome.
“Again with the raw todays that inflate McDavids stats”????? What the actual hell are you going on about?
You sound absolutely ridiculous. He’s literally the 3RD player to reach 100 assists. Kucherov doing the same shouldn’t mean McDavids stats mean less…
You clearly don’t know what “inflated” means. You are making up stuff again
You tell me, is Yzerman better? You think people would say he is better? Be honest….because if you are asking that then you already sound silly.
You really enjoy finding excuses don’t you. He has 4 Lindsay’s, that’s 2nd most behind Gretzky and tied with Lemieux. Whether you agree or not, that’s impressive.
No one is claiming the absolutist view that he would have gotten 132.
The argument is that it's reasonable, given his pre and post scoring and as expressed so well his first half and second half scoring that he would have lapped the field and easily won the Hart and Art Ross in 10-11 and 12-13 quiet easily.
11-12 who knows but the focus by you and the other poster is instead to pretend that Crosby was a 66 point guy in 10-11 and not the absolute highest performing player in the league that season.
My argument was about the 56 game season but as is typical for you instead of acknowledging the argument you are going off in a different direction as per usual
U always look at context and I don't pick and choose something you might consider instead of whatever it is that you are doing since a poster called you out when you did that they are basically the same level in their first 9 years.
Not even sure if you know what you are talking about here.
Reasonable for you is “likely” though. And we have no way of knowing if he would have reached those numbers, I know that breaks your little heart. But it’s the truth.
A 56 game season that he once again sustained over an 82 game season. Crosby unfortunately didn’t get that opportunity, but that’s not on McDavid. He played the games and dominated.
I apologize for the last statement. Confused you with someone else.