Is Connor Mcdavid a "tier above" Sidney Crosby as a player?

[Fourier]

There's more nuance to it though.

I think in general Crosby contributes more to winning (away from scoring) than McDavid does -- and like you said in your post these contributions apart from the scoresheet do matter. I don't think anyone is arguing that McDavid isn't the better individual offensive player in isolation.

For me, Pittsburgh's team accomplishments are partly due to Crosby's consistent non-offensive contributions. For instance helping his undrafted linemates be better than they would've been without him (not only helps the team in terms of overall strength / ability to fit under the cap but allows someone like Kessel to be on the third line which creates a crazy lineup mismatch for instance), 200 foot game, clutchness in terms of many games incl golden goal, we've already discussed leadership, etc.

The key though isn't JUST that Crosby won. It's that he did a whole lot of stuff away from just scoring (to help the team win), and then the team won as well. Imo there is probably some element of causality in here. Put a different way, the winning itself in my opinion is at least partly a lagging indicator (ie proof) of all the other stuff Crosby did to help his team win.

***

Like you said neither one of us is going to change the other's mind I don't think. But I do think both our takes are reasonable, we're talking about two all-time greats here. If you're starting a team or starting a rebuild you pick either of these guys and you would be very, very, very fortunate to be able to do so. With either one of them.

Sincere thx for sharing your point of view without including nonsense. This type of discussion has been in short supply particularly in this thread.

McDavid's game away for the puck has improved immensely. It is very underrated. This has been especially true over the last three playoff years. In fact, for me his play over the last three years in the postseason has rivaled the best I have seen from any Oiler and that would include Gretzky. I am not just talking offense here but his whole game. And as I said I was an Oiler STH for every year Gretzky played in Edmonton. I think it would be a tough case to make that Crosby was better during his cup winning years regardless of how you define better. This is why I have McDavid in a different tier, though I hesitated in doing so. Crosby is legitimately a great player. But McDavid has raised his game to a new level in recent years,

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I have no problem if you would pick Crosby over McDavid even if I disagree with your position. I do have an issue with placing any significant importance in team accomplishments in comparing the two for reasons I have stated in other posts. But in the end I doubt I will change any minds in that respect.

cups arent just team accomplishments. they are the entire point of the sport. Crosby has also gotten it done with subpar D and I believe Matt Murray in net. he lead his team multiple times to where it really mattered. the only people who think oh they are just "team accomplishments" are McDavid fans so he can just be automatically placed over the greats im sorry it just doesnt work that way

 

[Felidae]

My problem with putting McDavid in a different tier than Crosby is it's almost admitting he's the clear cut 5th best player of all time.

He's certainly on track but I can't go that far when his career is not even half over yet, and players with incredible longevity are contending for the 5th spot. Crosby, while not my personal 5th, is in that conversation. I mean, Crosby is tied for the most PPG seasons of all time (19) alongside Gretzky. His consistency has been incredible.

 

[Fourier]

cups arent just team accomplishments. they are the entire point of the sport. Crosby has also gotten it done with subpar D and I believe Matt Murray in net. he lead his team multiple times to where it really mattered. the only people who think oh they are just "team accomplishments" are McDavid fans so he can just be automatically placed over the greats im sorry it just doesnt work that way

In the early 1980's people were saying that guys like Lafleur and Trottier were better than Gretzky because they were winners and he would never win playing the style he did. Had he been sold in 1983 to LA he may well have never won a cup. Yet he still would have been on another tier than any of the so called winners. Gretzky won when a team with a half dozen future hall of famers matured enough to get them over the hump. He never won in LA despite still being skilled enough to be the one of the two best players to ever play the game. (I say one of the two best because by that point Gretzky's game had already deteriorated just enough that it would be easy to argue that Lemieux was then the better player.) Would you argue that Crosby at any point in his career was a better all round player than 1988-89 Gretzky?

McDavid just had a playoff performance that is easily one of the best in history and yet his team fell short. Please explain to me what magic that Crosby had in say 2016 that allowed him to help the Pens win that this year's McDavid lacked if he had been miraculously transported to take Crosby's place.

Winning in the NHL is absolutely a team accomplishment. Great player obviously contribute to that happening. But in the end great players don't beat great teams over four seven game series.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Please explain to me what magic that Crosby had in say 2016 that allowed him to help the Pens win that this year's McDavid lacked if he had been miraculously transported to take Crosby's place.

Well you see if only McDavid was capable of producing at a 21 goal / 65 point pace as a defensive liability, then he'd have a Stanley Cup by now.

Obviously.

 

[Frank Drebin]

In the early 1980's people were saying that guys like Lafleur and Trottier were better than Gretzky because they were winners and he would never win playing the style he did. Had he been sold in 1983 to LA he may well have never won a cup. Yet he still would have been on another tier than any of the so called winners. Gretzky won when a team with a half dozen future hall of famers matured enough to get them over the hump. He never won in LA despite still being skilled enough to be the one of the two best players to ever play the game. (I say one of the two best because by that point Gretzky's game had already deteriorated just enough that it would be easy to argue that Lemieux was then the better player.) Would you argue that Crosby at any point in his career was a better all round player than 1988-89 Gretzky?

McDavid just had a playoff performance that is easily one of the best in history and yet his team fell short. Please explain to me what magic that Crosby had in say 2016 that allowed him to help the Pens win that this year's McDavid lacked if he had been miraculously transported to take Crosby's place.

Winning in the NHL is absolutely a team accomplishment. Great player obviously contribute to that happening. But in the end great players don't beat great teams over four seven game series.

It really is absurd isn’t it

Gretzky is universally heralded as the best player to ever play the game, but as soon as he wasn’t playing for a powerhouse oilers team (who won the cup without him the second season after he was traded) he never managed to win again, despite being the best player in 1993 with 15 goals and 40 points in 24 games

Come to think of it, I wonder how many of those 40 points were relevant points.

I think deep down, the posters leaning on the born winner angle know what they are saying is complete bullshit

 

[nbwingsfan]

cups arent just team accomplishments. they are the entire point of the sport. Crosby has also gotten it done with subpar D and I believe Matt Murray in net. he lead his team multiple times to where it really mattered. the only people who think oh they are just "team accomplishments" are McDavid fans so he can just be automatically placed over the greats im sorry it just doesnt work that way

Do you consider ovechkin a more complete/better/better leader etc because he’s also won a Cup and Smythe?

Forsberg? Sakic? Justin Williams? Where does the list end?

Cups are 100% a team accomplishment. Ekblad isn’t a better than Hughes because he won a Cup on a very, very good hockey team.

 

[PainForShane]

In the early 1980's people were saying that guys like Lafleur and Trottier were better than Gretzky because they were winners and he would never win playing the style he did. Had he been sold in 1983 to LA he may well have never won a cup. Yet he still would have been on another tier than any of the so called winners. Gretzky won when a team with a half dozen future hall of famers matured enough to get them over the hump. He never won in LA despite still being skilled enough to be the one of the two best players to ever play the game. (I say one of the two best because by that point Gretzky's game had already deteriorated just enough that it would be easy to argue that Lemieux was then the better player.) Would you argue that Crosby at any point in his career was a better all round player than 1988-89 Gretzky?

McDavid just had a playoff performance that is easily one of the best in history and yet his team fell short. Please explain to me what magic that Crosby had in say 2016 that allowed him to help the Pens win that this year's McDavid lacked if he had been miraculously transported to take Crosby's place.

Winning in the NHL is absolutely a team accomplishment. Great player obviously contribute to that happening. But in the end great players don't beat great teams over four seven game series.

Like I said before, Edmonton is a good team, and is expected to be good for the next few years at least. I think we can all agree on that. I also think that on paper their playoff roster last year was better than Florida's.

In fact, after a quick google search from what I can tell (I am not a gambler), all of the major betting sites have the Oilers as most likely team to win the Stanley Cup next year (either +800 or +850) depending on site. In this list, I am including each of DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, bet365. Every single one of those sites has the Oilers as most likely team to win next year (around 10% chance implied odds), no team has better odds on any of those sites.

EDIT included link

NHL Futures: Stanley Cup Odds For 2025

See the latest NHL Futures & Stanley Cup Odds for 2024-25 season along with more NHL Betting Resources at VegasInsider.

www.vegasinsider.com

Compare this to the 88 Kings -- when Gretzky joined the Kings they had been sub 0.500 for the three previous seasons and hadn't won a playoff series in 6 years. The situations aren't even remotely similar. The Kings weren't even close to where the Oilers are now, in what should still be close to McDavid's prime based on his age.

***

Anyway, unless McDavid gets traded to or eventually signs with a team that was not contending prior to his arrival, your example of Wayne Gretzky's Kings is imo completely irrelevant to this particular discussion. The Oilers are the betting favorite to win, I personally would think / expect a player who's being argued to be at least the 5th best hockey player of all time (essentially what this discussion is about) would be able to help get the team over the line at some point.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Do you consider ovechkin a more complete/better/better leader etc because he’s also won a Cup and Smythe?

Forsberg? Sakic? Justin Williams? Where does the list end?

Cups are 100% a team accomplishment. Ekblad isn’t a better than Hughes because he won a Cup on a very, very good hockey team.

Forsberg not only wasn’t captain, but never won a Conn Smythe. Williams never a captain either.

Being a complete player and a leader are relevant talking points to this debate, no need to dismiss them entirely and pretend the poster was basing the entire better player argument around those aspects.

Sakic has a better playoff run that ended in a cup than any playoff run McDavid has put together, and he’s definitely a better leader.

 

[Fourier]

Like I said before, Edmonton is a good team, and is expected to be good for the next few years at least. I think we can all agree on that. I also think that on paper their playoff roster last year was better than Florida's.

In fact, after a quick google search from what I can tell (I am not a gambler), all of the major betting sites have the Oilers as most likely team to win the Stanley Cup next year (either +800 or +850) depending on site. In this list, I am including each of DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, bet365. Every single one of those sites has the Oilers as most likely team to win next year (around 10% chance implied odds), no team has better odds on any of those sites.

FanDuel Sportsbook

sportsbook.fanduel.com

Compare this to the 88 Kings -- when Gretzky joined the Kings they had been sub 0.500 for the three previous seasons and hadn't won a playoff series in 6 years. The situations aren't even remotely similar. That's not even close to where the Oilers are now, in what should still be close to McDavid's prime based on his age.

***

Anyway, unless McDavid gets traded to or eventually signs with a team that was not contending prior to his arrival, your example of Wayne Gretzky's Kings is completely irrelevant to this particular discussion.

The Oilers are a very good team. Over the last three years they have won more playoff games than any team but Florida. They have also lost to the eventual champ all three years. But those losses were not equal. They were swept by a great Avs team that was going to be impossible to keep together once MacKinnon's deal ended. Had the Avs been a weaker team It is still very unlikely that the Oilers would have done much in the final. They did not have the horses and when you compound this with injuries there is nothing even a Gretzky could have done to change their fate. Certainly a prime Crosby over McDavid would not have changed the outcome.


The big step forward came with the deal that brought Ekholm to the team. In 2023 they lost a series to Vegas that could easily have gone the other way. Two major factors were goaltending and coaching. Flip Hill and Skinner in that series and the Oilers very likely win. Hill was absolutely red hot and Skinner had lapses that killed the Oilers. On the coaching side, Woodcroft failed to make adjustments, particularly with respect to the man-to-man defense that Vegas's top line exploited mercilessly. That was really the other big difference in the series. Over the course of the series the Marchessault/Eichel combo outscored the Oilers 8-1 5 vs 5. Without that pair on the ice the Oilers outscored Vegas 8-7 5 vs 5. They also handily won the special teams battle so it is clear that the top line was the difference. That was an almost 90% GF% despite a xGF% of just 55%. With McDavid on vs those two each team scored 1 goal and the xGF% was 65% for the Oilers with scoring chances and high danger CF being 68.5% and 75% in favour of the Oilers but Hill stood on his head. I am not sure what McDavid could have done to change how things played out when he was sitting on the bench. He certainly was not going to stop pucks that Skinner inexplicably let in. Unlike 2022, had the Oiler beaten Vegas I think there is a very good chance that they would have been in the finals and perhaps won. But we will never know because they did not beat Vegas.

I think a lot of Oiler fans believe that had Knoblauch been the coach in 2023 that Vegas series could have gone differently. Certainly, under the defensive scheme that he put in that Marchessault/Eichel combo would have had a lot more of a challenge. But again, we will never know. But what I can say for certain is that there is no evidence that having a prime Crosby instead of McDavid would have changed anything.

This year the Oilers came within a hair of winning it all despite most pundits predicting a Florida cakewalk. This despite the insanely bad start. Knoblauch came in and made a lot of changes in the approach the team took in tough situations. Coffey also mad a huge difference specifically for guys like Bouchard and the defense as a whole. But the Oilers also had the deepest team they have put forward. And yet despite perhaps the best playoff performance in 30 years the team still came up short. Maybe it comes down to luck, or maybe its McDavid's significant core injury and Leon's broken ribs and broken finger. These are all part of the game that a player like McDavid can't control yet the outcome could have been different had things been different. Would a prime Crosby have been able to get them over the hump? I don't see it since I don't believe a prime Crosby ever played as well in any playoff run as McDavid did this year.

On paper, this year's version of the team is by far the deepest it has been in McDavid's time as an Oiler, though still no where near as deep as the teams that guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, How and Orr had when they won their first cups. The Oilers are a legitimate cup favourite. But you still have to play the game and over an 82 game season in a 32 team league with a great deal of parity anything can happen.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

On paper, this year's version of the team is by far the deepest it has been in McDavid's time as an Oiler, though still no where near as deep as the teams that guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, How and Orr had when they won their first cups. The Oilers are a legitimate cup favourite. But you still have to play the game and over an 82 game season in a 32 team league with a great deal of parity anything can happen.

They might have been on stacked teams, but they had to play against stacked teams too. McDavid didn't have to play against the dynasty Islanders on his way to winning a Stanley Cup for example. It is really easy to look back in history in a vacuum, but it doesn't work that way.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Forsberg not only wasn’t captain, but never won a Conn Smythe. Williams never a captain either.

Being a complete player and a leader are relevant talking points to this debate, no need to dismiss them entirely and pretend the poster was basing the entire better player argument around those aspects.

Sakic has a better playoff run that ended in a cup than any playoff run McDavid has put together, and he’s definitely a better leader.

Would you care to explain your examples of the dressing room interactions which show how these players are better “leaders”?

Also who cares if they were captain or not? You’re only a leader if you’re the captain?

Bergeron was only a Captain for what? 3 seasons? Was he not a leader before that?

 

[edog37]

exactly my point

It’s not hard, just lazy. That’s all.

That stop making lazy ill informed posts.

 

[edog37]

What were Crosbys “big moments” in the finals?

I wasn’t aware the Hart and Lindsay were “participation awards” but the cup isn’t… you quite literally get your name and day with The cup if played ONE game and didn’t have any points at all….but THATS not a “participation award”…

What were Crosbys “big moments” in the finals?

I wasn’t aware the Hart and Lindsay were “participation awards” but the cup isn’t… you quite literally get your name and day with The cup if played ONE game and didn’t have any points at all….but THATS not a “participation award”…

Another dumb post. Keep going. Only a Flyers fan thinks winning the Cup is a participation trophy.

Tell me, where was McBaby in Games 6&7?

 

[nowhereman]

Well you see if only McDavid was capable of producing at a 21 goal / 65 point pace as a defensive liability, then he'd have a Stanley Cup by now.

Obviously.

You think Crosby was a defensive liability in 2015-16?

 

[Midnight Judges]

You think Crosby was a defensive liability in 2015-16?

Sidney Crosby has been a defensive liability his entire career.

For the most part, that hasn't mattered because he's a generational offensive talent.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

In the early 1980's people were saying that guys like Lafleur and Trottier were better than Gretzky because they were winners and he would never win playing the style he did. Had he been sold in 1983 to LA he may well have never won a cup. Yet he still would have been on another tier than any of the so called winners. Gretzky won when a team with a half dozen future hall of famers matured enough to get them over the hump. He never won in LA despite still being skilled enough to be the one of the two best players to ever play the game. (I say one of the two best because by that point Gretzky's game had already deteriorated just enough that it would be easy to argue that Lemieux was then the better player.) Would you argue that Crosby at any point in his career was a better all round player than 1988-89 Gretzky?

McDavid just had a playoff performance that is easily one of the best in history and yet his team fell short. Please explain to me what magic that Crosby had in say 2016 that allowed him to help the Pens win that this year's McDavid lacked if he had been miraculously transported to take Crosby's place.

Winning in the NHL is absolutely a team accomplishment. Great player obviously contribute to that happening. But in the end great players don't beat great teams over four seven game series.

im not arguing that Crosby is better than McDavid though. Im arging that McDavid doesnt deserve to rank above him this early in his career yet.

and I disagree. the only sport known to mankind where winning doesnt matter is hockey apparently lol

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Do you consider ovechkin a more complete/better/better leader etc because he’s also won a Cup and Smythe?

Forsberg? Sakic? Justin Williams? Where does the list end?

Cups are 100% a team accomplishment. Ekblad isn’t a better than Hughes because he won a Cup on a very, very good hockey team.

I would say Ov is around the same tier as Sakic. and winning made a huge difference to Ov's legacy.

hey if guys wanna just throw McDavid into the top 5. he needs a cup. if he wants to exceed one or more of Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux or Howe he is going to need a cup.... atleast one in his career.

Im sorry no one deserves to be among the best players of all time if they never lead their team atleast once to a cup.

not why why so many of you are so quick to just place him above everyone else. we're only 9 seasons into McDavid's career. little premature

 

[Golden_Jet]

I would say Ov is around the same tier as Sakic. and winning made a huge difference to Ov's legacy.

hey if guys wanna just throw McDavid into the top 5. he needs a cup. if he wants to exceed one or more of Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux or Howe he is going to need a cup.... atleast one in his career.

Im sorry no one deserves to be among the best players of all time if they never lead their team atleast once to a cup.

not why why so many of you are so quick to just place him above everyone else. we're only 9 seasons into McDavid's career. little premature

From 18-19, the last time the HoH evaluated the list.

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time The following is the final list of the top hockey players of all-time as determined by 32 voting members of the History of Hockey community. Report any errors to @quoipourquoi RankPlayerPositionBornNationBirth City 1Wayne GretzkyC1961CanadaBrantford...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Habano]

No

 

[BlueSeal]

The Cats held McDavid to 0 points in Games 1, 6 and 7. He had 1 point in Game 2 and multiple points in Game 3, 4 and 5, so I'd argue that if you want to stop the Oilers, neutralize McDavid. The Cats blueline did just that, so they're better than McDavid.

That's why I consider Crosby better than McDavid. At the end of the day, you have to find a way and elevate your game, not in those others games where you put up dozens of points, but in the games that matter the most. That to me defines greatness. You can win every trophy but if you can't win the trophy your team is going after, what does that say about you, especially after your team put the foot to the floor, evened the series, broke the Cats resolve and moved in for the kill after winning Game 6 without any help from McDavid. That moment, Game 7, is when it matters for you to be the greatest player playing in the NHL today, when you should put the team on your breaking back and stumble out to end it and fufill your destiny.

The numbers don't define greatness, the moments do.

Pat Maroon scoring a garbage goal againt Bishop and pushing the Blues forward in 2019 doesn't seem like much at all, but that moment made him legendary because of what it all eventually led to and meant. He'll always be the hometown hero and his name is proudly etched on the Cup.

McDavid had that moment and didn't fufill it. The thing is, he's so talented that he'll get another shot, when that moment comes, hopefully he takes it.

 

[nbwingsfan]

I would say Ov is around the same tier as Sakic. and winning made a huge difference to Ov's legacy.

hey if guys wanna just throw McDavid into the top 5. he needs a cup. if he wants to exceed one or more of Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux or Howe he is going to need a cup.... atleast one in his career.

Im sorry no one deserves to be among the best players of all time if they never lead their team atleast once to a cup.

not why why so many of you are so quick to just place him above everyone else. we're only 9 seasons into McDavid's career. little premature

Hypothetically, if McDavid wins the next 6 Art Ross/Hart trophies consecutively, along with 30 and 40pt post seasons each time but whatever goalie EDM has can’t stop allowing 5+ goals each game in losing efforts… you still wouldn’t consider him one of the 5 best players of all time?

 

[Video Nasty]

That moment, Game 7, is when it matters for you to be the greatest player playing in the NHL today, when you should put the team on your breaking back and stumble out to end it and fufill your destiny.

Tell me how great Crosby was in Game 7 of his first Cup win.

 

[nbwingsfan]

The Cats held McDavid to 0 points in Games 1, 6 and 7. He had 1 point in Game 2 and multiple points in Game 3, 4 and 5, so I'd argue that if you want to stop the Oilers, neutralize McDavid. The Cats blueline did just that, so they're better than McDavid.

That's why I consider Crosby better than McDavid. At the end of the day, you have to find a way and elevate your game, not in those others games where you put up dozens of points, but in the games that matter the most. That to me defines greatness. You can win every trophy but if you can't win the trophy your team is going after, what does that say about you, especially after your team put the foot to the floor, evened the series, broke the Cats resolve and moved in for the kill after winning Game 6 without any help from McDavid. That moment, Game 7, is when it matters for you to be the greatest player playing in the NHL today, when you should put the team on your breaking back and stumble out to end it and fufill your destiny.

The numbers don't define greatness, the moments do.

Pat Maroon scoring a garbage goal againt Bishop and pushing the Blues forward in 2019 doesn't seem like much at all, but that moment made him legendary because of what it all eventually led to and meant. He'll always be the hometown hero and his name is proudly etched on the Cup.

McDavid had that moment and didn't fufill it. The thing is, he's so talented that he'll get another shot, when that moment comes, hopefully he takes it.

Which game 7 in the SCF did Crosby define himself in?

 

[BlueSeal]

Tell me how great Crosby was in Game 7 of his first Cup win.

That wasn't his moment. That's why he has 3 lol. And 2 Conn Smythes but feel free to nitpick a winner.

When Mcdavid gets his (and he will), we'll discuss it for generations to come.