The 5th best player ever is a goalie.

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin also finished 37th in points in his prime, tied with Teddy Purcell and behind Val Filppula. What gets inferred from that data point about....anything?

That measuring a pure goalscorer in points can be misleading?

Or that nobody is ever measured by their worst seasons - except for players that you hate because you are a Penguins fan, in which case it is the major point of emphasis?

How many times have you brought up Bobby Hull's worst seasons? I'm not exactly going out on a limb by guessing never.

IMO, GOAT talent is GOAT talent in any era. There is no reason to think that Howe doesn't dominate in any era, relatively speaking. He loses Art Rosses to Wayne and Mario, and maybe to peak Jagr, Crosby, and McDavid. A 50 to 70 year difference in playing time is just too long to speculate.

I don't know how Crosby sneaks his way into that group. Zero chance peak Howe is losing an Art Ross to two time Art Ross winner Sidney Crosby. Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, McDavid - sure. But Crosby has neither the highest point total nor the highest adjusted point total of his era, so mentioning him here is pure fiction.

 

[Michael Farkas]

First of all, he's not a "pure" goal scorer because sometimes he gets assists too...

Second of all, I was knocking the methodology of determining talent pool by individual season single data points...not Ovechkin.

Feeling that Ovechkin is punished by the use of points for measuring a player is an all timer though haha

 

[Midnight Judges]

Accumulating points via goals is more difficult than accumulating points via assists. That ought not be a controversial statement.

Regardless, Ovechkin led his generation in points through 17 seasons. He's a 1500 point player and will likely end his career top 5 all time in adjusted points. Points is not some weakness for him, but it can devalue him if the goal scoring is not factored in.

 

[wetcoast]

That measuring a pure goalscorer in points can be misleading?

Are you suggesting that Ovi is a high volume shooter?

Or that nobody is ever measured by their worst seasons - except for players that you hate because you are a Penguins fan, in which case it is the major point of emphasis?

You do realize that not everyone is as obsessed with Crosby as you are right?

Also if we are talking about greatest players if all time their entire resumes are looked at not just the high points.

How many times have you brought up Bobby Hull's worst seasons? I'm not exactly going out on a limb by guessing never.

People have talked about Hull's low points on this board many times.

I don't know how Crosby sneaks his way into that group. Zero chance peak Howe is losing an Art Ross to two time Art Ross winner Sidney Crosby. Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, McDavid - sure. But Crosby has neither the highest point total nor the highest adjusted point total of his era, so mentioning him here is pure fiction.

No one has any idea but it's great to speculate right?

But let's keep the discussion on what actual players did and the context they did it in.

 

[daver]

No one has any idea but it's great to speculate right?

The context is PPG, not raw points, so it is comparing real data to measure relative domination vs. direct peers.

Howe has one season (52/53) that stands apart from his era peers (Richard, Beliveau, Hull and Mikita) and multiple other seasons that measure up against the single peak seasons of those players.

 

[Overrated]

The context is PPG, not raw points, so it is comparing real data to measure relative domination vs. direct peers.

Howe has one season (52/53) that stands apart from his era peers (Richard, Beliveau, Hull and Mikita) and multiple other seasons that measure up against the single peak seasons of those players.

How is it purely offensively that much better than Hull's near goal per game in 65/66 when nobody else got over 31 goals? Yeah scoring was down in the early 50s so when we do the adjusting Howe comes on top but I don't think it's a massive difference between them. The level of competition was also higher. Hockey was experiencing massive growth back then yet the number of teams remained and just a few years later the league tripled in size clearly indicating there was a need for expansions given the popularity of game.

 

[daver]

How is it purely offensively that much better than Hull's near goal per game in 65/66 when nobody else got over 31 goals? Yeah scoring was down in the early 50s so when we do the adjusting Howe comes on top but I don't think it's a massive difference between them. The level of competition was also higher. Hockey was experiencing massive growth back then yet the number of teams remained and just a few years later the league tripled in size clearly indicating there was a need for expansions given the popularity of game.

PPG dominance

Howe's PPG - 1.36

The average PPG of the other Top Ten scorers - 0.78 (74% difference)

Hull's PPG - 1.49

The average PPG of the other Top Ten scorers - 1.03 (44% difference)


GPG dominance

Howe's GPG - 0.70

The average GPG of the other Top Ten goalscorers - 0.37 (94% difference)

Hull's GPG - 0.83

The average PPG of the other Top Ten goalscorers - 0.43 (93% difference)

If they had a similar PPG dominance, then one could argue that Hull's superior goalscoring.


Howe's season appears to be as much a GOAT season based on points and on goals scored while Hull's is a GOAT goalscoring season.


And a are you sure you want to try to play the "Competition was higher" card against Howe in this comparison?

Howe wins an Art Ross in 62/63 against a prime Bobby Hull and from age 31 to age 41, is only .06 in PPG to a prime/peak Bobby Hull.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

How can a Howe, during his 30s, possibly be the 2nd best offensive player during a time where the competition is higher?

You have just proven my point. GOAT talent shines in any era. Speculation on how they do in other eras is simply not a reasonable argument.

 

[Overrated]

PPG dominance

Howe's PPG - 1.36

The average PPG of the other Top Ten scorers - 0.78 (74% difference)

Hull's PPG - 1.49

The average PPG of the other Top Ten scorers - 1.03 (44% difference)


GPG dominance

Howe's GPG - 0.70

The average GPG of the other Top Ten goalscorers - 0.37 (94% difference)

Hull's GPG - 0.83

The average PPG of the other Top Ten goalscorers - 0.43 (93% difference)

If they had a similar PPG dominance, then one could argue that Hull's superior goalscoring.


Howe's season appears to be as much a GOAT season based on points and on goals scored while Hull's is a GOAT goalscoring season.


And a are you sure you want to try to play the "Competition was higher" card against Howe in this comparison?

Howe wins an Art Ross in 62/63 against a prime Bobby Hull and from age 31 to age 41, is only .06 in PPG to a prime/peak Bobby Hull.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

How can a Howe, during his 30s, possibly be the 2nd best offensive player during a time where the competition is higher?

You have just proven my point. GOAT talent shines in any era. Speculation on how they do in other eras is simply not a reasonable argument.

The fact competition in the early mid 60s was higher isn't an argument against Gordie. It's a fact. So many more recognizable legends played in the early 60s. Hull, Howe, Beliveau, Mikita, H. Richard, Mahovlich, Bucyk...

Also didn't you say the competition in general grew together with the size of the league? It's very unlikely the competition doubled from season to season. It was more of a gradual increase and at some point they decided to double the size of the league.

 

[daver]

The fact competition in the early mid 60s was higher isn't an argument against Gordie. It's a fact. So many more recognizable legends played in the early 60s. Hull, Howe, Beliveau, Mikita, H. Richard, Mahovlich, Bucyk...

Also didn't you say the competition in general grew together with the size of the league? It's very unlikely the competition doubled from season to season. It was more of a gradual increase and at some point they decided to double the size of the league.

First off, it is not a fact. It is your opinion.

I am starting with statistical facts and drawing conclusions. You are stating an opinion to, IMO, unreasonably conclude that Howe's 52/53 season should be significantly downgraded despite strong statistical evidence to the contrary.

You are implying that Hull's 65/66 season needs to be "adjusted" because of higher competition. I countered that it is not reasonable to believe that peak Howe would not be clearly ahead of Hull if he played at the exact same time.

IMO, any doubts as to Howe's offensive dominance in the early '50s are eliminated as he shows he was still arguably the best player in the league (or co-best with Beliveau) until age 34/35. This includes seasons by a 22/23 year Bobby Hull.

 

[Overrated]

First off, it is not a fact. It is your opinion.

More people played hockey so it is a fact

Hockey Canada Registrations & The High Costs of Hockey

This is a for reference post. I started researching Hockey Canada registrations to try and determine how the feed of Canadian hockey players has been over time. I just don't have a lot of time to continue at the moment so I wanted to put this out there in case someone else wants to pursue or...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[MadLuke]

You are implying that Hull's 65/66 season needs to be "adjusted" because of higher competition. I countered that it is not reasonable to believe that peak Howe would not be clearly ahead of Hull if he played at the exact same time.

In points, overall play, etc... that seem one of the most reasonable assumption ever.

Like pointed out during Hull peak Art Ross windows 60-65 versus aging post peak Howe:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

538 pts in 468 games for Hull
532 pts in 483 games for Howe

We can take him for granted sometime, but those are the 31 to 36 years old season for Howe, 22-27 years old Howe would be ahead almost without a doubt, even him must have declined quite a bit, it was a high volume (almost 1000 pro games)-impact-injury career pre turning 30 as well, not a low volume one of a late bloomer.

Bobby Hull is all-time goalscorer, but points ? Seem to be your average best in the league scenario.

 

[daver]

More people played hockey so it is a fact

Hockey Canada Registrations & The High Costs of Hockey

This is a for reference post. I started researching Hockey Canada registrations to try and determine how the feed of Canadian hockey players has been over time. I just don't have a lot of time to continue at the moment so I wanted to put this out there in case someone else wants to pursue or...

forums.hfboards.com

Why should anyone believe that Howe would not have as dominant if he was the same age as Hull?

Show your work besides speculation. Everything points to a peak Howe dominating the league in the mid-60s. Yes, the peak season of Beliveau, Mikita and Hull would challenge Howe's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best Art Ross wins, but not his 52/53 season.

Mario is another example of greatness over eras including the much hyped European invasion. Nothing points to him being anything other than showing a usual career arc from age 20 to age 35/36.

And Mario > Jagr (moreso than Howe > Hull, Beliveau, Mikita)

 

[Overrated]

Why should anyone believe that Howe would not have as dominant if he was the same age as Hull?

Show your work besides speculation. Everything points to a peak Howe dominating the league in the mid-60s. Yes, the peak season of Beliveau, Mikita and Hull would challenge Howe's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best Art Ross wins, but not his 52/53 season.

What work? All numbers you're using to support your argument are non-scientific mumbo jumbo like "How many % points was this guy above the 6th best player" etc. I can simply show the game had a massive growth back then and source the number of players to prove the talent pool had increased substantially before Hull started his run. I do rank Howe above Beliveau and Hull but I don't think it was that huge of a difference at their respective peaks.

 

[daver]

What work? All numbers you're using to support your argument are non-scientific mumbo jumbo like "How many % points was this guy above the 6th best player" etc. I can simply show the game had a massive growth back then and source the number of players to prove the talent pool had increased substantially before Hull started his run. I do rank Howe above Beliveau and Hull but I don't think it was that huge of a difference at their respective peaks.

You aren't showing how this translated into more NHL talent. There were essentially two superstars in the league in the 60s after Howe and Beliveau; and no statistical evidence that these two were on another tier from Beliveau/Howe because more kids were playing hockey.

Your only argument is that there the unknown of how 24 year Howe would have done in 1965.

 

[Midnight Judges]

First off, it is not a fact. It is your opinion.

The idea that there was more talent in Hull's prime relative to Howe's is a statistical likelihood due to the talent pool increasing by approximately 30%+ in that span of time.

Nevermind that Howe's generation was severely and negatively impacted by world events in ways that would be less likely to impact Hull's.

 

[Overrated]

You aren't showing how this translated into more NHL talent. There were essentially two superstars in the league in the 60s after Howe and Beliveau; and no statistical evidence that these two were on another tier from Beliveau/Howe because more kids were playing hockey.

Your only argument is that there the unknown of how 24 year Howe would have done in 1965.

Mikita Hull Orr & Esposito. That's 4.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Yeah, it seems inevitable that McDavid ends up at least number 5, so long as he stays healthy over the next couple of years.

I don't think he breaks up the Big 4; he either makes it a Big 5, or there may be this idea that there is a Big 3 (Orr/Gretzky/Howe) and a Next 2 (Lemieux/McDavid).

I think the only thing that prevents McDavid being 5 is playoff success. Though I wouldn't necessarily need to see him win cups to put him at 5, a finals appearance would do it. I do think if he gets a couple cups, you have to start considering his argument over Lemieux (who I have at 4 as you seem to).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've been posting a fair bit on the main boards recently. It's tough to find the right balance with McDavid. On the one hand - yes, some of his achievements have been historic, and he has a legitimate chance to end up 5th place all-time (and possibly even higher). His accomplishments should be celebrated, and it's important to distinguish between a potentially generational player from "only" a future Hall of Famer (like Matthews).

On the other hand, many of his supporters are going overboard, and are decrying anything before 1980 (some are even using a later cutoff). Most (but not all) of these posters are Oilers fans. It seems awfully convenient that the NHL (apparently) became a serious league right around the time that the Oilers joined. (It's not difficult to see why they're doing this - if you pretend that hockey prior to 19XX doesn't count, McDavid suddenly ranks that much higher on a so-called "all-time" list).

The biggest issue, of course, is it's premature to rank McDavid. To get a spot in the top ten, he needs more longevity (he's barely played 600 games - and before someone compares that to Orr's 657 games, McDavid simply isn't as impactful as a player), and he needs more deep playoff runs. (I don't even care if he wins a Cup - but I need to see more than 49 games, and more than one appearance past the second round). We can acknowledge that McDavid, through age 27, has as good a start to his career as anyone outside the Big Four, while also realizing that, in order to approach that quartet, he needs to keep playing at a high level for another five to ten years, and have more postseason success.

It was the same thing with Crosby. A decade ago, I consistently pushed back on the idea that he was top ten all-time (which was argued by daver and a bunch of other Pittsburgh fans). I now think Crosby is a lock for the top ten, and there's a legitimate case for 5th place. (For the record - although I rank Crosby higher, the same general comments also work with Ovechkin). He didn't get there due to forecasts and hypotheticals; he earned it by nearly two decades of high-level play. Many of us on the History forum think the same way. We will recognize the greatness of modern players - but they need to earn it through actual accomplishments, not rosy forecasts.

AC/DC said "It's a long way to the top". They were talking about rock'n'roll, but it's true for hockey (and many other things). I know McDavid's fans want to see him in 5th place today, but (as I'm sure daver and other Pittsburgh fans would agree), it's much more satisfying and meaningful to watch someone earn it over the course of two decades.

 

[MadLuke]

some are even using a later cutoff

I heard for the first time the expression modern hockey excluding quite the recent players, a player that played a couple of shift on the same line than Crosby like Mario Lemieux. I never thought or heard before of say the 1995-1996 Sakic-Lindros-Lemieux-Jagr-Hasek season to not be in the fully modern era of hockey, 82 games all played on TV, almost the same rules than now, same roster size, almost the same ice time, shift length and so on, etc... Marleau-Thornton will be drafted that summer.

They make you feel old those mainboard McDavid talk.

 

[Crocodiligator]

I heard for the first time the expression modern hockey excluding quite the recent player, player that played a couple of shit on the same line than Crosby like Lemieux. I never thought or heard before of say the 1995-1996 Sakic-Lindros-Lemieux-Jagr-Hasek season to not be in the fully modern era of hockey, 82 games all played on TV, almost the same rules than now, etc... Marleau-Thornton will be drafted that summer.

They make you feel old those mainboard McDavid talk.

Yeah, I’ve already heard that anything pre lockout/salary cap is not modern day hockey. Ew

 

[daver]

I've been posting a fair bit on the main boards recently. It's tough to find the right balance with McDavid. On the one hand - yes, some of his achievements have been historic, and he has a legitimate chance to end up 5th place all-time (and possibly even higher). His accomplishments should be celebrated, and it's important to distinguish between a potentially generational player from "only" a future Hall of Famer (like Matthews).

On the other hand, many of his supporters are going overboard, and are decrying anything before 1980 (some are even using a later cutoff). Most (but not all) of these posters are Oilers fans. It seems awfully convenient that the NHL (apparently) became a serious league right around the time that the Oilers joined. (It's not difficult to see why they're doing this - if you pretend that hockey prior to 19XX doesn't count, McDavid suddenly ranks that much higher on a so-called "all-time" list).

The biggest issue, of course, is it's premature to rank McDavid. To get a spot in the top ten, he needs more longevity (he's barely played 600 games - and before someone compares that to Orr's 657 games, McDavid simply isn't as impactful as a player), and he needs more deep playoff runs. (I don't even care if he wins a Cup - but I need to see more than 49 games, and more than one appearance past the second round). We can acknowledge that McDavid, through age 27, has as good a start to his career as anyone outside the Big Four, while also realizing that, in order to approach that quartet, he needs to keep playing at a high level for another five to ten years, and have more postseason success.

It was the same thing with Crosby. A decade ago, I consistently pushed back on the idea that he was top ten all-time (which was argued by daver and a bunch of other Pittsburgh fans). I now think Crosby is a lock for the top ten, and there's a legitimate case for 5th place. (For the record - although I rank Crosby higher, the same general comments also work with Ovechkin). He didn't get there due to forecasts and hypotheticals; he earned it by nearly two decades of high-level play. Many of us on the History forum think the same way. We will recognize the greatness of modern players - but they need to earn it through actual accomplishments, not rosy forecasts.

AC/DC said "It's a long way to the top". They were talking about rock'n'roll, but it's true for hockey (and many other things). I know McDavid's fans want to see him in 5th place today, but (as I'm sure daver and other Pittsburgh fans would agree), it's much more satisfying and meaningful to watch someone earn it over the course of two decades.

A decade ago I would have been only talking about "thru a player's first X number of seasons/by age X" in rating Crosby vs. the other GOATs.

A decade later, among forwards, Crosby has as much of a claim for #5 as Beliveau and Hull, IMO.

McDavid has as much of a claim to be pacing for the clear #5 by age 26 as Crosby did at times in his career. He is having the offensive career/resume that Crosby was expected to have. He is not at the Mario/Wayne/Orr video game level of offense, he should be viewed as an offensive weapon a la Ovechkin and Jagr vs. a solid/very good all around player, and may end up wearing a "weak" playoff resume relative to his GOAT peers that while possibly being attributed to a bad team/bad management/32 team league it would keep him from making it a potential Big 5. I.e. he cannot overcome this weakness like Orr and Mario who overcame their career resume weaknesses with multiple peak performances that were simply on an untouchable level all-time save for Wayne.

 

[wetcoast]

I've been posting a fair bit on the main boards recently. It's tough to find the right balance with McDavid. On the one hand - yes, some of his achievements have been historic, and he has a legitimate chance to end up 5th place all-time (and possibly even higher). His accomplishments should be celebrated, and it's important to distinguish between a potentially generational player from "only" a future Hall of Famer (like Matthews).

On the other hand, many of his supporters are going overboard, and are decrying anything before 1980 (some are even using a later cutoff). Most (but not all) of these posters are Oilers fans. It seems awfully convenient that the NHL (apparently) became a serious league right around the time that the Oilers joined. (It's not difficult to see why they're doing this - if you pretend that hockey prior to 19XX doesn't count, McDavid suddenly ranks that much higher on a so-called "all-time" list).

The biggest issue, of course, is it's premature to rank McDavid. To get a spot in the top ten, he needs more longevity (he's barely played 600 games - and before someone compares that to Orr's 657 games, McDavid simply isn't as impactful as a player), and he needs more deep playoff runs. (I don't even care if he wins a Cup - but I need to see more than 49 games, and more than one appearance past the second round). We can acknowledge that McDavid, through age 27, has as good a start to his career as anyone outside the Big Four, while also realizing that, in order to approach that quartet, he needs to keep playing at a high level for another five to ten years, and have more postseason success.

It was the same thing with Crosby. A decade ago, I consistently pushed back on the idea that he was top ten all-time (which was argued by daver and a bunch of other Pittsburgh fans). I now think Crosby is a lock for the top ten, and there's a legitimate case for 5th place. (For the record - although I rank Crosby higher, the same general comments also work with Ovechkin). He didn't get there due to forecasts and hypotheticals; he earned it by nearly two decades of high-level play. Many of us on the History forum think the same way. We will recognize the greatness of modern players - but they need to earn it through actual accomplishments, not rosy forecasts.

AC/DC said "It's a long way to the top". They were talking about rock'n'roll, but it's true for hockey (and many other things). I know McDavid's fans want to see him in 5th place today, but (as I'm sure daver and other Pittsburgh fans would agree), it's much more satisfying and meaningful to watch someone earn it over the course of two decades.

Good post and one of the things that I thought about is that McDavid is halfway through his 9th season right now.

Let's say he has a career ending injury today and that's it, does anyone have McDavid behind Guy Lafleur who is generally ranked in the low 20s?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I've been posting a fair bit on the main boards recently. It's tough to find the right balance with McDavid. On the one hand - yes, some of his achievements have been historic, and he has a legitimate chance to end up 5th place all-time (and possibly even higher). His accomplishments should be celebrated, and it's important to distinguish between a potentially generational player from "only" a future Hall of Famer (like Matthews).

On the other hand, many of his supporters are going overboard, and are decrying anything before 1980 (some are even using a later cutoff). Most (but not all) of these posters are Oilers fans. It seems awfully convenient that the NHL (apparently) became a serious league right around the time that the Oilers joined. (It's not difficult to see why they're doing this - if you pretend that hockey prior to 19XX doesn't count, McDavid suddenly ranks that much higher on a so-called "all-time" list).

The biggest issue, of course, is it's premature to rank McDavid. To get a spot in the top ten, he needs more longevity (he's barely played 600 games - and before someone compares that to Orr's 657 games, McDavid simply isn't as impactful as a player), and he needs more deep playoff runs. (I don't even care if he wins a Cup - but I need to see more than 49 games, and more than one appearance past the second round). We can acknowledge that McDavid, through age 27, has as good a start to his career as anyone outside the Big Four, while also realizing that, in order to approach that quartet, he needs to keep playing at a high level for another five to ten years, and have more postseason success.

It was the same thing with Crosby. A decade ago, I consistently pushed back on the idea that he was top ten all-time (which was argued by daver and a bunch of other Pittsburgh fans). I now think Crosby is a lock for the top ten, and there's a legitimate case for 5th place. (For the record - although I rank Crosby higher, the same general comments also work with Ovechkin). He didn't get there due to forecasts and hypotheticals; he earned it by nearly two decades of high-level play. Many of us on the History forum think the same way. We will recognize the greatness of modern players - but they need to earn it through actual accomplishments, not rosy forecasts.

AC/DC said "It's a long way to the top". They were talking about rock'n'roll, but it's true for hockey (and many other things). I know McDavid's fans want to see him in 5th place today, but (as I'm sure daver and other Pittsburgh fans would agree), it's much more satisfying and meaningful to watch someone earn it over the course of two decades.

You could have done much better than AC/DC for a quote. I attribute that to too much time on the main boards.

Other than that, the usual excellent post.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The biggest issue, of course, is it's premature to rank McDavid. To get a spot in the top ten, he needs more longevity (he's barely played 600 games - and before someone compares that to Orr's 657 games, McDavid simply isn't as impactful as a player),

Is it even humanly possible in today's NHL to run circles around other players to the extent that was available during Orr's career?

According to your thread estimating the size of the talent pool, the competition per roster spot was at an all-time low during Orr's career. There were some pretty bad players to take advantage of in the early to mid 70s.

IMO some sort of adjustment would be equitable.

Of course, we could look at hardware and that bodes well for McDavid. Against a far larger talent pool, he's already equaled Bobby Orr in Hart placements. He's likely pacing for another 3 this season.

Orr
1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6

McDavid
1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5

Of course you can say Orr is a defenseman so he's underrated this way. And that is a fair point. But again, that is counteracted by the gargantuan 3x difference in talent pool size.

Ranking Orr in the top 4 with only 731 total games played is inevitably problematic. It strongly implies that longevity is worth very little, and so the case against McDavid being in the top 10 right now is weak for anyone who puts Orr very high, let alone above Gordie Howe.

On that basis I think it is unreasonable for you to claim McDavid needs 5-10 more seasons. He's arguably matched Bobby Orr's regular season career right now.

(I don't even care if he wins a Cup - but I need to see more than 49 games, and more than one appearance past the second round).

Bobby Orr only made it past the second round 3 times in his entire career. It's not some big difference.

Bobby Orr only played 76 playoff games. McDavid could conceivably get close to that with 1 deep playoff run.

I think what you are saying here is pretty arbitrary. 1 player does not carry a team. It has never happened - not even with Bobby Orr. Faulting McDavid for team success is not a strong point to hang your hat on IMO - particularly given his excellent playoff statistics.

McDavid has 655 total games played vs Orr's 731. It's an 11% difference and set to be zero within roughly a year from now. You want to focus on 27 missing playoff games from McDavid's resume? That's likely going to evaporate.

There is also the shear difference in the likelihood of team advancement in a 32 team league of mostly well-established teams (and where expansion teams can do well) vs a 12/14/16/18 team league where half the teams are new expansion teams that didn't stand a chance. An adjustment in that regard would also be equitable.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Is it even humanly possible in today's NHL to run circles around other players to the extent that was available during Orr's career?

Yes. McDavid did just drop a season not seen in decades after all.

This is it even possible thing is the same argument people were making when they were claiming that Crosby and Lidstrom were the best players ever at their positions (mostly by virtue of being the most recent) and that a forward scoring over 130 points or a defending scoring 100 was literally impossible.

Modern players and their bionic implants, flawless diets and perfect training methods meant that no one could possibly be better. Goaltending was turned into a position with robotic efficiency. Previous generation goaltenders were a joke.

The pendulum swung back towards offence a little recently, we got a real generational player again, and those statements now look laughable. And it seems like half the goaltenders in the league at any given time now can’t stop a beach ball.

So yes, it is possible.