Where will Connor McDavid rank all-time by the time he retires?

[solidmotion]

voted #5. gretzky is untouchable. 2-4 are reachable but it's an outside chance. he's writing his own story though so it won't be an apples to apples comparison. peak play (assuming we've been seeing his peak the last few years) is clearly a shade below lemieux and orr. career value is obviously nowhere close to howe. but he could make up the difference in other ways. if he keeps up the transcendent playoff play that would go a long way especially with a couple cups. if his goal scoring bounces back up that would help too. but i think clear #5 is most likely. just as he's clearly below the big 4 i think by the end he'll be clearly above all the other #5 contenders.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Has to win a cup to get the 5 spot. No amount of regular season accolades can overcome no cup.

This year is likely his best chance in Edmonton.

 

[wetcoast]

Has to win a cup to get the 5 spot. No amount of regular season accolades can overcome no cup.

This year is likely his best chance in Edmonton.

I hear this argument all the time and it makes less and less sense in a 30 plus team league.

This argument sounds great on the surface yet it's overly simplistic and doesn't recognize different league dynamics over time.

 

[byrath]

Has to win a cup to get the 5 spot. No amount of regular season accolades can overcome no cup.

This year is likely his best chance in Edmonton.

That's no longer a valid argument imo (if it ever was) in a 32 team league where having star players comes with the negative of a high cap hit

 

[Hockeyholic]

That's no longer a valid argument imo (if it ever was) in a 32 team league where having star players comes with the negative of a high cap hit

Not saying it's fair. But a cup means a huge amount

I hear this argument all the time and it makes less and less sense in a 30 plus team league.

This argument sounds great on the surface yet it's overly simplistic and doesn't recognize different league dynasty over time.

I agree.

But how many top ten players in NBA & NHL history with zero titles? I'm not including baseball because that is the ultimate individual sport.

The reasons it shouldn't be this way are noted. But it truly does matter to most media and historians.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Some people might not like it, but having two 30+ pts playoff runs is worth more than winning a cup in 2024, when the goal is to evaluate an individual.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Very likely - top 5. You can make a case for him as #5 already.

Less likely but still possible with great longevity that McDavid pushes Lemieux to #5 to reach #4.

Unlikely to get higher than 4. Gretzky/Orr/Howe are gonna be very difficult to beat out. With great longevity I could see a case being made over Howe/Orr but it would be tough unless McDavid has a few more peak seasons like last year.

 

[Albatros]

I hear this argument all the time and it makes less and less sense in a 30 plus team league.

This argument sounds great on the surface yet it's overly simplistic and doesn't recognize different league dynamics over time.

If you want to be in the discussion for the greatest of all time you also have to be able to do that in a 32-team league. I get it at Joe Pavelski level, but to dominate the league you have to win.

 

[docbenton]

He is the best, but would also add that I don't think any historical players belong in the top 5 either. They're just not good enough compared to modern players. Not the same league, and barely the same game.

In terms of how he is viewed broadly by the public, I also think there is a good chance he will be viewed as the best by the time he retires. He's going to have a great career obviously, but also important is the spectacular fashion in which he plays the game, compared to other productive players like Kucherov who never really get discussed in this conversation. If you watch McDavid play the game and then you watched how Gretzky played there is no way you could come away thinking Gretzky was a better player. And I do think that strongly influences public opinion.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There is no "big 4" IMO.

The idea that Bobby Orr - who played half a career - is in some category with Gretzky is utterly unsupportable. Same goes for Lemieux to a slightly lesser extent. Neither of them won anywhere near enough to justify putting them on the untouchable level that many hockey fans have done. Hell, Lemieux couldn't even get his team into the playoffs back when 16 of 21 teams made it in.

 

[Voight]

There is no "big 4" IMO.

The idea that Bobby Orr - who played half a career - is in some category with Gretzky is utterly unsupportable. Same goes for Lemieux to a slightly lesser extent. Neither of them won anywhere near enough to justify putting them on the untouchable level that many hockey fans have done. Hell, Lemieux couldn't even get his team into the playoffs back when 16 of 21 teams made it in.

I'd argue in Orr's case he belongs there. Sure he had a very short career, but he was the best in his position (and arguably best player in the league) for almost the entirety of it.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'd argue in Orr's case he belongs there. Sure he had a very short career, but he was the best in his position (and arguably best player in the league) for almost the entirety of it.

Agree - his peak is undeniable.

But 657 regular season games...it's just not enough IMO. I define greatness in total career value. Orr has a gargantuan weakness in this regard.

 

[Crow]

I agree with the last couple people. Could see him as high as number 3 sliding orr and Howe down to 4th and 5th. Can’t see an argument for McDavid over Lemieux unless he gets even better than he has been.

 

[blundluntman]

There is no "big 4" IMO.

The idea that Bobby Orr - who played half a career - is in some category with Gretzky is utterly unsupportable. Same goes for Lemieux to a slightly lesser extent. Neither of them won anywhere near enough to justify putting them on the untouchable level that many hockey fans have done. Hell, Lemieux couldn't even get his team into the playoffs back when 16 of 21 teams made it in.

If I told you a defenseman with 8 norris trophies, 8 1st AST finishes , 3 hart trophies, 2 art rosses, 2 stanley cups & 2 conn smythes was a top 4 player of all time, I'm sure most people would agree without having to think too hard. Would they somehow change their mind if I told them they did this while only playing 9 seasons?? Would not winning a single thing after the age of 26 but compiling pointless stats really be what tips the scale? Orr did more in half a career (on one knee) than any defenseman has achieved period.

 

[Coffey]

If I told you a defenseman with 8 norris trophies, 8 1st AST finishes , 3 hart trophies, 2 art rosses, 2 stanley cups & 2 conn smythes was a top 4 player of all time, I'm sure most people would agree without having to think too hard. Would they somehow change their mind if I told them they did this while only playing 9 seasons?? Would not winning a single thing after the age of 26 but compiling pointless stats really be what tips the scale? Orr did more in half a career (on one knee) than any defenseman has achieved period.

How about
- 4 Stanley Cups
- 1 Conn Smythe
- 7 Norris Trophies
- 10 1st AST finishes

If Orr is top 4... What is Lidstrom? Or do the Harts put Orr way over?

 

[zar]

He will be discussed in the 2-5 range, much like we discuss the 2-4 currently. It will be based on personal preference.

G.O.A.T.
Gretzky

Almost G.O.A.T. (In alphabetical)
Howe
Lemieux
McDavid
Orr

 

[Midnight Judges]

If I told you a defenseman with 8 norris trophies, 8 1st AST finishes , 3 hart trophies, 2 art rosses, 2 stanley cups & 2 conn smythes was a top 4 player of all time, I'm sure most people would agree without having to think too hard. Would they somehow change their mind if I told them they did this while only playing 9 seasons?? Would not winning a single thing after the age of 26 but compiling pointless stats really be what tips the scale? Orr did more in half a career (on one knee) than any defenseman has achieved period.

3 Harts is underwhelming for a player who is supposed to be top 4 of all time with only 657 games played - especially when you consider that he was never runner up. In other words, the NHL deemed that multiple other players were more valuable than him in all but 3 seasons. And the players themselves didn't contradict it, as they only voted for Orr once out of the 5 seasons he could have won the Pearson, whereas Orr's teammate won it twice during Orr's best seasons. (yes I realize the Pearson evolved).

Also, no idea why you would categorize everything after age 26 as "pointless stats." In real life those are additional prime years for any superstar player where they could contribute to additional team success - which is kinda the whole purpose of playing the game. For examples, both Ovechkin and Crosby won playoff MVPs after age 26 whereas Orr provided zero value.

Orr is the best defenseman in history, but he's not the greatest IMO. His per game value is significantly more than Lidstrom or Bourque, but it is nowhere near double.

 

[blundluntman]

How about
- 4 Stanley Cups
- 1 Conn Smythe
- 7 Norris Trophies
- 10 1st AST finishes

If Orr is top 4... What is Lidstrom? Or do the Harts put Orr way over?

The 3 Harts and 2 art rosses prove Orr was simply in a different stratosphere. Without his generational offense, it'd probably be a 4 way argument between Orr, Bourque, Harvey and Lidstrom

 

[Sasha Orlov]

He’s already top 5

 

[blundluntman]

3 Harts is underwhelming for a player who is supposed to be top 4 of all time with only 657 games played - especially when you consider that he was never runner up. In other words, the NHL deemed that multiple other players were more valuable than him in all but 3 seasons. And the players themselves didn't contradict it, as they only voted for Orr once out of the 5 seasons he could have won the Pearson, whereas Orr's teammate won it twice during Orr's best seasons.

Also, no idea why you would categorize everything after age 26 as "pointless stats." In real life those could be additional prime years where the player could contribute to additional team success - which is kinda the whole purpose of playing the game.

Orr is the best defenseman in history, but he's not the greatest IMO. His per game value is significantly more than Lidstrom or Bourque, but it is nowhere near double.

He still has 7 top 3 hart finishes (including his 3 wins) which is an all time great resume. Crosby has the same amount of top 3 finishes (with one fewer hart) as a forward (who historically win the hart more than defensemen and goalies)

My point with the post-26 stats is that his accolades in those 9 years alone would be enough to put him in the big 4 tier even if you stretched it over the course of a 20 year career with lower tier seasons sprinkled in between.

 

[TheGuiminator]

Only Gretzky is safe at #1

I'd say he finishes 2nd all-time

 

[Midnight Judges]

My point with the post-26 stats is that his accolades in those 9 years alone would be enough to put him in the big 4 tier even if you stretched it over the course of a 20 year career with lower tier seasons sprinkled in between.

Except he doesn't have the additional lower tier seasons - which can, combined, provide a ton of real world value to a team.

 

[blundluntman]

Except he doesn't have the additional lower tier seasons - which can, combined, provide a ton of real world value to a team.

I don't see what difference it makes when he already provided enough real world value to his team in 9 years. He helped Boston win 2 Stanley Cups with 2 conn smythes. Most players are lucky to do that in 20 years.. Some additional seasons with 1st/2nd round exits are not what puts him over the hump.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. McDavid

McDavid can jump Lemieux by winning a few Cups.

 

[Video Nasty]

I don't see what difference it makes when he already provided enough real world value to his team in 9 years. He helped Boston win 2 Stanley Cups with 2 conn smythes. Most players are lucky to do that in 20 years.. Some additional seasons with 1st/2nd round exits are not what puts him over the hump.

Agree with pretty much every word in your last couple of posts. Some of these other posts questioning if what he did over essentially 9 seasons and wondering if he really deserves a spot inside the top 4 are wild.

His shorter career though, much the same with Lemieux’s, is what opens them up to being dislodged from their perches inside the Big Four, should McDavid play a pretty complete 18-20 seasons. From a better career perspective.

I’ve acknowledged in the past that unless McDavid finds another gear at age 27, he won’t reach the level Mario played at as an individual.

But everyone outside of Gretzky is up for grabs.