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

[glovesave_35]

My guess is it becomes a "Big 5".

 

[A Loyal Demidog]

#6 after Sidney Crosby (a more complete player IMO).

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

McDavid #5 Crosby #6

Lemieux's peak was just too high to catch. From 1987-96 was basically Gretzky level. McDavid is much closer to his peers.

I'm in my mid 30s so I never really saw peak Lemieux but I've heard more than a few older folk (who despise the Penguins) say that Mario Lemieux at his peak was the most dominant hockey player they'd ever seen.

 

[rogking65]

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.

getting into worst post nomination territory

 

[SillyRabbit]

McDavid #5 Crosby #6

Lemieux's peak was just too high to catch. From 1987-96 was basically Gretzky level. McDavid is much closer to his peers.

Looking back, it's true. After his rookie season, absolutely nobody could touch Lemieux besides Gretzky.

1985: Lemieux's rookie season
1986: Only Gretzky outscored Lemieux
1987: The only player besides Gretzky to outscore Lemieux was Jarri Kurri, who had 1 more point in 16 more games played
1988: Lemieux won the Art Ross
1989: Lemieux won the Art Ross
1990: The only players besides Gretzky to outscore Lemieux were Messier and Yzerman who had 4 and 6 more points respectively in 20 more games played
1991: Only played 26 games
1992: Lemieux won the Art Ross
1993: Lemieux won the Art Ross
1994: Only played 22 games
1995: Missed entire season due to Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer
1996: Lemieux won the Art Ross
1997: Lemieux won the Art Ross
1998: Retired due to effects of his cancer

So during this 11 year period from 1986-1997, the only people to ever outscore Lemieux in a season where he played at least 30 or more games were Gretzky (3x), Kurri, Messier and Yzerman.

And the latter three barely outscored him by 1-6 points while playing 16-20 more games.

 

[bobholly39]

What year did Kucherov out produce a healthy McDavid?

Uh...

2018-2019?

And you could even argue 2023-2024. McDavid was injured for what....first month of the year or so?

Scoring from November 4th on:

Kucherov 133 points in 71 games (38 goals), 1.87 ppg
McDavid 123 points in 69 games (30 goals), 1.78 ppg

If you change the start date to +/- 1 week, it's either closer/farther. But point is - Kucherov now has 2 seasons where he outscored McDavid.

McDavid is great - but doesn't mean you shouldn't recognize Kucherov for his performance, and ability to now beat out peak/prime McDavid to a Ross twice.

 

[Lshap]

Mario was the single-greatest package of complete talent I've ever seen. However, if we're doing an all-time ranking, could've/would've doesn't count. For me, Mario's shortened career drops him below Gretzky and Howe, whose teams benefited from their superstar talents for much longer.

Obviously, that explains why I value Gordie Howe so highly. You can't see durability and longevity on highlight reels, but those qualities are legit super powers in hockey. IMO, physical freaks like Howe (and Ovechkin) who bring elite production year after year after year are more valuable than a player who peaks higher over a much shorter period.

You also can't see leadership on a highlight reel and I admit it's a best-guess quality. But perceived leadership adds even more (if that's possible) to Gretzky's legacy, just as leadership will boost Crosby to somewhere between 5-10 all-time once his career has settled.

McDavid's raw talent on the ice appears second only to Lemieux's. But that's all we have so far – raw talent producing some amazing numbers. If he manages to add both longevity and intangible leadership (read team accomplishments) to his resume, there will be a strong argument to bump him into the Big-Four.

 

[kevsh]

As of today, I'm not sure he cracks the Big 4 but if he starts piling up Cup wins and maybe an Olympic gold medal or two (along with a few more expected Harts/Art Ross trophies) it's going to become a real interesting conversation.

In case he does the difficult question for me is who he'd replace. It just occurred to me while writing this reply that I don't think I've never decided on the placement for each of The Four behind Wayne clearly at #1.

Maybe in anticipation of the inevitable (either Connor or someone else some day) I should pull a Jonas and do my research (Overdrive listeners will get the reference).

 

[PainForShane]

2 things --

1) For me (and I realize this is may be considered a hot take, I'm not going to spend time arguing about it), it's always been a big 5 with Hasek in there somewhere from #2 to #5, no particular order. 6 Vezinas, 2 Harts / 5 top-3 Hart finishes (as a goalie!!!), carried absolutely terrible Buffalo teams to playoff runs multiple times, completely dominant most nights he played. And his 2 cups with Detroit were at age 37 and 43 (5th in Vezina voting when he was 42 (!?!?)), that is just insane. And yes he was the backup for his second cup but he was 43 years old. For comparison Lundqvist retired when he was 37, MAF turned 39 this year. Absolutely crazy peak and career, to me it's completely mad that Hasek isn't consensus considered part of hockey's top 5 of all time.

2) Regarding McDavid (ie what this thread is about), for me, it really depends on how long McDavid can maintain his peak for, and how many cups he ends up winning. Yes, hockey is a team sport but the best players define their greatness by consistently elevating their teams to playoff runs and championships, that is just reality. So for me, let's see how many cups he wins (and long playoff runs), and how much longer he can keep dominating the league.

Very possible he ends up joining that tier of all-time greats (again, for me it's 5) but let's make that decision after we see how his career ends up

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Mario was the single-greatest package of complete talent I've ever seen. However, if we're doing an all-time ranking, could've/would've doesn't count. For me, Mario's shortened career drops him below Gretzky and Howe, whose teams benefited from their superstar talents for much longer.

Obviously, that explains why I value Gordie Howe so highly. You can't see durability and longevity on highlight reels, but those qualities are legit super powers in hockey. IMO, physical freaks like Howe (and Ovechkin) who bring elite production year after year after year are more valuable than a player who peaks higher over a much shorter period.

You also can't see leadership on a highlight reel and I admit it's a best-guess quality. But perceived leadership adds even more (if that's possible) to Gretzky's legacy, just as leadership will boost Crosby to somewhere between 5-10 all-time once his career has settled.

McDavid's raw talent on the ice appears second only to Lemieux's. But that's all we have so far – raw talent producing some amazing numbers. If he manages to add both longevity and intangible leadership (read team accomplishments) to his resume, there will be a strong argument to bump him into the Big-Four.

Crosby could have the intangibles/leadership of Jagr and he would still be ranked in the top 10 of all time. People that don’t have Crosby in their top 10 at this point of his career is simply an indicative of bias against him.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

He’s already #1. One of my spicier takes.

But look- the game has evolved so much so that if you wanna ask “who demonstrated the best hockey skills?” I’d say McDavid. Who dominated the league more? Gretzky. Then we get into the issue of simply not knowing how modern Gretzky would play, so I default to the proven ability and that’s McDavid.

An analogy I’ve used is how the Model T f***in changed the game, blew the competition out of the water, but obviously can’t compete with modern cars.

A better analogy would be Gretzky=the first iPhone. Changed the game, was leagues better than everything else and dictated the future of the industry, but better phones have been built since then.

Ok, my analogies are still like crab apples on a hot summer in December, but you get my point. Strong case closed.

 

[Lshap]

He’s already #1. One of my spicier takes.

But look- the game has evolved so much so that if you wanna ask “who demonstrated the best hockey skills?” I’d say McDavid. Who dominated the league more? Gretzky. Then we get into the issue of simply not knowing how modern Gretzky would play, so I default to the proven ability and that’s McDavid.

An analogy I’ve used is how the Model T f***in changed the game, blew the competition out of the water, but obviously can’t compete with modern cars.

A better analogy would be Gretzky=the first iPhone. Changed the game, was leagues better than everything else and dictated the future of the industry, but better phones have been built since then.

Ok, my analogies are still like crab apples on a hot summer in December, but you get my point. Strong case closed.

Today's hockey players aren't constructed with superior chips or more powerful engines than players from the 1970s. Unlike iPhones and cars, people are built the same today as they were 50 years ago. What separates yesterday's hockey players from today's is training, diet, and equipment.

 

[authentic]

Today's hockey players aren't constructed with superior chips or more powerful engines than players from the 1970s. Unlike iPhones and cars, people are built the same today as they were 50 years ago. What separates yesterday's hockey players from today's is training, diet, and equipment.

I think the equipment would be the superior chips. Same with training.

 

[NVious]

3 after JT Miller and Zach Hyman, only if he finishes his career strong though.

 

[Regal]

Today's hockey players aren't constructed with superior chips or more powerful engines than players from the 1970s. Unlike iPhones and cars, people are built the same today as they were 50 years ago. What separates yesterday's hockey players from today's is training, diet, and equipment.

I think the idea isn’t so much that all players are superior today, but that sometimes leaps in progress can happen that create a greater potential for dominance. Right place at the right time and all that. So the poster is suggesting that Gretzky’s dominance wouldn’t be as great under different circumstances. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s the case with him, but I don’t think that poster is making the traditional “today’s players are superhuman” argument.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Today's hockey players aren't constructed with superior chips or more powerful engines than players from the 1970s. Unlike iPhones and cars, people are built the same today as they were 50 years ago. What separates yesterday's hockey players from today's is training, diet, and equipment.

Right, plus players strategically building on the game itself, learning from Gretzky and others.

I’m not saying Gretzky couldn’t do it, I’m saying we have no idea how great exactly he’d be. Idk if it’d be beyond Conor, so until time travel happens he’s the best I’ve seen play the game.

 

[blundluntman]

Today's hockey players aren't constructed with superior chips or more powerful engines than players from the 1970s. Unlike iPhones and cars, people are built the same today as they were 50 years ago. What separates yesterday's hockey players from today's is training, diet, and equipment.

Yup, to go off the iPhone analogy, they’re the same generation phone, mcdavid just has a more recent OS update

 

[wetcoast]

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


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.

Sure but the flip side is how many players with the resume of McDavid aren't in the top 10 all time?

Also in the NBA it's basically a 5 man team and the league dynamics are so vastly different that the comparison is basically apples and oranges and somewhat misplaced.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Orr tilted the ice like no other player in NHL history and 657 regular season games and the games played in the playoffs trump the extra mere human level of okay that fills out alot of other top 25 resumes.

Mario is the weak link in the Big 4 and realistically Crosby and McDavid are probably going to make it a group of the Big 6 when they are done.

 

[wetcoast]

Imagine 6 teams today how concentrated the talent would be.

Team Canada vs Team USA every game was how it felt to them.

This argument holds no water as Team USA in the 06 era simply didn't exist as the league was basically 100,% Canadians with basically no player from either coast.

Sure the NHL had less teams but that era can't be boiled down to the imaginary excessive of putting all of today's players on 6 teams as it's not comparable.

Howe was a great player and his ranking in the BiG has its strengths and weaknesses as is the case for Orr and Mario.

Gretzky has the strongest case for #1 when people take a constructive look at it.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Right, but if Orr truly was double the per-game value of Lidstrom or Bourque (which is essentially what is being claimed here), then losing Orr + Esposito would massively outweigh the additions of Park and Ratelle.

Orr isn't "double" the value of Lidstrom or Bourque but this isn't how this works. The Penguins often did just fine when Sidney Crosby was out injured, that doesn't mean that Sidney Crosby isn't actually important. Removing/adding players is not a linear mathematical act, for example if you remove a 50-goal scorer from a team and a 10-goal scorer fills the roster spot, you're not going to lose 40 goals as a team.

 

[Regal]

It makes perfect sense, it's just not what the majority has concluded, and so not what you are used to. That bothers me none at all.

Peak is worth a helluva lot. Especially a concentrated peak, because it significantly increases the likelihood of team success. Orr excels here.

That said, playing more seasons also greatly increases the likelihood of team success. Hockey has a high randomness factor. Any team can lose a game at any time. Being around to provide additional chances at a championship has real value. Longevity is also therefore important. Orr has a gargantuan blemish on his resume in this regard.

I think this is a valid point. But my question is, under this framework, does he really have to be twice as good for him to be ahead? You’re using twice as good because Bourque gives roughly double the opportunities of having a 1D on the team, but I’m not sure Orr needs to be twice as good for his team to double their odds of winning in his years, which is what we’d need here in order to say Orr was ahead. Often times there’s a fine line between winning and losing and maybe those extra kicks at the can don’t add up to be greater when dealing with a player that good. Though I don’t have a way of accurate determining that value. Orr did win more cups than Bourque, so there might be something to that, though they both have different circumstances surrounding that.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

Orr isn't "double" the value of Lidstrom or Bourque but this isn't how this works. The Penguins often did just fine when Sidney Crosby was out injured, that doesn't mean that Sidney Crobsy isn't actually important. Removing/adding players is not a linear mathematical act, for example if you remove a 50-goal scorer from a team and a 10-goal scorer fills the roster spot, you're not going to lose 40 goals as a team.

I wish more people understood this.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Orr won two cups and 8 Norris trophies. A few Harts and playoff MVP as a D.

I don't care if he did that in 400 games and retired. Too much dominance to not consider him in the big 4.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think this is a valid point. But my question is, under this framework, does he really have to be twice as good for him to be ahead? You’re using twice as good because Bourque gives roughly double the opportunities of having a 1D on the team, but I’m not sure Orr needs to be twice as good for his team to double their odds of winning in his years, which is what we’d need here in order to say Orr was ahead. Often times there’s a fine line between winning and losing and maybe those extra kicks at the can don’t add up to be greater when dealing with a player that good. Though I don’t have a way of accurate determining that value. Orr did win more cups than Bourque, so there might be something to that, though they both have different circumstances surrounding that.

Yeah, agree, that's why I emphasized concentrated peak. A concentrated peak increases the likelihood of success much moreso than those similar contributions but spread out over time.

The farther the difference of a concentrated peak gets above the average player, the more it ought to count for. However, I think hockey fans and the hockey media generally overstate the ceiling for 1 player's value relative to team success (because it makes for a good entertaining narrative). There are numerous cases in hockey history showing the limits of one player's contributions.

Mario Lemieux, for 5 out of his first 6 seasons, couldn't even get his team into the playoffs back when 16 out of 21 teams made it in. That would be a piss poor team result even if they didn't have Mario Lemieux. So either Lemieux is massively overrated or the ceiling value of 1 player is massively overrated, or some combination thereof.