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

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Right, but the only way to come to the (correct IMO) conclusion you have above is to properly understand the relative (limited) size of one player's contribution vs the rest of the team.

 

[dr robbie]

I think he's going to end up in that 5-10 bunch with the usual suspects and debated for years where he belongs depending on your focus.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

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).

Olympics are 6 game exhibitions

 

[wetcoast]

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.

I'll add that there was also a built in assumption that Bourque and Lidstrom were constantly near the level of Orr's peak and that's simply not the case and I'm a huge Lidstrom guy and recognize that as great as Bourque was he sometimes gets slightly over rated around these parts.

So while Orr might have roughly half the seasons of the 2 more.modern guys they also didn't tilt the ice nearly as much over the entirety of their careers like Orr did in his prime.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

#5 is most likely, but I’d imagine there’ll be legitimate arguments that will place him higher. Especially if he can continue a similar level of play. I think we may have already seen his absolute peak in terms of scoring, but he still probably has another Art Ross or two or three in him, and there’s no reason to believe he won’t have more postseason success along the way.

I already have him in the 5 spot, but I’m bigger on peak than longevity. I’ve seen enough these past few years to say he’s the best player post-Mario. He doesn’t yet have the career duration of a Crosby - who has a strong case for #5 right now - but Crosby wasn’t this good. And Crosby was and still is great. But McDavid’s just a different animal.

More healthy animal•

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Mcavid has lost art rosses and harts in his prime to the likes of drai matthews kucherov. Hall. Something not happenimg to lemieux. The second he wins a cup WITH a smythe he will be above crosby. But not yet

 

[Johnny Tomala]

#5.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Top 25.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

@seventieslord posted a study earlier in the year. In one of the tables, he looked at which players had the biggest impact on improving their team's goal differential (at even strength), over their best eight years.

The conclusion was, prime versus prime, Orr was a bigger driver of his team's goal differential than any of the following- Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr, Bourque, Lidstrom and Hull. Only Howe was close (and, admittedly, this is based on incomplete and extrapolated data).

To your point - no, the impact wasn't double. And I can understand someone preferring 1,600 games of Bourque (at a lower level), to 650 games of Orr. But that seems to be fairly definitive evidence that, during the primes of some of the greatest F/D ever, nobody in history (except maybe Howe) matched Orr's two-way impact.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

No one is catching Gretzky and Orr imo. Bobby Orr transformed the whole way that D is played. He is probably the player who single handedly impacted the game more than any other. If not for injuries I’d have him and Gretzky as at the same level.
And at this point McDavid needs a Cup to have a chance to catch Lemieux. No excuses now as his team is in the SCF and this is where legends are made.

 

[Midnight Judges]

@seventieslord posted a study earlier in the year. In one of the tables, he looked at which players had the biggest impact on improving their team's goal differential (at even strength), over their best eight years.

The conclusion was, prime versus prime, Orr was a bigger driver of his team's goal differential than any of the following- Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr, Bourque, Lidstrom and Hull. Only Howe was close (and, admittedly, this is based on incomplete and extrapolated data).

To your point - no, the impact wasn't double. And I can understand someone preferring 1,600 games of Bourque (at a lower level), to 650 games of Orr. But that seems to be fairly definitive evidence that, during the primes of some of the greatest F/D ever, nobody in history (except maybe Howe) matched Orr's two-way impact.

Limiting it to 8 years is an arbitrary restriction that conveniently eliminates the biggest blemish on Orr's resume.

 

[seventieslord]

Limiting it to 8 years is an arbitrary restriction that conveniently eliminates the biggest blemish on Orr's resume.

It's arguably the opposite. Since we are talking about rate stats and not compiled totals here, if I was to use best 10 seasons, Orr's results would barely change (as his ES play driving numbers in his 66-67 plus 75-76 are similar to the selected 8 years). if I chose 12 years, it would be extended to 77-78 and there's barely a sample size in those seasons. If I chose 14 seasons, his results would be identical to his 12 season results. While on the other hand, if I extended any other player's sample beyond their best 8, with the exception of Howe, Crosby and Bourque, their off-peak seasons outside those ranges would start to produce a very noticeable downward trend. It's basically their best and most favourable 8 year slice of seasons, against more or less the only complete 8 seasons I can even use for Orr.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's arguably the opposite. Since we are talking about rate stats and not compiled totals here, if I was to use best 10 seasons, Orr's results would barely change (as his ES play driving numbers in his 66-67 plus 75-76 are similar to the selected 8 years). if I chose 12 years, it would be extended to 77-78 and there's barely a sample size in those seasons. If I chose 14 seasons, his results would be identical to his 12 season results. While on the other hand, if I extended any other player's sample beyond their best 8, with the exception of Howe, Crosby and Bourque, their off-peak seasons outside those ranges would start to produce a very noticeable downward trend. It's basically their best and most favourable 8 year slice of seasons, against more or less the only complete 8 seasons I can even use for Orr.

Okay then.

Making it rate-based conveniently eliminates the biggest blemish on Orr’s resume. It’s not a reasonable metric for career value.

 

[Regal]

Okay then.

Making it rate-based conveniently eliminates the biggest blemish on Orr’s resume. It’s not a reasonable metric for career value.

It depends on what the stats are being used for. HO was using it when addressing your point about Orr needing to be twice as good to beat out twice a career length. In that sense, we would need a rate stat.

 

[eviohh26]

Until he wins he isn't above Crosby.

 

[rogking65]

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.

the only true way to evaluate is separation from peers . If you say mcdavid is number 1 then Kucherov ,Drai and mackinnon would be in top 5 all time as well

 

[hamzarocks]

Was lemieux ever once out produced by anyone in his career besides Gretzky?

Mcdavid will be top 5, but McDavid healthy lost scoring titles to Kucherov and even his own teammate.

He's ridiculous, the best since Mario - but just a tad below. If he stays healthy his career could surpass Mario which could swing in his favor.

Kucherov has another ross season like this and he passes Crosby and OV

This generation is another level than previous ones. Talent is way too high

Mcdavid is clear cut #1 for the era stoll

Until he wins he isn't above Crosby.

He passed him already

Crosby is Toews to Mcdavid.

Mcavid has lost art rosses and harts in his prime to the likes of drai matthews kucherov. Hall. Something not happenimg to lemieux. The second he wins a cup WITH a smythe he will be above crosby. But not yet

Was Toews ahead of Crosby all time in summer of 2015?

 

[hamzarocks]

Okay then.

Making it rate-based conveniently eliminates the biggest blemish on Orr’s resume. It’s not a reasonable metric for career value.

I Hope your not arguing OV (crosby or anyone) from the 05 era for a top 5 spot all time

That eras stars dont stack to this era

Matthews, Mack, kuch, Mcd are well ahead of Crosby, OV, Malkin, Kane

Mcdavid passed OV in 2021

 

[Midnight Judges]

Kucherov has another ross season like this and he passes Crosby and OV

This generation is another level than previous ones. Talent is way too high

Amazing coincidence how talent always increases when league wide scoring gets easier.

 

[hamzarocks]

Amazing coincidence how talent always increases when league wide scoring gets easier.

Maybe Ov and the others shouldnt have sucked at producing and ushered in higher offense

85 pt ross, 1 100 pt player, OV going for rockes & being below ppg lol

After 2010 OV fell off

After 2014 Crosby fell off

Mcdavid wont ever fall off. Best skater + Passer + IQ ever

 

[Midnight Judges]

Maybe Ov and the others shouldnt have sucked at producing and ushered in higher offense

85 pt ross, 1 100 pt player, OV going for rockes & being below ppg lol

After 2010 OV fell off

After 2014 Crosby fell off

Mcdavid wont ever fall off. Best skater + Passer + IQ ever

There are 31-32 teams, hundreds of players.

A couple guys don’t move the needle on the scoring environment.

 

[seventieslord]

Okay then.

Making it rate-based conveniently eliminates the biggest blemish on Orr’s resume. It’s not a reasonable metric for career value.

It's a reasonable metric for how good a player is.

 

[bobholly39]

He passed him already

Crosby is Toews to Mcdavid.


Was Toews ahead of Crosby all time in summer of 2015?

What an absolutely brutal take lol.

Crosby and McDavid are very close ability/talent-wise.
Crosby is also still ahead of all-time due to longer/fuller career imo, even though McDavid seems well on his way to pass him.

If you want to argue McDavid will have the better career than Crosby did? Sure, that's easy. With all his injuries, Crosby is definitely passable.

If you want to argue that even ignoring injuries - McDavid is better than Crosby ever was? Again - that's possible, McDavid is pretty great. But they're still close. Toews is miles behind either of them.

Like I said - brutal take.

 

[SyZyGY]

Been said multiple of time, he's the greatest player ever skill wise but he won't have the greatest career because of how the game has evolved

 

[Hockeyholic]

Been said multiple of time, he's the greatest player ever skill wise but he won't have the greatest career because of how the game has evolved

Perfectly stated