Does a cup affect McDavid’s legacy?

[bambamcam4ever]

Was it a banned substance?

I'm looking up FDA guidelines at the time and MLB rules.

You didn't answer the question. Please do

 

[Vegas07]

Put aside the fact he is a cheat, he doesn't sniff the top 5.

MLB didn’t even pretend to care about steroid use until 2003 when they finally started testing. It’s not like Bonds had some kind of secret advantage that other stars weren’t benefitting from.

 

[Vegas07]

Both great players, neither top 5 in their respective sports....and when their names are mentioned in conversation, the fact they never won the big game inevitably comes up.

Many NFL fans consider Tom Brady the GOAT. Not because he was the most talented or had the better stats (because he didn't), but because of his rings.

Brady put up some incredible stats in his career and he also has ever other qb crushed when it comes to longevity. I would say with him it’s combination of amazing feats that puts him at the top.

One interesting thing is he lost with the team that was the best team he ever played on. The Patriots were the only team to go 16-0 in the regular season, continued to look impressive in the playoffs and then played a horrible game in the Super Bowl. So even the GOAT qb on the GOAT team can lose a championship.

 

[Vegas07]

Bonds was a juicer. I completely dismiss him along with the other juicers of his day

Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Rose, Cobb, Musial, Aaron, for starters.

A couple of those guys weren’t even allowed to play against Black players.

 

[Vegas07]

LMAO, 4 of his MVPs came in the Hyper-Juiced period of age 36-39. Get out of here. And keep in mind the MVPs in MLB are split so....yeah.

And Top 5 of what exactly? DH? Non-Pitchers or INCLUDING Pitchers?

There's plenty of cleaner names to choose from but just for starters, Ruth, Aaron, Clemente, Henderson, Rose, Williams, Cobb where I can keep adding guys like Reggie Jackson or Derek Jeter. Point being Bonds is absolutely not a slam dunk Top 5. I've looked at his pre roid days before and it would be a good contest but I wouldn't put him Top 5 based solely of those years.

Bonds doing it in his late 30’s against guys a decade younger makes it more amazing, not less amazing.

 

[DamonDRW]

In spite of having 1800 pts Marcel Dionne is never considered as a top-10 player.

The answer is obvious.

 

[Vegas07]

Crosby also isn't as good, he's in his late 30s. Crosby and Malkin won a cup with a worse team around them than McDavid and Draisaitl have had the last 3 years.

Not sure I agree with that, Cosby is still a terrific player and he is doing it with less talent around him which makes it harder.

The Edmonton defense and goaltending has been garbage. Seems like every time they look better people overreact, say they are finally decent and then in the playoffs they get exposed. We’ll see what happens this year though.

 

[#37]

It absolutely will.

If McDavid doesn't win a cup, 10 years on from now the fans of Bedard (or whichever 'The Next One' that comes along) will use it against McDavid in every single argument. The History of Hockey forum will have 'If McDavid had won a cup, where would he rank all time?' topics galore. That will be his legacy, if he doesn't win a cup.

 

[Vegas07]

Name a player generally considered top 5 all time in their sport that hasnt won at least 1 championship.

I’d say Bonds and Ted Williams. I wonder if Lebron would be on the list if he never formed a super team in Miami. He admitted one reason he did that is he feared the possibility of never winning a championship.

Before the next generation of qbs came on the scene there was a debate over whether Montana, Elway, Marino and to a lesser extent Unitas was the GOAT.

Gretzky was still extremely great when he played in LA, played with some talented players there and his team consistently got their asses kicked in the playoffs and he never won there. Obviously he didn’t forget how to win in the playoffs. But it shows that even the greatest can fail to win. Does a prime Gretzky win a cup in LA in those years? Seems really doubtful.

 

[Bank Shot]

Yes absolutely. Look at Ovechkin’s reputation before his Cup. If McDavid never wins a championship it will be anchored to his legacy forever. Literally forever.

At least it makes it easy to recognize who's opionion is dumber than a sack of hammers.

 

[WingsFan95]

In spite of having 1800 pts Marcel Dionne is never considered as a top-10 player.

The answer is obvious.

THIS.

I even had to think for a second if he could possibly be in the Top 10 forwards and........

Lemieux, Gretzky, Howe, both Hulls, Esposito, Jagr, Yzerman, Ovechkin, Crosby and haven't yet gotten to any Habs players. Yuppers.

Though to be fair Dionne only had a single Art Ross, 2 Pearsons no Harts. So I think he's not exactly a prime example of what McDavid has already accomplished.

Bourque would have undoubtedly been the greatest to never win one and damn near came close with the Avs down 2-3 to Jersey in that Final. And in THAT case, what do we say? Still a Top 5 defenseman no?

 

[Coffey]

In spite of having 1800 pts Marcel Dionne is never considered as a top-10 player.

The answer is obvious.

Points =\= Individual hardware
Dionne never dominated in the regular season or playoffs in such a way that McDavid has.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

Do people really think Dionne is being held back from being a Top 10 player all time because he doesn't have a Cup to go with his points? I certainly don't.

Ron Francis is 5th all-time in points, has two Cups, but no one will ever suggest he is a Top 10 player because of it. (Speaking of Francis, he must have had the quietest most successful career in NHL history.)

 

[Snuggs]

I think it'd speak volumes on what it takes and what it means to win, when if maybe the most talented person to ever lace skates never wins a Stanley cup.

I think he wins a cup within the next three years, but that's just me.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

In spite of having 1800 pts Marcel Dionne is never considered as a top-10 player.

The answer is obvious.

The two are not comparable players at all

 

[MuckOG]

Championships are obviously a part of a player's legacy. Winning them enhances it. Not winning doesn't take away from their regular season stats/awards, but will be part of the conversation moving forward as it has for every great player in every sport that never won the big game. That becomes part of their legacy.

 

[Snuggs]

Do people really think Dionne is being held back from being a Top 10 player all time because he doesn't have a Cup to go with his points? I certainly don't.

Ron Francis is 5th all-time in points, has two Cups, but no one will ever suggest he is a Top 10 player because of it. (Speaking of Francis, he must have had the quietest most successful career in NHL history.)

Well yeah you gotta put context to situations too and not just stats.

He's got over 1700 games played(extremely impressive) and when you look at guys with that same amount of games played ( Jagr/Howe/Messier) he doesn't stack up well with them but looks good next to a guy like Joe Thornton with around the same games played and points even, but never won.

Marcell Dionne just cause you brought him up, had similiar point totals to Francis, sure, but also played almost 400 less games, making his total production per season a little more impressive than Francis who, sure has more points, but also played way longer, like 5 or 6 seasons longer.

Ron Francis is easily one of the best players never talked about. For context though, again, he played about 250 more games than Steve Yzerman and Wayne Gretzky.

Crazy player to look at is Mario Lemuiex who played 915 games... 1700 plus points... Everyone in the 1700+ club has 400 or more games played than him... Only 4 other players period who have over 1000 points that played less than 1000 games.

 

[Craig Button]

No.

but he will win the cup when he signs with Boston which will solidify his legacy.

He is not winning a Cup in Edmonton or anywhere else in Canada.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

Well yeah you gotta put context to situations too and not just stats.

He's got over 1700 games played(extremely impressive) and when you look at guys with that same amount of games played ( Jagr/Howe/Messier) he doesn't stack up well with them but looks good next to a guy like Joe Thornton with around the same games played and points even, but never won.

Marcell Dionne just cause you brought him up, had similiar point totals to Francis, sure, but also played almost 400 less games, making his total production per season a little more impressive than Francis who, sure has more points, but also played way longer, like 5 or 6 seasons longer.

Ron Francis is easily one of the best players never talked about. For context though, again, he played about 250 more games than Steve Yzerman and Wayne Gretzky.

Crazy player to look at is Mario Lemuiex who played 915 games... 1700 plus points... Everyone in the 1700+ club has 400 or more games played than him... Only 4 other players period who have over 1000 points that played less than 1000 games.

I don't disagree with any of this.

I've always thought that having a Cup to your name may enhance a player's legacy, but it should definitely not define it. The points that Dionne and Francis posted in their careers -- in their varying degree of games -- mean little whether they have a Cup to their name or not. Neither is nor should be considered a Top 10 player, and that's fine.

In a day and age where there are way more teams now, and a lot of the success of a team has to due with management decisions than a player himself (especially in a cap era), I just can't hold it against a player if they don't win a championship. That goes across all sports. Barry Bonds is still a top 3 baseball player all time for me. I'd have no player calling McDavid a top 5 to 8 player all time either in a decades time if he doesn't lift a Cup over his head (although I do think he eventually will, which would put this argument to bed).

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Yeah. He would be the best player not to win one.

 

[sufferer]

Eichel >

 

[Hockey Outsider]

In spite of having 1800 pts Marcel Dionne is never considered as a top-10 player.

The answer is obvious.

Just because this point keeps coming up:

• Hart trophy wins: McDavid 3, Dionne zero (1 if we remove Gretzky)
• Hart trophy finalist: McDavid 5, Dionne 3 (no change if we remove Gretzky)
• Pearson/Lindsay trophy: McDavid 4, Dionne 2 (no change if we remove Gretzky)
• Art Ross trophy: McDavid 5, Dionne 1 (2 if we remove Gretzky)
• Top three in scoring: McDavid 7 (all top-2), Dionne 5 (6 if we remove Gretzky)
• First-team all-star: McDavid 5, Dionne 2 (3 if we remove Gretzky)

McDavid, in the last two years alone, scored more points in the playoffs than Dionne did in his entire career - in fewer games, and in a lower scoring era.

McDavid has already passed Dionne. I think Dionne is comparable to Joe Sakic (who's ranked around 30th all-time), in terms of regular season offense. Except Dionne was a dismal playoff performer (Sakic was arguably the top playoff performer of his era), and Dionne never became the strong two-way player that Sakic turned into (which pushes Dionne down to something like 60th all-time). McDavid has already passed Sakic, and is far ahead of Dionne.

 

[TheBeard]

In spite of having 1800 pts Marcel Dionne is never considered as a top-10 player.

The answer is obvious.

He played in a small market at the time and was constantly overshadowed by better players. In other words he was never the best player in the league or close to it, so why all of a sudden should he be seen as top ten ALL time?

 

[crowfish]

Btw, of course it will affect his legacy to a degree. If he wins a Cup his legacy is better, but I completely disagree that he needs to win a Cup to be considered one of the best players of all-time.

Points/game and individual awards are what measure true greatness. If you disagree with that, then ask yourself the following

In which scenario would a considerable amount of people still consider Wayne Gretzky the GOAT:

A) You took away 2000 of his career points
B) You took away all 4 of his Cups

Exactly zero people would have him as the GOAT if he had 800 career points, and many people (like myself) would still rank him #1 if he had the points but no cups.

 

[MuckOG]

Btw, of course it will affect his legacy to a degree. If he wins a Cup his legacy is better, but I completely disagree that he needs to win a Cup to be considered one of the best players of all-time.

Points/game and individual awards are what measure true greatness. If you disagree with that, then ask yourself the following

In which scenario would a considerable amount of people still consider Wayne Gretzky the GOAT:

A) You took away 2000 of his career points
B) You took away all 4 of his Cups

Exactly zero people would have him as the GOAT if he had 800 career points, and many people (like myself) would still rank him #1 if he had the points but no cups.

It's not an either/or. Gretzky is considered the GOAT because of both his regular season stats in combination with his post season success. It's all part of the package that comprises his legacy.

I think people are getting lost in the semantics here. We are talking about "legacy". If winning championships enhance a players legacy. then it must also be true that not winning championships will affect a players legacy in a negative manner. It would be talked about, and because its talked about, it impacts legacy.