If the Top 100 players All-time list is redone today, where does McDavid's career place him?

[Thenameless]

I just had a look at the most recent Top 100 list. There are some really good players up into the mid to late 20's spots.

I saw that Sakic was at 32, and Yzerman was at 40.

I've always been more of a peak guy, rating players like Orr, Lafleur, Lemieux, and Lindros higher than most.

So, in the spirit of consistency, I'd have no problem putting McDavid somewhere in the high 20's to somewhere ahead of Sakic.

He's shown me more than enough in his first six years, that if I had a choice in next year's draft between Sakic, Yzerman, and McDavid (all being 18 years old), I'd pick McDavid. I guess for me, he's not really any better (or worse for that matter) if he has a few more prime years like this last one, and then tapers off with a natural career progression. Of course a longer career could move him higher (with things like playoff success) or lower (if he had a sudden drop-off) so I'm going strictly with what I've seen up to this point. As others have said, the start of his career pretty easily puts him in the Top 10 or maybe even Top 5 for that category, so I already feel I'm being conservative enough by putting him at somewhere near 30, because of his short career.

Sometimes, you just have to trust what you see first hand.

 

[daver]

The main criticism I have of Crosby's playoff resume is his scoring drops off substantially after the 1st round.

This wouldn't characterize any of his four Cup runs; the primary metric when assessing playoff resumes.

In 2008, he was great all the way through and notably, along with Hossa, was the only forward that contributed anything significant in the SCF against the best team in the post 2005 lockout era.

In 2009, he was having arguably the best playoffs through 3 rounds since the '90s with his iconic 2nd round performance vs. the Caps.

In 2016, he was very good in all rounds except #2. He won the Conn Smythe by being the best player in Rounds 3 and 4 (or at the very least, outplayed Kessel).

In 2017, he was having an excellent playoff thru Game 2 of Round 2 when he got concussed. He rebounded and solidified his 2nd Conn Smythe by his performance in the SCF. It is worth noting, presuming that teams play weaker competition in the first round, that the Pens played the #4 and #1 seeds (#2 and #1 in GA) in Rounds 1 and 2.

Further to this, if we critique Crosby for scoring less after Round 1, how much more can we critique McDavid for his "play-in" against the #23 seed after a 3 month layoff that makes his numbers somewhat palatable on the surface? Remove that and he has a PPG of 0.76.

 

[blogofmike]

This wouldn't characterize any of his four Cup runs; the primary metric when assessing playoff resumes.

In 2008, he was great all the way through and notably, along with Hossa, was the only forward that contributed anything significant in the SCF against the best team in the post 2005 lockout era.

In 2009, he was having arguably the best playoffs through 3 rounds since the '90s with his iconic 2nd round performance vs. the Caps.

In 2016, he was very good in all rounds except #2. He won the Conn Smythe by being the best player in Rounds 3 and 4 (or at the very least, outplayed Kessel).

In 2017, he was having an excellent playoff thru Game 2 of Round 2 when he got concussed. He rebounded and solidified his 2nd Conn Smythe by his performance in the SCF. It is worth noting, presuming that teams play weaker competition in the first round, that the Pens played the #4 and #1 seeds (#2 and #1 in GA) in Rounds 1 and 2.

Further to this, if we critique Crosby for scoring less after Round 1, how much more can we critique McDavid for his "play-in" against the #23 seed after a 3 month layoff that makes his numbers somewhat palatable on the surface? Remove that and he has a PPG of 0.76.

Or it characterizes them well...

2008
1st: 2.00 PPG
Rest: 1.19

2009
1.25
1.28

2016
1.60
0.58

2017
1.40
1.05

Funnily enough the only time it's untrue is the year when he first had a bad later round series in the 2009 Finals. Crosby's played a lot. He's had highs and lows that McDavid hasn't in his smaller sample.

It's reasonable to try to assess McDavid with and without the play-in vs seed #23.

But it's unabashed homerism if you don't knock Crosby for scoring 0.75 PPG against seed #24, which raises his playoff PPG for the last three years to still-not-palatable 0.43 PPG instead of 0.3 PPG. If McDavid's 0.76 PPG is mediocre, why don't you try ranking Crosby's playoffs series by series and see how many times he fails to cross 0.76?

 

[blogofmike]

In 2016, he was very good in all rounds except #2. He won the Conn Smythe by being the best player in Rounds 3 and 4 (or at the very least, outplayed Kessel).

It is impressive that Crosby outplayed Kessel by scoring fewer points and having a worse plus/minus.

Here's Crosby by series:

Chrono	Year	Tm Rank	Opp Rank	Opp GA Rank	Opponent	GP	PTS	+/-	PPG
1	2007	8	8	10	Sens	5	5	Even	1.00
2	2008	4	12	24	Sens	4	8	2	2.00
3	2008	4	8	4	Rangers	5	6	Even	1.20
4	2008	4	10	18	Flyers	5	7	4	1.40
5	2008	4	1	1	Wings	6	6	1	1.00
6	2009	8	8	16	Flyers	6	8	2	1.33
7	2009	8	4	19	Caps	7	13	4	1.86
8	2009	8	11	8	Canes	4	7	6	1.75
9	2009	8	3	19	Wings	7	3	-3	0.43
10	2010	8	13	18	Sens	6	14	7	2.33
11	2010	8	18	11	Habs	7	5	-1	0.71
12	2012	4	6	20	Flyers	6	8	-3	1.33
13	2013	2	15	21	Isles	5	9	-1	1.80
14	2013	2	12	2	Sens	5	6	Even	1.20
15	2013	2	5	3	Bruins	4	0	-2	0.00
16	2014	6	14	13	Jackets	6	6	-2	1.00
17	2014	6	12	4	Rangers	7	3	-2	0.43
18	2015	15	1	3	Rangers	5	4	1	0.80
19	2016	4	9	15	Rangers	5	8	2	1.60
20	2016	4	1	2	Caps	6	2	-3	0.33
21	2016	4	12	5	Lightning	7	5	-1	0.71
22	2016	4	11	10	Sharks	6	4	Even	0.67
23	2017	2	4	2	Jackets	5	7	-2	1.40
24	2017	2	1	1	Caps	6	7	4	1.17
25	2017	2	6	10	Sens	7	6	-3	0.86
26	2017	2	15	15	Preds	6	7	5	1.17
27	2018	10	12	14	Flyers	6	13	7	2.17
28	2018	10	6	16	Caps	6	8	Even	1.33
29	2019	7	5	1	Isles	4	1	-4	0.25
30	2020	7	24	23	Habs	4	3	Even	0.75
31	2021	5	12	2	Isles	6	2	-2	0.33

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

He's been a plus player in only 6 of his last 23 playoff series. His team won 13 of those 23.

Even counting the good run at the start of his career, he's been a minus player more often than he's been a plus player.

There's a clear pattern of curb stomping the Flyers or Sens and running up high numbers that offset performances against everyone else where he's a coin flip. Against teams ranked 1-12 in GA, he's more likely to score under 0.75 PPG than he is to score over 1.00 PPG. (7 series at or above 1.00 (including 2 over 1.25), 2 series between 0.8 and 0.9, 8 series under 0.75).

Against a 13-24 ranked defensive team he's over 1.25 PPG in 10 of 14 playoff series, over 1.00 in another 2 and 0.75 or under in two others. In and of itself, that isn't bad, but it looks like he's the beneficiary of stat padding when this is coupled with so many low-end performances against better defenses.

Here's McDavid

Chrono	Year	Tm Rank	Opp Rank	Opp GA Rank	Opponent	GP	PTS	+/-	PPG
1	2017	7	10	5	Sharks	6	4	Even	0.67
2	2017	7	6	3	Ducks	7	5	1	0.71
3	2020	12	23	16	Hawks	4	9	1	2.25
4	2021	11	14	10	Jets	4	4	-2	1.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

He lit up a bad defense, and was middling against Top 10 defensive teams. Is that really that different from Crosby?

Again, he has a small sample size, and McDavid hasn't had the highs and hasn't had the considerable lows we've seen from Crosby.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Stop exaggerating for effect.

It was mostly about Zetterberg at forward and Lidstrom (with Rafalski) on D, but Lidstrom wasn't exactly 100% either, having surgery a few days before the series started. I thought Crosby was more dangerous in '09 but still not very impressive. In '08 he looked overwhelmed, which is not unusual for a young players first Finals appearance. In '09 I felt it was more proof that he could be shut down if the elite defensive players were matched against him. He didn't really face any of those in the first 3 rounds and no elite goalies either.

Yes, when he has faced the better defensive teams (in upper half of league or conference in GA/GP among playoff teams), he has struggled. He's alternated between "you can't stop him, you can only contain him" types of good/solid performances and poor performances.

Crosby's been very up and down in the playoffs, and I believe it was CzechYourMath who noted elsewhere that starting from the 2009 Finals has 131 points in 132 games, with notably good performances against softer opponents and notably weak performances against stronger opponents.

Wouldn't you expect much better?

I don't know, why would you?

It's actually 128 points in 125 playoff games after the 2009 finals for Crosby.

There are only 47 players in the history of the NHL who have scored above 127 points in their whole NHL playoff career.
Out of those - only 14 of them have a higher career playoff ppg (career, ie, including their peaks) than Crosby does in that stretch of 125 games since 2009.

I think it's pretty impressive that if you cherry pick years outside of Crosby's peak playoff years and look at his playoff production and ppg, that it matches up to the very best production of the very best players of all-time.

Don't you? How much better do you expect?

The difference between these two stats is whether you start with or after the 2009 SCF.

Crosby was very good in the playoffs thru 2009 ECF and has been good overall in them during his career.
The issues I have with his playoff record are:

1. Poor performance against better defensive teams.
2. Career plus-minus of +15, which is decent, but not anywhere close to the top group (Orr, Lafleur, Gretzky, Jagr, Forsberg, etc.) and actually one of the weaker numbers among the superstars.
3. Won two Smythes for 46 points in 48 games and +2.

It's not that he hasn't been good in the playoffs, but he hasn't been nearly as good as many people try to portray. He's one of the very best at beating up on weaker defensive teams in the playoffs, which along with a couple of trophies from the drooling press, is supposed to convince everyone that he's one of the very best playoff performers. There's many forwards I would take over him in the playoffs.

Not really though.

Crosby's postseason PPG is 1.09 vs a regular season PPG of 1.28.
McDavid's postseason PPG is 1.05, vs a regular season PPG of 1.41. A larger drop, but McDavid hasn't had his later career years to bring down his PPG yet.

Crosby's career playoff numbers are inflated by his 3 runs from 08-10 where he scored 77 points in 57 games.

Outside of those 3 years, he has 117 points in 114 games. Still damn good, but no better than McDavid's rates.

Crosby has also laid his fair share of eggs in series over his career:

2009 Finals: 3 points, -3
2010 MTL: 5 points, -1
2013 BOS: 0 points, -1
2014 NYR: 3 points, -2 including 0 points in games 5-7 blowing a 3-1 lead
2016 WAS: 2 points, -3
2016 Finals: 4 points, -1
2019 NYI: 1 point, -4
2021 NYI: 2 points, -2

My point isnt to knock down Crosby, just to show that any star looks bad if you use a fine enough comb

It's not that he's not been good overall, but we're told he's been great and (at least in the regular season) the epitome of consistency. People cite his two Smythes and the C on his uniform and try to convince one that he's practically willed his team to victory in the playoffs. Yet against the better defensive teams his performance has been unusually poor, he's disappeared numerous times as you showed, and during the Cup runs Malkin was probably the better player when it really mattered most (against the tougher teams).

 

[edog37]

If you want to get technical about it 2009 and 2017 Malkin led them to the title and in 2016 it was Kessel.

Not a difficult argument to make that Crosby was not the best player on any of the 3 Cup wins

incorrect but you can believe that if you wish.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

incorrect but you can believe that if you wish.

2009 was all Malkin with 36 points.

Crosby had only 3 points in the Finals including 0 in games 5-7

2016 was all Kessel with a team leading 22 points

Crosby and Kessel have 4 each in the Finals but Kessel is why they got past Washington with 5 points to Crosby's 2

2017 Malkin leads the league again with 28 points.

Crosby finally shows up in a Final with 7 points to Kessel and Malkin's 4. This is the only year you have an argument for.

Crosby has never led his team in playoff scoring in a Cup winning year

 

[wetcoast]

Or if you remove some of the most important element, 4 stanley cup finals, 3 cup, 7 all time in playoff points (in the top 15, the only players without 80s, early 90s point is him and Beliveau I think).

I am not sure what the argument here, does people are arguing Crosby playoff should drag him down in all time ranking and if it does not, McDavid should not pay for is lack of playoff success has well ?

Has for any star can look bad with a fine comb, that would be really hard to do with Bourque, Lidstrom Beliveau or Gretzky I think, but if your point is all time can look bad in a small cherry picked window that would be true I think.

For Beliveau it's really easy his 4 year playoff stretch from 61-64 isn't particularly very good even less so considering the teams he was on.

Even if you throw in 59-60, there is a very good case to be made that there were 3 or 4 other players on the Habs who were better.

I think it is fair to say though that teams in the post cap era can "shut down" a star player easier giving the changes in goaltending equipment, teams blocking shots and lanes and coaching being a larger part of the game than in the past with coaches on the bench getting live instructions and feed back from video coaches and a whole team rather than a guy in a suit and smoking a cigar.

McDavid doesn't have a horrible playoff resume when you really look at it, but the narrative is what is driving the story with him in the playoffs.

 

[blogofmike]

For Beliveau it's really easy his 4 year playoff stretch from 61-64 isn't particularly very good even less so considering the teams he was on.

Even if you throw in 59-60, there is a very good case to be made that there were 3 or 4 other players on the Habs who were better.

I think it is fair to say though that teams in the post cap era can "shut down" a star player easier giving the changes in goaltending equipment, teams blocking shots and lanes and coaching being a larger part of the game than in the past with coaches on the bench getting live instructions and feed back from video coaches and a whole team rather than a guy in a suit and smoking a cigar.

McDavid doesn't have a horrible playoff resume when you really look at it, but the narrative is what is driving the story with him in the playoffs.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that a good year moves your stock up, and bad years move you down, though various issues from team quality to injuries should be accounted for too.

You picked Beliveau's bad stretch as 61-64. Those are his worst playoff seasons. He had 13 points in 22 games and was a -4. In his worst seasons.

This is not dissimilar from the last three rounds of a Conn Smythe run on a Cup winning team where Crosby had 11 points in 19 games and was a -4.

If anyone wants to hold up Crosby's 2016 Smythe as a good playoff run, then Beliveau being terrible is equal to Crosby being good.

As for it being easier to shut down someone today, that argument doesn't hold water, because other stars did score against the same teams that shut down Crosby.

Crosby scored 0 points in 4 games against Boston, then Kane and Toews each had 5 points in 6 games. This year Crosby had 2 points in 6 games against the Isles, who Kucherov, Marchand, and Pastrnak all scored 9 points against in the next 2 rounds.

Unless there's an era shift after every time Crosby gets shut down, your argument is completely invalid. It's questionable that its the star player who is easier to shut down today. It's been shown many times that Crosby has been easier to shut down though.

 

[Albatros]

McDavid doesn't have a horrible playoff resume when you really look at it, but the narrative is what is driving the story with him in the playoffs.

2016: Missed playoffs
2017: 1st Round won SJS (11th) in six (2+2=4), 2nd Round lost to ANA (6th) in seven (3+2=5)
2018: Missed playoffs
2019: Missed playoffs
2020: Qualifying Round lost to CHI (23rd) in four (5+4=9)
2021: 1st Round lost to WPG (14th) in four (1+3=4)

I would say 2017 is the only run thus far that doesn't look bad, and even then 9 points in 13 games is below expectations.

 

[wetcoast]

It shouldn't be controversial to say that a good year moves your stock up, and bad years move you down, though various issues from team quality to injuries should be accounted for too.

You picked Beliveau's bad stretch as 61-64. Those are his worst playoff seasons. He had 13 points in 22 games and was a -4. In his worst seasons.

This is not dissimilar from the last three rounds of a Conn Smythe run on a Cup winning team where Crosby had 11 points in 19 games and was a -4.

If anyone wants to hold up Crosby's 2016 Smythe as a good playoff run, then Beliveau being terrible is equal to Crosby being good.

As for it being easier to shut down someone today, that argument doesn't hold water, because other stars did score against the same teams that shut down Crosby.

Crosby scored 0 points in 4 games against Boston, then Kane and Toews each had 5 points in 6 games. This year Crosby had 2 points in 6 games against the Isles, who Kucherov, Marchand, and Pastrnak all scored 9 points against in the next 2 rounds.

Unless there's an era shift after every time Crosby gets shut down, your argument is completely invalid. It's questionable that its the star player who is easier to shut down today. It's been shown many times that Crosby has been easier to shut down though.

The thing is that we have both the eye test and possession stats (he was 2nd on his team in both corsi % and relative corsi in the playoffs) to say that instead of Crosby sucking, he (and his line mates) had some bad luck.

Simply looking at counting stats form the 06 era to today isn't the best and only way to judge these things either Jean had multiple HHOFers on those teams and Crosby has a single one to play with.

Sure bad play doesn't give you any credit but bad luck isn't the same thing as bad play.

 

[tinyzombies]

Stats aren't everything, he commands the ice against every player and goalie in the league and for a considerable time in by far the best era of hockey in terms of skill and depth of teams that all play systems. The quality of the team isn't his fault. He ranks high for me, stats be damned. He needs to be on a team that has even an outside chance, then we'll see a two-way game and some deep runs.

 

[MadLuke]

For Beliveau it's really easy his 4 year playoff stretch from 61-64 isn't particularly very good even less so considering the teams he was on.

But you make an assumption that having 4 not particularly very good playoff in a career make a star look bad, is that a special amount of playoff year's for someone with over 15 run of not particularly very good playoff run ?

Or if we look with the fine comb at Beliveau career he end up looking very good at all aspect (RS, playoff, leadership, team winning) and hard to find a flaw that make him look bad over other nhler ?

Beliveau has 10 top 5 scoring in playoff run in is career, that Gordie Howe level, Gretzky and Richard had 9.

Does going from a fine comb, tell us that is playoff legend is overrated because of those 4 season or that is normal in a long career.

 

[wetcoast]

But you make an assumption that having 4 not particularly very good playoff in a career make a star look bad, is that a special amount of playoff year's for someone with over 15 run of not particularly very good playoff run ?

Or if we look with the fine comb at Beliveau career he end up looking very good at all aspect (RS, playoff, leadership, team winning) and hard to find a flaw that make him look bad over other nhler ?

I was just pointing out that it is seems to be very easy to nitpick some players and not others.

Which is what I was responding to in the first place.

All players should be judged by the body of their work and the context they do it in as well is my only point.

 

[Minar]

Stats aren't everything, he commands the ice against every player and goalie in the league and for a considerable time in by far the best era of hockey in terms of skill and depth of teams that all play systems. The quality of the team isn't his fault. He ranks high for me, stats be damned. He needs to be on a team that has even an outside chance, then we'll see a two-way game and some deep runs.

But in the playoffs he becomes a mere mortal which is why for me he is not yet in the top 10.

 

[tinyzombies]

But in the playoffs he becomes a mere mortal which is why for me he is not yet in the top 10.

No help. I don't have him top 10 either but top 20 yes for sure.

 

[daver]

No help. I don't have him top 10 either but top 20 yes for sure.

What help did he have in the regular season that helped him put up a 1.88 PPG?

 

[tinyzombies]

What help did he have in the regular season that helped him put up a 1.88 PPG?

The playoffs have different rules for better or worse. If your team can't play many different styles you lose. Edmonton had (has) a blueline and goalie problem as well, and they went out and got the most overrated gm in hockey so it will only get worse.

 

[daver]

The playoffs have different rules for better or worse. If your team can't play many different styles you lose. Edmonton had (has) a blueline and goalie problem as well, and they went out and got the most overrated gm in hockey so it will only get worse.

Does this apply to McDavid?

 

[FinProspects]

How about yet after another dominant season + strong start for playoffs.

4 Art, 2 Hart, 3 Lindsay at age of 25. (Might be 4 Art, 3Hart, 4Linsday)

5x 100p seasons, 4x 1st all start team.

Reg season peak is already comparable with absolute bests in the game.

I guess the projection is already for Connor to establish himself as a clear cut 5th of all time (of course with the assumption, that post season success will come), if things continue like this.

 

[bobholly39]

8 games is only 8 games and really not enough to draw conclusions, but his current playoff run is absolutely amazing so far.

Ovechkin built a lot of his own strong individual playoff legacy on his 2009 run - 21 points in 14 games, out in round 2 to the champs. He was still lacking cup/team success for a while, but this established him at least as a big individual contributor, which is much better then lacking team success while also sucking individually, which he never really did.

I think McDavid's current playoff run will almost for sure end up better than Ovechkin in 2009 if they lose in round 2 - and if he goes on further, it becomes even more impactful. It's only 8 games as of this posting, so I don't wanted to get too carried away with it's importance - but he was due big time to have a monster playoff and be able to show that he can perform at this level too, so it's nice to finally see this.

He had a great season too. Probably not the absolute best season some would have envisioned for him (many were saying 140-150+ points), but he still did comfortably win the Art Ross, and likely a top 1-2 hart/lindsay placement.

To me - at this point - Connor McDavid is 99.9% going to be in the running for "5th all-time" by his career end - I simply can't see it not happening barring a fluke "if he retires tomorrow" scenario. He simply doesn't need that much more big accomplishments to get there. But you have around ~10-15 players in that tier. Crosby, Jagr, Ovechkin, Bourque, Shore, etc etc.

How strong of a case will he have at #5? That's the big question, and impossible to say. We'd just be guessing, because it'll come down to what else he does.

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Assuming he doesn't ever put on the skates again, where does he land?

Does he get the Orr treatment? Placed on his peak seasons with a general disregard for the lack of a reasonably full career?

Is Lindros a good precedent to consider? A Top Ten prospect/talent with an unfortunate lack of full peak/prime seasons?

Or Forsberg? A decent amount of seasons in his prime but loses spots in comparison to his peers like Trottier, Sakic and Yzerman due to injuries.

Does his lack of playoff success/elite playoff PPG hurt him?

I am thinking Top 50 myself.

Nope.. Not in top 10 yet. The only worthy snubs of that top 100 are Bergeron and Malkin.

He is currently top 150. Not top 100.

 

[Voight]

8 games is only 8 games and really not enough to draw conclusions, but his current playoff run is absolutely amazing so far.

Ovechkin built a lot of his own strong individual playoff legacy on his 2009 run - 21 points in 14 games, out in round 2 to the champs. He was still lacking cup/team success for a while, but this established him at least as a big individual contributor, which is much better then lacking team success while also sucking individually, which he never really did.

I think McDavid's current playoff run will almost for sure end up better than Ovechkin in 2009 if they lose in round 2 - and if he goes on further, it becomes even more impactful. It's only 8 games as of this posting, so I don't wanted to get too carried away with it's importance - but he was due big time to have a monster playoff and be able to show that he can perform at this level too, so it's nice to finally see this.

He had a great season too. Probably not the absolute best season some would have envisioned for him (many were saying 140-150+ points), but he still did comfortably win the Art Ross, and likely a top 1-2 hart/lindsay placement.

To me - at this point - Connor McDavid is 99.9% going to be in the running for "5th all-time" by his career end - I simply can't see it not happening barring a fluke "if he retires tomorrow" scenario. He simply doesn't need that much more big accomplishments to get there. But you have around ~10-15 players in that tier. Crosby, Jagr, Ovechkin, Bourque, Shore, etc etc.

How strong of a case will he have at #5? That's the big question, and impossible to say. We'd just be guessing, because it'll come down to what else he does.

Heck in 7 seasons (incl. rookie year) he has point finishes of 1,1,1,1,2,2 which is crazy. Adding to that he has assist finishes of 1,1,2,2,2,3 & goal finishes of 2,6,6,7,10.

Not many players can claim as much in their first 7 seasons.

 

[rmartin65]

Heck in 7 seasons (incl. rookie year) he has point finishes of 1,1,1,1,2,2 which is crazy. Adding to that he has assist finishes of 1,1,2,2,2,3 & goal finishes of 2,6,6,7,10.

Not many players can claim as much in their first 7 seasons.

Not many players can claim as much… period.

McDavid has some flaws to his game, but his offensive resume is incredible.

 

[Voight]

Not many players can claim as much… period.

McDavid has some flaws to his game, but his offensive resume is incredible.

Barring a major injury, I would not be even a little surprised if he continues this run of 1st/2nd point finishes into his 30s.