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

[HF007]

Lindros is a fair comparable IMO. He played longer but mcdavid has been more dominant in his stretch.

Both generational talents or as close as you can get

 

[ted2019]

He was just ranked 130 in the top 200 project, knuckleheads.

The main board said that he's top 5 all time already, so what do we know.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The chances of McDavid repeating this season is functionally zero. He had the 10th highest VsX score in NHL history, ahead of every Lemieux season (though injuries played a big part, a full season Lemieux produced roughly at a McDavid 20-21 level).

Gretzky's 215 point season was a VsX of 152.5. McDavid's 2021 season was 152.2.

Even if McDavid has a VsX of 120.0 next year it would be the highest full season VsX since Jagr's 126.0 in 2000-01. It would be better than any full Crosby season. A VsX of 130 is Crosby 10-11 or 12-13 (before injuries) or Jagr's post Lemieux return 2000-01 season. It's better than peak Bobby Hull or Guy Lafleur.

For comparison, his two Art Ross winning VsXs were 112.4 and 105.9. I suspect he plays at a 115-125 level next year. 155 is just a special level of crazy and would imply he gets 150-170 points next year.

I wouldn't say it's zero, but it's pretty low. I understand pro-rating shortened schedules for comparison's sake, but it's much different when a player reaches a new level in a shortened season. If he already had at least a couple of full seasons of similar performance, then I wouldn't consider the past season a potential aberration, but rather a continuation of proven performance. If he has a couple of future seasons in the future on that level, then same thing. He may have indeed hit a new level, but I tend to doubt it's the level indicated by what he did last season. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Lindros is a fair comparable IMO. He played longer but mcdavid has been more dominant in his stretch.

Both generational talents or as close as you can get

Outside of hype as a prospect, I don’t see how Lindros can compete. His hardware is way behind McDavid’s

 

[wetcoast]

He's not in the main series but in the offshoot where they tour Europe. Forsberg is in it too. It's on Netflix. They had MacKinnon on before he really broke out but I was always disappointed that Marchand never found his way to Sunnyvale.

I definitely have to go back and watch me some good old Canadian classic trailer park boys.

 

[daver]

You are using 4 games to say he "had his chance". If you don't think 4 games is too small to say much of anything, I have to assume you are saying it's on him that it was just 4 games, then what other conclusion am I supposed to draw?

He had his chance in those four games to show he is clearly the best offensive player in the world as his regular season would dictate. It sounds like you think the the playoffs are not a different animal from the regular season. It should not be a shock that McDavid perhaps doesn't do as well in a tight checking and game-planned environment as his ability to use his speed is kept better in check. This is not often the case in the regular season.

Not sure why how a critique of McDavid's individual performance turns into this over the top narrative that it was "all on him" that they got swept.

 

[daver]

So you are telling me that scoring 2.25 points per game vs a team that typically gives up 3.1 goals per game is a much lesser accomplishment than scoring 1.6 points per game against teams that typically give up an average of about 3.6 goals per game. I know a little about math but that sort of cipherin' is beyond me.

Here is what we know about Mario. The next time his team was in the playoffs he had 44 points in 23 games and won the Conn Smythe.

Here is what we know about McDavid. The next time out, actually his 3rd crack at the playoffs, he went scoreless in the first two games against a lower seed who he torched in the regular season. He had three fairly unimpressive assists in Game 3 and his only goal in Game 4 while making two notably weak plays that lead to key goals by the Jets.

So for his career, he did OK in his debut at age 20, score a bunch in a run and gun series against the #23 seed in a losing cause his 2nd time, and has been reasonably critiqued for not coming close to his expected production this year. He has been outshined during this time by multiple players like MacKinnon, Kucherov, Point and most notably his teammate. Players like OV and Crosby had much better starts to the their playoff careers than McDavid, and no, you cannot play the "plays on really good team" game with OV before 2010 while Crosby clearly was not held back by having clearly inferior linemates in 2009.

 

[daver]

This was only true for about a 4-year stretch (ages 23-26) and he was basically always injured during that time (179 GP played out of a possible 294). He sustained about a 120 point pace that time but fell to about a 90 point pace the subsequent four years (27-30). What's exciting for McDavid is that he just had the first season in that 23-26 age bracket this most recent season and he's already got 3 Art Rosses and 2 Runner Ups the last 5 years (ages 19-23) and he's played at a 120 point pace over those 5 years, similar to peak oft-injured Crosby. Three more monster years, where health permitting he gets 2 or 3 more Art Rosses already moves him up to 5 or 6 and you certainly wouldn't bet on him to be "done" from there.

McDavid surpassing Crosby on "all time lists" created objectively seems like a very very high certainty. Probably needs to win just one Cup to overtake him on a "legacy" standpoint aside from that (which is a slightly different thing). Hard to imagine between now and when he's 35 he doesn't end up on at least one Cup winner at some point just from an odds impact given he contributes individually (there's some luck involved with that of course).

McDavid would likely be rated behind Crosby after six seasons, which, again, is what the OP is asking. You may be responding to another poster but what he potentially could do after six seasons would be irrelevant to rating him right now.

 

[Fourier]

Here is what we know about Mario. The next time his team was in the playoffs he had 44 points in 23 games and won the Conn Smythe.

Here is what we know about McDavid. The next time out, actually his 3rd crack at the playoffs, he went scoreless in the first two games against a lower seed who he torched in the regular season. He had three fairly unimpressive assists in Game 3 and his only goal in Game 4 while making two notably weak plays that lead to key goals by the Jets.

So for his career, he did OK in his debut at age 20, score a bunch in a run and gun series against the #23 seed in a losing cause his 2nd time, and has been reasonably critiqued for not coming close to his expected production this year. He has been outshined during this time by multiple players like MacKinnon, Kucherov, Point and most notably his teammate. Players like OV and Crosby had much better starts to the their playoff careers than McDavid, and no, you cannot play the "plays on really good team" game with OV before 2010 while Crosby clearly was not held back by having clearly inferior linemates in 2009.

Your comments on Mario are making my point. Mario had 44 points in 23 games. Guess what...To score 44 points in 23 games you have to play 23 games. That is what having a better team does for you. This year the Oilers played 4 games and McDavid had 4 points on the 8 goals his team scored in the playoffs. Mario is for me the second best player I have ever seen live and yet for him to reach the level consistent with that assessment it took a better team to give him the opportunity. Going back to 2000 McDavid sits at 11th in pts/gm in the playoffs at 1.05. That puts him all of .05 pts per game behind Crosby and ahead of Malkin twoguys who I think you would agree have some playoff success. The big difference in these three players is that Crosby and Malkin have had over 170 playoff games to establish themselves.

 

[daver]

Your comments on Mario are making my point. Mario had 44 points in 23 games. Guess what...To score 44 points in 23 games you have to play 23 games. That is what having a better team does for you. This year the Oilers played 4 games and McDavid had 4 points on the 8 goals his team scored in the playoffs. Mario is for me the second best player I have ever seen live and yet for him to reach the level consistent with that assessment it took a better team to give him the opportunity. Going back to 2000 McDavid sits at 11th in pts/gm in the playoffs at 1.05. That puts him all of .05 pts per game behind Crosby and ahead of Malkin twoguys who I think you would agree have some playoff success. The big difference in these three players is that Crosby and Malkin have had over 170 playoff games to establish themselves.

Your comments are making my point. To play more than 4 games, you need your top offensive player to produce, something McDavid was unable to do so from the very get go.

Your original foray into this thread was to apply "context" yet you seem unwilling to accept reasonable context on McDavid's career playoff numbers.

He has yet to prove his game, which is almost exclusively offensive focused, has the versatility to be as effective in the playoffs. The GOATs all produced in the playoffs. A few others elevated themselves to another tier of players (Messier, Roy) based on their playoff exploits.

 

[Fourier]

Your comments are making my point. To play more than 4 games, you need your top offensive player to produce, something McDavid was unable to do so from the very get go.

Your original foray into this thread was to apply "context" yet you seem unwilling to accept reasonable context on McDavid's career playoff numbers.

In the last two playoffs he has 13 points in 8 games and the Oilers lost both series. Maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning.

 

[daver]

In the last two playoffs he has 13 points in 8 games and the Oilers lost both series. Maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning.

So McDavid could not have possibly been any better against the Jets? He met expectations? And, no, being in on 50% of the Oilers goals is not meeting expectations. Scoring in only 50% of the games at a PPG rate is below expectations.

 

[The Macho King]

In the last two playoffs he has 13 points in 8 games and the Oilers lost both series. Maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning.

In one game had had like 4? Points in a 7-4 loss, where he was on ice for almost every goal against. Against Chicago, who was very bad.

McDavid has shown nothing in the playoffs. I don't expect them to win the Cup with him and Drai as their only offense. But yeah he should be able to get them through one round.

 

[Fourier]

So McDavid could not have possibly been any better against the Jets? He met expectations? And, no, being in on 50% of the Oilers goals is not meeting expectations. Scoring in only 50% of the games at a PPG rate is below expectations.

I have never said that. He was not at his best. But he was far from the reason they did not win. The team had lost of chances. They failed to finish and Hellebucyk played as well as he had in his Vezina season. Even though Smith played well exchange goalies and teh result could have been different. Winnipeg swept the Oilers dispite leading in games for only a handful of minutes throughout.

 

[daver]

I have never said that. He was not at his best. But he was far from the reason they did not win. The team had lost of chances. They failed to finish and Hellebucyk played as well as he had in his Vezina season. Even though Smith played well exchange goalies and teh result could have been different. Winnipeg swept the Oilers dispite leading in games for only a handful of minutes throughout.

You cannot give him the credit in the regular season that his point total would dictate then not hold him to the same level of accountability in the playoffs.

It can't go from "Best since Wayne/Mario!" to "You can maybe point to other Oiler players as a bigger reason why they lost" Those other players aren't expected to make a significant difference offensively. If McDavid is going to be rated among the GOATs, he has to meet the high standard his all-time peers have established.

 

[Fourier]

You cannot give him the credit in the regular season that his point total would dictate then not hold him to the same level of accountability in the playoffs.

It can't go from "Best since Wayne/Mario!" to "You can maybe point to other Oiler players as a bigger reason why they lost" Those other players aren't expected to make a significant difference offensively. If McDavid is going to be rated among the GOATs, he has to meet the high standard his all-time peers have established.

This is a ridiculous position. Hockey is not an individual sport. It is a team game. If teh Oilers never win with McDavid it will no doubt remain a mark on his record. But to contend that he is responsible for the teams lack of playoff success has no basis.

 

[Sentinel]

Why eliminate the Chicago series? It actually happened.

Because in a normal world that series never happens because Chicago does not make playoffs.

 

[Sentinel]

Outside of hype as a prospect, I don’t see how Lindros can compete. His hardware is way behind McDavid’s

TBH, Lindros had MUCH stiffer competition than McDavid.

Which brings me to another point. McDavid is in a position preferable to virtually every superstar of the past, because I don't view his competition is nearly as tough as theirs. Look at Crosby: he competed against two superbly high profile players in Ovechkin and Malkin (and, to lesser extent, Toews and Datsyuk, if you look at other components of the game). 80s and 90s had an abundance of offensive talent not matched since, all -- competing against each other.

McDavid is competing against Matthews and Draisatl. They are simply not as good as Ovechkin, Malkin, and all the others. So this goes in his favor: the Harts are really his to lose.

 

[WarriorofTime]

TBH, Lindros had MUCH stiffer competition than McDavid.

Which brings me to another point. McDavid is in a position preferable to virtually every superstar of the past, because I don't view his competition is nearly as tough as theirs. Look at Crosby: he competed against two superbly high profile players in Ovechkin and Malkin (and, to lesser extent, Toews and Datsyuk, if you look at other components of the game). 80s and 90s had an abundance of offensive talent not matched since, all -- competing against each other.

McDavid is competing against Matthews and Draisatl. They are simply not as good as Ovechkin, Malkin, and all the others. So this goes in his favor: the Harts are really his to lose.

Lindros won Art Ross/Hart in 1994-95, finished 3rd in 1995-96 in Hart Voting to Lemieux and Messier and was otherwise never top 5. His issue wasn't that 1990s competition was too good, it was that he rarely played close to a full season.

 

[WarriorofTime]

He had his chance in those four games to show he is clearly the best offensive player in the world as his regular season would dictate. It sounds like you think the the playoffs are not a different animal from the regular season. It should not be a shock that McDavid perhaps doesn't do as well in a tight checking and game-planned environment as his ability to use his speed is kept better in check. This is not often the case in the regular season.

Not sure why how a critique of McDavid's individual performance turns into this over the top narrative that it was "all on him" that they got swept.

You think a 4 point, 4 game series is enough of a sample size to showcase whether he is "clearly the best offensive player in the world". That's preposterous.

 

[K Fleur]

Lindros won Art Ross/Hart in 1994-95, finished 3rd in 1995-96 in Hart Voting to Lemieux and Messier and was otherwise never top 5. His issue wasn't that 1990s competition was too good, it was that he rarely played close to a full season.

Lindros never won the Art Ross.

His biggest issue was not his competition more that he never adapted his approach.

 

[WarriorofTime]

And, no, being in on 50% of the Oilers goals is not meeting expectations.

The Penguins in 09 were probably the most "top heavy" Stanley Cup champion in recent memory, Crosby was involved in 39.2 % of his team's goals, Malkin was involved in 45.6 % of his team's goals. The year before Crosby was involved in 44.3 % of team goals in the postseasons when they made the Final and lost to the Red Wings.

At this stage in his career, McDavid doesn't have the luxury of going 0.791 PPG, being involved in 26.0 % of his team's postseason goals, while being a minus player in favorable minutes (Crosby in 2016) and winning a Stanley Cup anyways. Winning a Cup can never fall just on one guy. If you have an "off night" and your team win anyways, well we just forget those off nights happened and we remember the good ones because your team won. Right now, the Oilers can't win anything without McDavid and are almost entirely reliant on him.

You're correct that he has not "proven" himself necessarily with a deep postseason run, which if he retired tomorrow would remain an unfortunate mark on his legacy. Although based on sample size, I would say one that has been largely out of his control, and that context would be important if assessing "the career of McDavid" if it ends tomorrow. As a thought exercise, it's interesting. As for the whole playoff hockey being "different" yes and no. How much of the "different" can be explained by ultra high variance (such as goals for and goals against in a tiny sample size) that should not be extrapolated too much (i.e., using any four game series to say McDavid "had his chance" but failed), well that's up for debate.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He was just ranked 130 in the top 200 project, knuckleheads.

Problem was with the process, not the knuckleheads.

When the top 100 was started McDavid only had 3 seasons in. Some of us had him in the top 100, most did not.

When the next 100 players were started, McDavid could have been the first player, at 101. But he wasn't. 101 would still look stupid. But not as bad as 130. Timing wasn't good.

But that is why we have this thread, starting "If the Top 100 players All-time list is redone today...."

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

People want to find a flaw with McDavid but never point out the fact that Dionne has a high all time ranking with a full career's worth of no playoff success.

Take the name off it and just look at the accomplishments.

2x Hart
3x Pearson
3x Ross
4x AS-1
1,1,1,2,2 point finishes
1,1,2,2,3 assist finishes
2,6,6,10 goal finishes

All in just 6 seasons, 1 of which was shortened due to injury.

I don't see a way to not have him in the Top 35 (30-35 range IMO)

 

[edog37]

I struggle to follow your reasoning here. He’s a top 30 player all time, however not ahead of Lowe and Tikkanen?

I think you’re having several different discussions simultaneously here. I guess it’s fair to make the case that McDavid’s legacy as an Oiler isn’t greater than Kevin Lowe’s if you value team success, but then what do you mean by adding Adam Oates? He played all of 60 games for the Oilers posting 18 points and missed the playoffs before retiring for good: he was a legendary player when he signed for them but his star had faded markedly. I don’t understand in which debate both Adam Oates and Kevin Lowe surpasses McDavid’s current status. If you value Oates’ longevity then sure, perhaps you might consider him more accomplished than McDavid, however Oates probably does not belong in a conversation for the top 30 players of all time. If you’re cup counting, then Oates has won as many rings as McDavid.

I’m sorry, I just got a severe string of hang ups from reading this post.

how can you possibly place him in the Top 50 of all time when he's lead his team to exactly one playoff series win? That's just ridiculous. McMuffin needs to show it in the playoffs that he's a winner. He can't even lead his team to a regular season division title. Until he shows he can will a team to win, he's not even top 100.