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

[Yozhik v tumane]

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.

You never saw me placing McDavid in the top 50.

Besides that… are you seriously claiming that there have been 100 players who routinely could will their shoddy teams to winning records or playoff success?

 

[jigglysquishy]

routinely could will their shoddy teams to winning records or playoff success?

I would argue that in the entire history of the NHL, you have maybe five skaters at their absolute peaks (and many goalies who get hot) who could win series by themselves.

In terms of "willing a team to winning the Stanley Cup", you could argue a few goalies did, but I don't think any skater did. Even peak Orr, Gretzky, Howe, and Lemieux couldn't do it by themselves.

McDavid isn't a great playoff performer, but you can hardly fault him for his team playing awful.

 

[Fourier]

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

But it did happen. And in a normal world the Oilers would have played some other team with potentially a different outcome.

 

[Czech Your Math]

TBH, Lindros had MUCH stiffer competition than McDavid.

I agree, although it's a bit early to fully evaluate the peak levels of most of McDavid's top competition. As others have pointed out, it wasn't really competition that ended up limiting Lindros.

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.

I don't think he has it super easy, although he didn't have the toughest competition in 2017 & 2018. Kucherov & Draisaitl beat him out for Rosses in 2019 & 2020. MacKinnon & Panarin are decent depth competition for scoring race, and it's always possible Kane, Crosby or Malkin has a "last hurrah" type of season, although I wouldn't expect that at this point.

I'd say the current competition for scoring race is pretty typical of the post-WHA era. Since O6 expansion, there have been some easier periods (early 70s for Espo/Orr... 2002-2004... and 2011-2018(?), depending on from whose perspective we're looking at competition).

While Crosby may have had better peak scoring peers than McDavid has so far, like Lindros it wasn't those top peers that really limited him (the exception being 2009). It was injuries and/or players like Henrik Sedin, St. Louis, Stamkos, Benn, Tavares, etc. that finished ahead of him from 2010 to 2016 (ages 22 to 28... typical peak years). He finished tied for second in 2016, but when you score less than 90 points in a peak year, you can't just blame the competition.

 

[MadLuke]

87-88 Mario Lemieux was not enough to make a team make the playoff, in a era where almost all team made the playoff, even extreme case of a 19-20-21 year old Gretzky did not win more than one series I think, while scoring over 2 ppg.

I think individual on suspect team can have some slack on a significant time span, but the question seem to be about career and not actual top 100 human better at playing hockey ever (which McDavid has a good top 10 argument already)

 

[Sentinel]

But it did happen. And in a normal world the Oilers would have played some other team with potentially a different outcome.

A different outcome would be that McDavid would get fewer points against a team that placed higher than #23.

 

[Sentinel]

I agree, although it's a bit early to fully evaluate the peak levels of most of McDavid's top competition. As others have pointed out, it wasn't really competition that ended up limiting Lindros.



I don't think he has it super easy, although he didn't have the toughest competition in 2017 & 2018. Kucherov & Draisaitl beat him out for Rosses in 2019 & 2020. MacKinnon & Panarin are decent depth competition for scoring race, and it's always possible Kane, Crosby or Malkin has a "last hurrah" type of season, although I wouldn't expect that at this point.

I'd say the current competition for scoring race is pretty typical of the post-WHA era. Since O6 expansion, there have been some easier periods (early 70s for Espo/Orr... 2002-2004... and 2011-2018(?), depending on from whose perspective we're looking at competition).

While Crosby may have had better peak scoring peers than McDavid has so far, like Lindros it wasn't those top peers that really limited him (the exception being 2009). It was injuries and/or players like Henrik Sedin, St. Louis, Stamkos, Benn, Tavares, etc. that finished ahead of him from 2010 to 2016 (ages 22 to 28... typical peak years). He finished tied of second in 2016, but when you score less than 90 points in a peak year, you can't just blame the competition.

I did forget about Kucherov (haha!).

 

[Fourier]

A different outcome would be that McDavid would get fewer points.

Or the Oilers win the series and McDavid goes on one of his insane streaks. You have no idea what would have happened and nor do I. The point is the NHL classifies those points as playoff points so that's what they are. Unless there is going to be some sort of analysis on the value of a point vs various opposition teams applied to each player it would seem that dismissing the is simply trying to appease a narrative.

 

[Sentinel]

Or the Oilers win the series and McDavid goes on one of his insane streaks. You have no idea what would have happened and nor do I. The point is the NHL classifies those points as playoff points so that's what they are. Unless there is going to be some sort of analysis on the value of a point vs various opposition teams applied to each player it would seem that dismissing the is simply trying to appease a narrative.

You are clearly running with a narrative here, so...

Teams do not normally play a #23 team in playoffs. It's a schedule abberation that padded McD's stats.

Sure, points against Chicago are still playoff points, but that's why we look at the context. Had the NHL decided to include ALL teams in that "pre-playoffs" format, and whoever would draw #31 2019-20 Red Wings, I'd imagine their stats would get a significant boost.

 

[Fourier]

You are clearly running with a narrative here, so...

Teams do not normally play a #23 team in playoffs. It's a schedule abberation that padded McD's stats.

Sure, points against Chicago are still playoff points, but that's why we look at the context. Had the NHL decided to include ALL teams in that "pre-playoffs" format, and whoever would draw #31 2019-20 Red Wings, I'd imagine their stats would get a significant boost.

You have no idea if McDavid would have had fewer points against any other team. He scores in bunches against pretty much every team in the League when he is on a role. Padding points tends also to happen when you are rolling over a team. In that series that Oilers dominated the play but actually lost the series in good part do to horrendous goaltending.

Many of the players who would be ahead of him in the rankings played at a time when there was far less parity in the league or during a much higher scoring period. So are you prepared to discount all of those totals based on the quality of the opposition?

I am not the one who is claiming that McDavid's playoff record is an advantage. I have already said that if he retired today it would be held against him.

 

[Gurglesons]

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.

It’s not like Edmonton has been a terrible team. The last two years they were firm playoff teams.

How different are the Edmonton Oilers of the last two years than the 07-08 or 08-09 Caps?

Ovi, Backstrom, and Semin vs Drai, McDavid and RNH seems fair in those two years.

A D-core with Barrie and Nurse. Versus a D-core with Green and Poti.

And whatever goaltending.

Ovi had 9 pts and 21 pts in those three series and they were actually competitive when they went out in 7 in 07-08.

 

[daver]

Here is an interesting question.

Where would you rate McDavid's peak season among the GOATs? Statistically it is the best since Wayne/Mario.

What context, if any, would you apply to the season? If players were rated on their peak regular season, where would he land?

 

[Dingo]

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.

it was Hasek’s 2002 year where i finally went, “Fine, I guess he IS good”

 

[blogofmike]

You are clearly running with a narrative here, so...

Teams do not normally play a #23 team in playoffs. It's a schedule abberation that padded McD's stats.

Sure, points against Chicago are still playoff points, but that's why we look at the context. Had the NHL decided to include ALL teams in that "pre-playoffs" format, and whoever would draw #31 2019-20 Red Wings, I'd imagine their stats would get a significant boost.

Sure they're #23, but it's a 37 win team against a 32 win team. Advantage for the team who won more, but the gap isn't as wide as it looks from rankings. Given Chicago's pedigree, I wouldn't have picked them as an opponent.

That being said, if his competition in the era is Crosby, Crosby had 3 points in 4 games against the #24 team.

 

[daver]

it was Hasek’s 2002 year where i finally went, “Fine, I guess he IS good”

NHL Stats

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

87-88 Mario Lemieux was not enough to make a team make the playoff, in a era where almost all team made the playoff, even extreme case of a 19-20-21 year old Gretzky did not win more than one series I think, while scoring over 2 ppg.

I think individual on suspect team can have some slack on a significant time span, but the question seem to be about career and not actual top 100 human better at playing hockey ever (which McDavid has a good top 10 argument already)

In the rankings here criteria is not specified. Just top 100 (or 200), however a voter views it.

If one chooses to base their ranking on career, obviously a guy like McDavid is at a huge disadvantage. But players that play on bad teams are also at a disadvantage just as players on dynasty teams have a bigger advantage. Soviet players, disadvantage. Players from different eras who no one saw play, disadvantage. (Or is it advantage?)

Bottom line is there is no correct answer for the rankings. Just a fun exercise that we all take too seriously.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Sure they're #23, but it's a 37 win team against a 32 win team. Advantage for the team who won more, but the gap isn't as wide as it looks from rankings. Given Chicago's pedigree, I wouldn't have picked them as an opponent.

That being said, if his competition in the era is Crosby, Crosby had 3 points in 4 games against the #24 team.

It's too early to draw conclusions about McDavid's playoff performance. After six seasons a single series that his team lost and that consisted of four games is being cited as his best playoff performance. That speaks volumes about how well he's performed so far.

Difficult to recall many superstar players that hadn't really excelled in the playoffs within six seasons, yet became significantly better after that. Best example might be Sakic, as Espo had a massive change in circumstances.

 

[blogofmike]

It's too early to draw conclusions about McDavid's playoff performance. After six seasons a single series that his team lost and that consisted of four games is being cited as his best playoff performance. That speaks volumes about how well he's performed so far.

Difficult to recall many superstar players that hadn't really excelled in the playoffs within six seasons, yet became significantly better after that. Best example might be Sakic, as Espo had a massive change in circumstances.

Fair point. There is some degree of augury to placing a guy who only played four playoff rounds so far. Gretzky had a more impressive 36 points in 17 games after his first four rounds, but there was still a "couldn't win the big one" flavour in the analysis of the day.

 

[Dingo]

NHL Stats

ya, but he didnt ‘will his team to a win’ so, it’s nothing!

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

He could never score a playoff point in his career and it wouldn't matter.

The list of players with 2 Harts, 3 Ross and 3 Pearsons is extremely small...as in can be counted on 2 hands small

 

[Sentinel]

it was Hasek’s 2002 year where i finally went, “Fine, I guess he IS good”

Hasek's 99 playoffs are up there with the best of them.

 

[Sentinel]

He could never score a playoff point in his career and it wouldn't matter.

The list of players with 2 Harts, 3 Ross and 3 Pearsons is extremely small...as in can be counted on 2 hands small

PLM. Playoffs lives matter.

 

[Dingo]

McD has NOT been good in the playoffs.

at all.

but, should he command playoffs in the future and his team still loses, I will consider him a playoff performer.

 

[buffalowing88]

B.S.

Not even close? Based on career to date?

Which career do you draft?

4-time Selke finalist, 5-time Stanley Cup winner with 130+ playoff points and ****ing up the opposition on most shifts.

I would go to war with Tikkanen (the heart of a Dale Hunter, Claude Lemieux). There are few in the game today like him (Marchand).

Or...


less than 6 full seasons, only 22 career playoff points and one (1) playoff series win.

Would you seriously take the career to date of a regular season scorer over a two-way playoff monster with four times the career?

I sure would.

 

[The Macho King]

McD has NOT been good in the playoffs.

at all.

but, should he command playoffs in the future and his team still loses, I will consider him a playoff performer.

Yeah this is absolutely fair. He doesn't need to win a Cup to be a "playoff performer", but he needs to have some signature runs. Lundqvist didn't get dinged around here for his playoffs - it was a mark in his favor.

The fact is the only series that McDavid produced in line with expectations was in a 3-1 loss to the 23rd best team in the regular season (who were then ignobly dispatched the next round in a gentleman's sweep). And look at the commentary around that series, even on this board - McDavid put up points but his performances were not in and of themselves impressive.

From a game where he scored four points - half of the points for the entire series (Also almost all of the Oilers goals except for one were scored with five minutes left in the third of a game that was *very* out of reach):

Your forgot McDavid who got literally dominated 5v5

He( (McDavid) ate ass.

Later in the series:

Can we just let our goalie make a f***ing save for once. McDavid invisible again.

Those posts are from the Oilers board, btw.