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

[edog37]

I wonder where you'd place Ray Bourque if he never left Boston? Did he magically become a Top 10 player by virtue of his last playoff run?

Also Marcel Dionne and Joe Thornton are in the Top 100...

Except Ray Bourque did leave Boston & was a consistent playoff performer. McMuffin is not.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

McMuffin

Especially on the History subforum (where we are all ostensibly adults and have actual conversations that don't involve memes), this pejorative isn't nearly funny enough to repeat it as often as you have.

If you want folks here to take your point of view seriously, this ain't it.

 

[Dingo]

Except Ray Bourque did leave Boston & was a consistent playoff performer. McMuffin is not.

thats a goalpost change. we nearly all agree that mcd is yet to perform well in the playoffs.

 

[blogofmike]

Except Ray Bourque did leave Boston & was a consistent playoff performer. McMuffin is not.

McDavid has been a fairly average performer in what little we've seen, and while he has yet to hit the heights of Bourque, he hasn't hit the depths of Dionne or Thornton.

Of course, if you think he's been terrible, I can't imagine how poorly you'd rate the last 2 seasons of the Crysby fellow in Pittsburgh. 3 points in 4 games against the #24 team in the NHL, followed by 2 points in 6 games vs the #4 seed in a 1 vs 4 matchup.

Can you explain why this Crysby fellow is scoring at less than a third of the rate of McMuffin over the last two playoffs?

...

More seriously, I have Bourque above Crosby too. Bourque was a better player in losing in the Finals twice than Crosby ever was when winning in the Finals, though oddly enough he had his best showing in a year that ended with a loss to Detroit. At least if you want to try to rate individuals based on their individual play and aren't blindly Cup counting. In which case for McDavid to get past the 2nd round he needs to live up to Crosby's legendary 2 points in 6 games while being a team worst -3 that heroically carried his team past Washington on his way to winning the Cup via willpower.

 

[edog37]

McDavid has been a fairly average performer in what little we've seen, and while he has yet to hit the heights of Bourque, he hasn't hit the depths of Dionne or Thornton.

Of course, if you think he's been terrible, I can't imagine how poorly you'd rate the last 2 seasons of the Crysby fellow in Pittsburgh. 3 points in 4 games against the #24 team in the NHL, followed by 2 points in 6 games vs the #4 seed in a 1 vs 4 matchup.

Can you explain why this Crysby fellow is scoring at less than a third of the rate of McMuffin over the last two playoffs?

...

More seriously, I have Bourque above Crosby too. Bourque was a better player in losing in the Finals twice than Crosby ever was when winning in the Finals, though oddly enough he had his best showing in a year that ended with a loss to Detroit. At least if you want to try to rate individuals based on their individual play and aren't blindly Cup counting. In which case for McDavid to get past the 2nd round he needs to live up to Crosby's legendary 2 points in 6 games while being a team worst -3 that heroically carried his team past Washington on his way to winning the Cup via willpower.

Crosby won back to back Conn Smythes in his prime which really undercuts your point. Also, Crosby ranks 7th all time in playoff points, so given all that, I'd say you are way off-base. McMuffin hasn't even showed up in the playoffs yet.

 

[blogofmike]

Crosby won back to back Conn Smythes in his prime which really undercuts your point. Also, Crosby ranks 7th all time in playoff points, so given all that, I'd say you are way off-base. McMuffin hasn't even showed up in the playoffs yet.

unless everyone’s point is that you are blindly trophy counting without any regard to judging an individual by the quality of that individual’s play.

In which case you keep piling up the evidence for us.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

jim paek was a true winner. he played for two years, won the Cup twice, and went home like Alexander, knowing that there was nothing left to conquer.

Fancypants pretty boys Jagr and Lemieux played 30 combined seasons without paek and won a combined fart all.

Luckily for them they got to ride a real winner’s coattails twice, tricking people into thinking they were once winners and not heartless, gutless dipsydoodling pansies.

jiri hrdina ftw

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

jiri hrdina ftw

Better coattail riding Jiri...Hrdina or Slegr?

Hrdina has the 3-1 Cup advantage but you can't deny that unreal leadership from Slegr willing the Wings to that Cup while only playing in 1 game

 

[wetcoast]

McDavid has been a fairly average performer in what little we've seen, and while he has yet to hit the heights of Bourque, he hasn't hit the depths of Dionne or Thornton.

Of course, if you think he's been terrible, I can't imagine how poorly you'd rate the last 2 seasons of the Crysby fellow in Pittsburgh. 3 points in 4 games against the #24 team in the NHL, followed by 2 points in 6 games vs the #4 seed in a 1 vs 4 matchup.

Can you explain why this Crysby fellow is scoring at less than a third of the rate of McMuffin over the last two playoffs?

...

More seriously, I have Bourque above Crosby too. Bourque was a better player in losing in the Finals twice than Crosby ever was when winning in the Finals, though oddly enough he had his best showing in a year that ended with a loss to Detroit. At least if you want to try to rate individuals based on their individual play and aren't blindly Cup counting. In which case for McDavid to get past the 2nd round he needs to live up to Crosby's legendary 2 points in 6 games while being a team worst -3 that heroically carried his team past Washington on his way to winning the Cup via willpower.

Your point here brings up the thought or which player is the better playoff performer all time Crosby or Bourque?

I honestly can't remember this sections top 40 off the top of my head where each player rates (although that project was fraught with problems to be sure).

 

[Nick Hansen]

Your point here brings up the thought or which player is the better playoff performer all time Crosby or Bourque?

I honestly can't remember this sections top 40 off the top of my head where each player rates (although that project was fraught with problems to be sure).

Crosby was 28th; Bourque didn't figure.

Pretty obvious to me that the list was very much influenced by the Pens winning two cups in short order during the time the list was done.

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Better coattail riding Jiri...Hrdina or Slegr?

Hrdina has the 3-1 Cup advantage but you can't deny that unreal leadership from Slegr willing the Wings to that Cup while only playing in 1 game

hrdina filled a vital purpose, like teaching jagr how to order a pizza, how to do his laundry, how to shave, and how to pick up women in english

now the question is, in his short time in detroit did slegr do any of this for jiri fischer?

 

[wetcoast]

Better coattail riding Jiri...Hrdina or Slegr?

Hrdina has the 3-1 Cup advantage but you can't deny that unreal leadership from Slegr willing the Wings to that Cup while only playing in 1 game

I remember Slegr at the 91 WJHC where he controlled play and might turn out unlike Jim Sandlak (who looked awesome in 86 but one could tell he was man among boys and it would be hard to translate) and had an excellent tournament and thought wow the Canucks have a great young Dman here and then there were arguments about sending him to the minors and he soured on the Canucks and never really developed.

 

[wetcoast]

Crosby was 28th; Bourque didn't figure.

Pretty obvious to me that the list was very much influenced by the Pens winning two cups in short order during the time the list was done.

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

If I remember right they had only won one when the project had started (their 2nd of 3 with Crosby as captain but I might be wrong about that).

That's a project that should be revisited IMO.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I remember Slegr at the 91 WJHC where he controlled play and might turn out unlike Jim Sandlak (who looked awesome in 86 but one could tell he was man among boys and it would be hard to translate) and had an excellent tournament and thought wow the Canucks have a great young Dman here and then there were arguments about sending him to the minors and he soured on the Canucks and never really developed.

I remember him on the Bruins wrapping around the lockout.

He was a factor for the 04 team playing top 4 minutes and scoring 19 points in 36 games and 35 in 78 overall in his 2 years.

He definitely brought some nasty from the blue line too for a team that lacked it.

 

[daver]

If I remember right they had only won one when the project had started (their 2nd of 3 with Crosby as captain but I might be wrong about that).

That's a project that should be revisited IMO.

At worst, Crosby has a playoff resume befitting his regular season accomplishments and scoring finishes/paces.

The same can be said about Mario, Orr and Howe. The same can be almost said about Jagr, OV and Hull, and more than the same can be said about Wayne, Beliveau and Richard.

At best, McDavid's playoff resume is unfinished. At worst, it is notably below expectations.

 

[Voight]

His regular season trophy case almost matches Crosby at this point so has to be up there (Sid has 4x second AST vs 0 of those for McDavid). Not as high given its only been 6 seasons but he already has quite the resume.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Crosby was 28th; Bourque didn't figure.

Pretty obvious to me that the list was very much influenced by the Pens winning two cups in short order during the time the list was done.

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

Looking at that list I'd say the most striking error was Bill Smith way down at 39th.

 

[The Macho King]

Crosby was 28th; Bourque didn't figure.

Pretty obvious to me that the list was very much influenced by the Pens winning two cups in short order during the time the list was done.

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

I hate that list. Too much O6 love.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I hate that list. Too much O6 love.

The O6 was 25 years and the NHL has had 103 seasons so roughly 24% of the league history was O6.

11 of the 40 primarily played during the O6 so roughly 27.5%.

However, only three pre-O6 players are included. So 37 of 40 played primarily 1942-43 onwards (77 seasons).

O6 is 32.5% of the post-1942 NHL and hosts 30% of the post-1942 players.

I think the only era "overrepresented" is really the 1970s to early 80s. But the Bruins, Habs dynasty->Islanders dynasty makes it hard to exclude any of them.

If the list was re-done today, at least one of Vasilevskiy, Kucherov, or Hedman would join.

 

[The Macho King]

The O6 was 25 years and the NHL has had 103 seasons so roughly 24% of the league history was O6.

11 of the 40 primarily played during the O6 so roughly 27.5%.

However, only three pre-O6 players are included. So 37 of 40 played primarily 1942-43 onwards (77 seasons).

O6 is 32.5% of the post-1942 NHL and hosts 30% of the post-1942 players.

I think the only era "overrepresented" is really the 1970s to early 80s. But the Bruins, Habs dynasty->Islanders dynasty makes it hard to exclude any of them.

If the list was re-done today, at least one of Vasilevskiy, Kucherov, or Hedman would join.

I don't think you can really use % numbers like that to come up with the list. To an extent it makes sense that dynasties are heavily represented (setting aside that most dynasties exist due to very uneven distribution of league talent), but in the O6-era especially, there is very little opportunity for those random variances to derail a playoff series. Two series, and the vast majority of seasons that weren't just coronations had maybe one or two other teams max that you could reasonably call "contenders".

IDK - I have a frustration with that era in that we always assume that all six teams were really good, when for the vast majority of it the Bruins and Rangers were a full-tier below, as were the Blackhawks for a chunk of the 50s. I love the approach we generally have on here with not playing the whole "drop Eddie Shore into the 2010s and see how he would do" way of analyzing players, but on the other side of that sometimes I think we're not critical enough of the built in advantages of certain eras.

I'm hardly consistent in this, though.

 

[blogofmike]

At worst, Crosby has a playoff resume befitting his regular season accomplishments and scoring finishes/paces.

The same can be said about Mario, Orr and Howe. The same can be almost said about Jagr, OV and Hull, and more than the same can be said about Wayne, Beliveau and Richard.

At best, McDavid's playoff resume is unfinished. At worst, it is notably below expectations.

Crosby's playoff performances have had some notable disappointments.

Gretzky and Howe have playoff runs that closely follow their regular season dominance, with plenty of solid showings even when their teams didn't win.

Orr being ranked #13 on the playoff performer list was in the appropriate range, and that's not quite up to par with a Big 4 player.

While playoff consistency isn't going to match regular season consistency the last three years have been terrible for Playoff Crosby. 209 points in 175 RS games is nothing to shake a stick at, but 6 points in 14 games in tat same span is not befitting any kind of accomplishments by an all-star calibre scorer. He does have the hardware, but I can't stress enough how weak the 2016 Smythe was. It was worse than Niedermayer winning in 2007. Crosby himself was far more productive in 2018 when Washington won.

 

[GuineaPig]

That Crosby won two Smythes with what were maybe his fourth and fifth-best playoff runs seems like a much more compelling argument for him than against him.

 

[TheBlob]

Personal stats he's "good enough", but collectively, needs more cups or even playoff runs.

 

[wetcoast]

Crosby's playoff performances have had some notable disappointments.

Gretzky and Howe have playoff runs that closely follow their regular season dominance, with plenty of solid showings even when their teams didn't win.

Orr being ranked #13 on the playoff performer list was in the appropriate range, and that's not quite up to par with a Big 4 player.

While playoff consistency isn't going to match regular season consistency the last three years have been terrible for Playoff Crosby. 209 points in 175 RS games is nothing to shake a stick at, but 6 points in 14 games in tat same span is not befitting any kind of accomplishments by an all-star calibre scorer. He does have the hardware, but I can't stress enough how weak the 2016 Smythe was. It was worse than Niedermayer winning in 2007. Crosby himself was far more productive in 2018 when Washington won.

I wonder in the future how analytics is going to treat the last 3 playoff performances by Crosby.

It's not like he has played poorly in the last 3 years, although he didn't seem quite himself this past season.

For the record I think McDavid is going to be all right in the playoffs going forward and it's not like he has a crappy resume right now either.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

That Crosby won two Smythes with what were maybe his fourth and fifth-best playoff runs seems like a much more compelling argument for him than against him.

Nah, says more about how bad writers are at voting.

Really, the fact that some are disqualifying McDavid with a playoff stat line of 11-11-22 with a CFrel of 13.7% is very telling.

No he hasn't been as good as his regular season self, but let's stop being disingenuous in acting like he's laid giant eggs