McDavid already has more 5 point games than Crosby

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
Canes. I just think Edmonton is a clown show of a franchise so until they cease on that front then I don't mind them continuing to have embarrassing things happen to them. And believe me, this is coming form a fan of a team that was dreadful on and off the ice for a decade. For me it's all about accountability from the top down.
30+ clown franchises are identified in the nhl every year. It’s all about who isn’t a clown franchise. How do you deem the oilers are worse than the rest?
 

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,786
14,617
Toronto, ON
30+ clown franchises are identified in the nhl every year. It’s all about who isn’t a clown franchise. How do you deem the oilers are worse than the rest?

They aren't clowns because they don't win. They're clowns because of the way they run their org. Look at their track record of GM, coaches, developing players, getting multiple #1OA picks and countless other high draft picks and doing less than nothing with it.
 

MessierII

Registered User
Aug 10, 2011
27,644
16,188
I wish Connor McDavid nothing but the best and as much personal success as he can achieve. However, I have no desire to ever see the Oilers win a playoff series during his time there, let alone win the cup. Hope he can accomplish that team success once his contract is up or he demands a trade out of Edmonton.
Well they won a playoff series in 2017 already so sucks to be you
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,077
14,584
Counterpoint.

Lemieux didn't even make the playoffs his first 4 seasons in the NHL when 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs in that era.

Did that make his talent any less of a talent?

I'm a huge fan of Lemieux.

No - it doesn't make him less of a talent. In terms of legacy? It would have been a HUGE hit on his career without the playoff success he eventually achieved. Lemieux is part of the 'big 4' today, and many argue him as the most talented/skilled of all time. Many say he could have made a run for #1 with good health. I think all of those compliments towards Lemieux don't even register if he didn't prove it he could also do it in the playoffs. It's not just the cup wins - it's the smythes, and some of the most dominating smythe wins of all-time.

If McDavid hopes to one day reach an all-time great status, worthy of being looked at as a top 10 player ever, and maybe in contention for #5 (as Crosby is) - he'll have to have a playoff legacy worthy of it.

I do agree with you that if Lemieux built his playoff legacy after age 24, so can McDavid. It's still early. But - he'll have to get there eventually
 
  • Like
Reactions: RattsSSV

7even

Offered and lost
Feb 1, 2012
18,569
14,126
North Carolina
Counterpoint.

Lemieux didn't even make the playoffs his first 4 seasons in the NHL when 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs in that era.

Did that make his talent any less of a talent?

Gottemmm

Engage with the point or don't. "Edmonton sucks lmao" isn't new or interesting. "Are higher multipoint games a good way to stratify players" is a much more interesting question.
 

filinski77

Registered User
Feb 12, 2017
2,576
4,192
Thank you so much! That's impressive, I totally didn't expect McDavid to have a slight edge even in this.

As an aside, do you get this off hockey reference?
No problem!

Not sure if you can get this information off of Hockey Reference. I just go to nhl.com's stats page, and filter specific dates (not seasons), which will let you break it down deeper, and then just unclick "sum results" or whatever, and it will show you all the games in that date range. Sort from most points to least, and then just find out what record # it goes from 1-point games to 0-point games.

Hope that makes sense :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dexter Colt

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
He deserves every bit of the praise he is getting.

What he has not earned yet is comparaison with a guy like Crosby.

You can score more points, you can have more trophies, you can be "better", but until your actually have team success (the reason why they play the games), well... what does it really mean? That you are stuck in a bad situation, mostly. But it also raises unfair questions about you as a player.

What part of team success is within McDavids control? Dumb argument.
 

SniperHF

Rejecting Reports
Mar 9, 2007
42,631
21,042
Phoenix
HF really needs McDavid and Matthews Mega threads.

Megathreads suck, the only people who like them are extremely frequent posters. People who like to scan for topics to talk about hate them, it's forum poison only to be ingested when absolutely necessary :)
 

Video Nasty

Registered User
Mar 12, 2017
4,534
7,767
I'm a huge fan of Lemieux.

No - it doesn't make him less of a talent. In terms of legacy? It would have been a HUGE hit on his career without the playoff success he eventually achieved. Lemieux is part of the 'big 4' today, and many argue him as the most talented/skilled of all time. Many say he could have made a run for #1 with good health. I think all of those compliments towards Lemieux don't even register if he didn't prove it he could also do it in the playoffs. It's not just the cup wins - it's the smythes, and some of the most dominating smythe wins of all-time.

If McDavid hopes to one day reach an all-time great status, worthy of being looked at as a top 10 player ever, and maybe in contention for #5 (as Crosby is) - he'll have to have a playoff legacy worthy of it.

I do agree with you that if Lemieux built his playoff legacy after age 24, so can McDavid. It's still early. But - he'll have to get there eventually

Which he almost certainly will. There are very few all-time talents in any sport that don't have at least one championship.

And if he doesn't? Any sane fair person should be able to evaluate his legacy based on the facts.

Barry Sanders is perhaps the pinnacle of an example of a player who is an all-time legend at his position that had virtually no team success. He didn't retire with any major records, he was on team that played 6 playoff games during his tenure, finished with a below .500 record cumulatively in the regular season, and he was really only great in a lone playoff game.

None of this keeps many people from ranking him as the best running back ever.

Different sport, different criteria for a RB than if an all-time QB retires ringless, but hey Marino fits that description too. In contention for one of the best QBs ever upon retirement, despite not winning the Super Bowl.

There are no real examples I can think of in hockey of a talent who played a significant amount of time and didn't see playoff success. I suppose Bourque and Hasek are the closest that spring to mind, players winning in the twilight of their careers. The Bourque storyline is beautiful and an iconic moment in the sport, but did him winning really change anything for him legacy wise? He would never be ranked ahead of Orr and he was top 2-3 before the Cup and remains so to this day.

I've read plenty of your posts to know you are logical and knowledgeable and that you're not really saying you'd let a lack of a Cup affect your own rankings, but it needs to be stated that lack of championships is not the death knell for a player's legacy that it's made out to be.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
Don't forget Fluery, he had a big part in those Stanley cups

He had the worst save % of anyone to win a cup in the salary cap era the year he won, played one game and lost it the other year “he won” and had to have Matt Murray bail him out of a poor performance against Ottawa in the third round another year. Not to mention his gold medal came from eating popcorn in the stands at the 2010 Olympics. I’m sure every goalie would love to get the props Fleury does for “winning” the way Fleury does.
 

BlueBaron

Registered User
May 29, 2006
15,669
6,302
Sarnia, On
Megathreads suck, the only people who like them are extremely frequent posters. People who like to scan for topics to talk about hate them, it's forum poison only to be ingested when absolutely necessary :)
I see you have strong opinions on the subject. I don't.
 

HugginThePost

Flames Suck
Sponsor
Dec 28, 2006
3,868
3,275
Back to the Sweat Box
I wonder what it is like to be a person who thinks that one person having success diminishes the success of everyone else. It can't be fun. Crosby and everything he has accomplished in his career are not threatened by McDavid being amazing.

Now, reverse this.........

Why does a McDavid fan need to compare an obscure "5 point" stat to try and point out McDavid a better?

Cuts both ways, no?
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,585
17,344
We were discussing legacies and who is perceived as better. Until McDavid wins something, there won't be an argument.

I am not interested in debating who is better because, quite frankly, I do not care.

McDavid has the individual awards that are something he can control. Whether or not you care doesn’t mean anything. We play in a 31, about to be 32 team league. You can’t get the team accomplishments without a supporting cast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am not exposed

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,077
14,584
Which he almost certainly will. There are very few all-time talents in any sport that don't have at least one championship.

And if he doesn't? Any sane fair person should be able to evaluate his legacy based on the facts.

Barry Sanders is perhaps the pinnacle of an example of a player who is an all-time legend at his position that had virtually no team success. He didn't retire with any major records, he was on team that played 6 playoff games during his tenure, finished with a below .500 record cumulatively in the regular season, and he was really only great in a lone playoff game.

None of this keeps many people from ranking him as the best running back ever.

Different sport, different criteria for a RB than if an all-time QB retires ringless, but hey Marino fits that description too. In contention for one of the best QBs ever upon retirement, despite not winning the Super Bowl.

There are no real examples I can think of in hockey of a talent who played a significant amount of time and didn't see playoff success. I suppose Bourque and Hasek are the closest that spring to mind, players winning in the twilight of their careers. The Bourque storyline is beautiful and an iconic moment in the sport, but did him winning really change anything for him legacy wise? He would never be ranked ahead of Orr and he was top 2-3 before the Cup and remains so to this day.

I've read plenty of your posts to know you are logical and knowledgeable and that you're not really saying you'd let a lack of a Cup affect your own rankings, but it needs to be stated that lack of championships is not the death knell for a player's legacy that it's made out to be.

I agree he almost certainly will. Right now his regular season resume is pretty close to Crosby through 5 years, whichever you prefer. McDavid's edge going forward could be that Crosby suffered major injuries at around this point in his career, so there's an opening for McDavid to surpass. Crosby's edge is that his consistency into his 30s is fantastic, and no guarantee McDavid will match/surpass that. So it's still a toss up who ends up better regular season resume. If they remain really close, Crosby's playoff edge will be the differentiator.

As to your comment "and if he doesn't"? Well - it depends. It's less about winning the cup than it is about the performances. He has to have some 'smythe worthy runs' whether his team wins or not. Runs like EK in 2017, or like many of Forsberg's runs (outside of the 96 and 2001 cups). Or Bourque in Boston as you say, or Hasek in Buffalo, or even Giguere in 2003. Give McDavid 2-3 such runs through 3-4 playoff rounds and strong playoff career numbers - that's a very good playoff career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanscosm

snipes

How cold? I’m ice cold.
Dec 28, 2015
54,873
61,392
Which he almost certainly will. There are very few all-time talents in any sport that don't have at least one championship.

And if he doesn't? Any sane fair person should be able to evaluate his legacy based on the facts.

Barry Sanders is perhaps the pinnacle of an example of a player who is an all-time legend at his position that had virtually no team success. He didn't retire with any major records, he was on team that played 6 playoff games during his tenure, finished with a below .500 record cumulatively in the regular season, and he was really only great in a lone playoff game.

None of this keeps many people from ranking him as the best running back ever.

Different sport, different criteria for a RB than if an all-time QB retires ringless, but hey Marino fits that description too. In contention for one of the best QBs ever upon retirement, despite not winning the Super Bowl.

There are no real examples I can think of in hockey of a talent who played a significant amount of time and didn't see playoff success. I suppose Bourque and Hasek are the closest that spring to mind, players winning in the twilight of their careers. The Bourque storyline is beautiful and an iconic moment in the sport, but did him winning really change anything for him legacy wise? He would never be ranked ahead of Orr and he was top 2-3 before the Cup and remains so to this day.

I've read plenty of your posts to know you are logical and knowledgeable and that you're not really saying you'd let a lack of a Cup affect your own rankings, but it needs to be stated that lack of championships is not the death knell for a player's legacy that it's made out to be.

Excellent post.

There's been some good stuff in this thread, some of the actual real discussions taking place in this thread are what make HF the best place to talk hockey.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->