News Article: (State your case) McDavid vs. Mario Lemieux

[Gurglesons]

Meh, they both suck in comparison to Artie from the early '90s ...


/s

 

[Ugene Magic]

I can't help but eyeroll at this take. If he'd left (could he have even done so after his ELC?), the haters would say, "Crosby gave his whole career to the Pens, McDavid is a mercenary with no loyalty." I think this is all sour grapes. McDavid is the best player in the game today and some people can't stand that his career legacy could outgrow Sid's. Sid has a well-earned reputation as a guy who wins wherever he goes. But nonetheless, a huge part of that is outside of his control. McDavid has produced like an absolute beast since entering the NHL, including the playoffs. I don't disagree that his legacy would benefit massively from more team success, but I'm not willing to throw him under the bus for reasons as asinine as, "he chose to stay in Edmonton."


He still has many, many, many, many years left in him. I hope for his sake that he wins a Championship (or several) so that this narrative can be put to rest. And I hope that - should that come to pass - people don't immediately shift the goalposts so as to continue to discredit him. I can already hear the, "he played in a higher scoring league" and other excuses coming. It really, really irks me that a fanbase as spoiled as ours can't acknowledge and appreciate McDavid without finding reasons to put him down.

No sour grapes at all, it's calling it as I see it. I don't care if he puts it all in Edmonton or somewhere else. We are talking about being top five of all-time here, and every single player has won just not one cup, but multiple.

As for the leaving after his ELC take, remember, Lindros didn't even play a single game for Quebec let alone get through a ELC. I think the pressure was more about Gretzky being there and him being the best player, but both came to be on the polar opposite of the spectrum. Even Wayne was moved. All he had to do is say he wouldn't re-sign. They would be forced to trade him. He's already wasted half of his career there, and no real sign it's gonna change.

So, you can eyeroll all you want, there's a real possibility he could be the very first generational talent wasted without a single championship. Plus, there wasn't a person in this world that didn't see him cy when his name was called. So, the pressure was to stay, and he was "well compensated" for staying getting 86% of his money upfront and before he ever steps on the ice each season. Which also brings to bear, him not leaving the team the space to add that extra piece.

McDavid gets all the respect he needs as a player, but again, we're talking putting him with players whom have done much much more.

 

[BobCole]

No sour grapes at all, it's calling it as I see it. I don't care if he puts it all in Edmonton or somewhere else. We are talking about being top five of all-time here, and every single player has won just not one cup, but multiple.

As for the leaving after his ELC take, remember, Lindros didn't even play a single game for Quebec let alone get through a ELC. I think the pressure was more about Gretzky being there and him being the best player, but both came to be on the polar opposite of the spectrum. Even Wayne was moved. All he had to do is say he wouldn't re-sign. They would be forced to trade him. He's already wasted half of his career there, and no real sign it's gonna change.

So, you can eyeroll all you want, there's a real possibility he could be the very first generational talent wasted without a single championship. Plus, there wasn't a person in this world that didn't see him cy when his name was called. So, the pressure was to stay, and he was "well compensated" for staying getting 86% of his money upfront and before he ever steps on the ice each season. Which also brings to bear, him not leaving the team the space to add that extra piece.

McDavid gets all the respect he needs as a player, but again, we're talking putting him with players whom have done much much more.

Like I said, I'm not trying to argue that he is a top-5 all time player. As for all of your talk about his lack of Cup winning pedigree, there are two important points to make here:
1 - As mentioned, a lot of that is out of his control
2 - He's 26 and still on the Front 9 of his career. Yzerman didn't win a Cup until his 15th season. A LOT of hockey left in McDavid.

 

[Son Goku]

Lemieux AINEC and it will never be close

 

[ChaosAgent]

Like I said, I'm not trying to argue that he is a top-5 all time player. As for all of your talk about his lack of Cup winning pedigree, there are two important points to make here:
1 - As mentioned, a lot of that is out of his control
2 - He's 26 and still on the Front 9 of his career. Yzerman didn't win a Cup until his 15th season. A LOT of hockey left in McDavid.

If folks want to make winning the Cup the only qualifier and litmus test, they will be proven wrong. Just a matter of whether goalposts move when it happens.

 

[Nutsack]

Gimme Mario every day and 7 times on Sunday.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Like I said, I'm not trying to argue that he is a top-5 all time player. As for all of your talk about his lack of Cup winning pedigree, there are two important points to make here:
1 - As mentioned, a lot of that is out of his control
2 - He's 26 and still on the Front 9 of his career. Yzerman didn't win a Cup until his 15th season. A LOT of hockey left in McDavid.

Where did I say he didn't have time?

It's not out of his control, heck, he can even pull a Roy if things are not to his satisfaction.

Yzerman competed long before that, he just so happen to run into the Oilers a couple times and the devils.

If folks want to make winning the Cup the only qualifier and litmus test, they will be proven wrong. Just a matter of whether goalposts move when it happens.

Where did anyone limit it to just cups?

There are a lot of markers, and how many has he crossed off?

These guys are Hockey Gods more than just generational talent. They set the markers he's trying to strive for. Some people seem to think he can check them all off, that's why the words impossible/improbable are used.

McDavid's a great talent, and this era's goat so long as he keeps going. He actually has to put in the work.

I'd love to see where McDavid has turned lesser players into near 50 goal scorers and 100 point players? I mean, who has he made more than they are who wasn't already a pretty good player? <<That's a marker. Making those around them better.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Where did anyone limit it to just cups?

There are a lot of markers, and how many has he crossed off?

These guys are Hockey Gods more than just generational talent. They set the markers he's trying to strive for. Some people seem to think he can check them all off, that's why the words impossible/improbable are used.

McDavid's a great talent, and this era's goat so long as he keeps going. He actually has to put in the work.

I'd love to see where McDavid has turned lesser players into near 50 goal scorers and 100 point players? I mean, who has he made more than they are who wasn't already a pretty good player? <<That's a marker. Making those around them better.

You're just inflating them with all kinds of emotion in statements like that.

They may be hockey gods to you. But that's a vibe thing, not anything quantifiable. It's like the song lyric, when you're little and the world is so big. Are you younger than Mario Lemieux but older than Conor McDavid? Was Mario Lemieux someone you looked up to but you don't look up to Conor McDavid?

Let's just start by being materially better than your peers for a long period of time and I guess knocking off the championship qualifier as a cherry on top. Yes that means adjusting points based on era. McDavid hasn't been better enough (yet, until this year) for long enough (yet) and hasn't won a championship (yet).

It is more likely than not that he will both be the best player for a long time and win at least one championship. What's going to be a little bit harder is that gap that he has on his fellow players.

But just eyeballing it, career-wise:
McDavid: 1.47 PPG, .52 GPG
Matthews: 1.12 PPG, .63 GPG
Draisatl: 1.14 PPG, .47 GPG
MacKinnon is a PPG
Kucherov: 1.13 PPG

That is like 30% higher than his closest peer in career PPG

Most relevant contemporary comparison.
Crosby, 18-26: 1.4 PPG, .5 GPG. At this point he was behind Ovechkin in GPG obviously but way ahead of his peers in PPG (Malkin was 2nd IIRC, Ovechkin and Kane floated around for 3rd)
Crosby, 27-now: 1.15 PPG, .44 GPG
And the latter marker is in a higher scoring era especially with 3-on-3 OT. IMO given the difficulties of the league now if Crosby had been able to maintain his ~1.4 PPG pace through say, 2018, he would have a much greater shout at Mt. Rushmore, today. Probably more meaningful than a 3rd Cup. Either way Crosby is going to wind up somewhere between 4-10ish.

I'm not anointing him now. As you said, he has to do the work. I'm just saying that it's headed that way. 700 goals and 2000 points in this era and if he exceeds his whole peer group by 30% production-wise. It's possible. Throw in 1-2 Cups and it's a contending resume.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Also in terms of elevating other players I just had a quick looksie at Zach Hyman's stats. So yeah.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Also in terms of elevating other players I just had a quick looksie at Zach Hyman's stats. So yeah.

McDavid absolutely does not elevate his linemates. His linemates produce because of how good he is.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Also in terms of elevating other players I just had a quick looksie at Zach Hyman's stats. So yeah.

I'm gonna stop you right there, Mario didn't have a Drai/RNH/ZH/EK

Hyman if you look closer, GP do matter. Toronto, he got 5.5 for a reason.

Mario had 60+ point separations. McDavid's sporting a 16

McDavid almost has an equal on his team going back years. Take that away.... What's McDavid doing? They played a lot together as a line.

Mario didn't have a PP like....

Hyman ------RNH-------Drai

McDavid--------------Barrie
Sprinkle a Kane in there.

Not until later on did Mario get help the likes of Drai.

Just digging that hole ever deeper.

 

[Richard]

hmmm having watched them both, I would give McDavid the edge for the first two seasons of their careers and after that all MArio and its not close.

I feel McDavid has been great since he entered the league. The first two seasons of Mario's career he had a lot of maturity issues and temper tantrums. After that, he developed so clear above McDavid to compare them would be laughable. Mario is probably the greatest offensive player of all time.

 

[ChaosAgent]

McDavid absolutely does not elevate his linemates. His linemates produce because of how good he is.

What does that even mean? You think Robbie Brown's random great year was because Mario elevated him, or how good Mario was?

 

[Pens1566]

What does that even mean? You think Robbie Brown's random great year was because Mario elevated him, or how good Mario was?

I think the difference is that he's not turning them into better players or increasing their skill, it's just that they're benefiting from being on the ice at the same time and increasing production based off of things he does. In other words, they're not permanently somehow "improved" just by playing with him. He's bouncing pucks off them or turning their shitty pass into a scoring opportunity.

It's a legit argument.

 

[Richard]

What does that even mean? You think Robbie Brown's random great year was because Mario elevated him, or how good Mario was?

A lot is about fit -- Mario liked guys who drove the net and a speedy ish guy who could back the d off and cover for him in the Dzone. Ironically, he played his best hockey between two big burley guys who just created havoc and so much space.

McDavid seems to be very self - reliant in the creation of offense. Honestly, he strikes be more like a Bure - another guy who needed absolutely no-one to produce 50 goals. I think McDavid can play with virtually anyone but I think why Drai is a perfect fit is that Drai holds the puck somewhat, but dishes to McDavid in space and lets him go.

Mario changed his game to suit who he had and played to their strengths. I'm not criticizing McDavid because he hasn't needed to do that -- I just feel that Mario involved his teammates more in his greatness and McDavid is a one man show.

It will be interesting to see McDavid play where he doesn't have that half-step advantage. Will he burn out, like Bure, or will he adapt his game and still be an all-time great?

I would imagine it is the latter.

 

[edog37]

Ovechkin had the same exact issues as McDavid. Bad team management, bad team structure, and bad coaching.

Ovechkin & McMuffin share something else.... they are not very good captains. I don't really bag on Ovechkin anymore because he did win a Cup, but he was never going to lead his team to another championship. That was evident after he won his only Cup. This is what separates the truly great (Sid, Mario) from McDavid/Ovechkin. All wear/wore the C on their jersey & it is indeed a big part of the evaluation. Excuses like "it's a team sport" deflect from an inability to consistently lead. Mario became a great captain & Sid was born with that ability. This is what elevates them.

 

[ChaosAgent]

I think the difference is that he's not turning them into better players or increasing their skill, it's just that they're benefiting from being on the ice at the same time and increasing production based off of things he does. In other words, they're not permanently somehow "improved" just by playing with him. He's bouncing pucks off them or turning their shitty pass into a scoring opportunity.

It's a legit argument.

And Mario improved Robbie Brown?

 

[Pens1566]

And Mario improved Robbie Brown?

Never said he did. But I would put Brown in the category that @Richard listed where he played to Brown's "strengths". Brown was a pylon but had an amazing shot and was willing to go in the dirty areas. Worked perfectly as a foil for 66.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Never said he did. But I would put Brown in the category that @Richard listed where he played to Brown's "strengths". Brown was a pylon but had an amazing shot and was willing to go in the dirty areas. Worked perfectly as a foil for 66.

I liked Robbie Brown in his first AND second stint here

 

[BobCole]

A lot is about fit -- Mario liked guys who drove the net and a speedy ish guy who could back the d off and cover for him in the Dzone. Ironically, he played his best hockey between two big burley guys who just created havoc and so much space.

McDavid seems to be very self - reliant in the creation of offense. Honestly, he strikes be more like a Bure - another guy who needed absolutely no-one to produce 50 goals. I think McDavid can play with virtually anyone but I think why Drai is a perfect fit is that Drai holds the puck somewhat, but dishes to McDavid in space and lets him go.

Mario changed his game to suit who he had and played to their strengths. I'm not criticizing McDavid because he hasn't needed to do that -- I just feel that Mario involved his teammates more in his greatness and McDavid is a one man show.

It will be interesting to see McDavid play where he doesn't have that half-step advantage. Will he burn out, like Bure, or will he adapt his game and still be an all-time great?

I would imagine it is the latter.

I think you can make a legit case that OV isn't the best leader. McDavid will carry the label of "not being a winner" the same way Yzerman did until he won a Cup 15 years into his career. Now he's considered a living legend. I mentioned earlier, I can't wait to watch McDavid lift a Cup.

As for Mario, he's my favorite player of all time and the very reason I love hockey (and the Pens). But you could make a legit case that he was personally responsible for creating and sustaining a country club atmosphere that haunted the team all the way until the Therrien era.

Oh, finally, this gibberish about Lemieux elevating his linemates while McDavid's linemates just "produce better" with him. What the actual eff?

 

[HandshakeLine]

This thread is proof of how every and any History of Hockey forum is doomed to fail.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

This thread is proof of how every and any History of Hockey forum is doomed to fail.

It's because these discussions begin with a faulty premise -- that there is a clear and objective way to determine or measure things like "which guy was better" or "who's in your top 5/10/20/whatever".

For me, McDavid vs. Mario is easy, right now. It might become more difficult - although I doubt it, given my age and that I grew up a Penguins fan. You think I'm ever going to be able to fully take my personal feelings and opinions out of the discussion?

But the follow-up discussion of whether or not McDavid can insinuate himself into being an all-timer is flawed because he doesn't have to bump someone out of being an all-timer to become one himself. "Top 5" or "top 10" are arbitrary cutoffs. (And don't get me started on the idea that it's too complicated to include goalies in such a discussion.)

If/when McDavid becomes an all-time great won't matter a lick to whether Gordie Howe or Jaromir Jagr or Alexander Ovechkin is an all-time great.

I'm not saying these kinds of barstool topics aren't fun, just that there is no hard and fast way of determining right and wrong. Which is probably what makes them fun.

 

[Richard]

I think you can make a legit case that OV isn't the best leader. McDavid will carry the label of "not being a winner" the same way Yzerman did until he won a Cup 15 years into his career. Now he's considered a living legend. I mentioned earlier, I can't wait to watch McDavid lift a Cup.

As for Mario, he's my favorite player of all time and the very reason I love hockey (and the Pens). But you could make a legit case that he was personally responsible for creating and sustaining a country club atmosphere that haunted the team all the way until the Therrien era.

Oh, finally, this gibberish about Lemieux elevating his linemates while McDavid's linemates just "produce better" with him. What the actual eff?

I'm not exactly sure of your reaction to my post ----

I didn't really discuss any of those things you mentioned -- McDavid plays fine in the playoffs?

I'm saying you could stick McDavid out with two sticks and he would score his points because his game is extremely self-reliant.

Mario could do that as well, better than McDavid, but Mario had a higher hockey IQ and wasn't as reliant on any specific portion of his offensive game to get points. He had the speed, explosiveness, hands, head, awareness, etc...

McDavid reminds me of so much of Pavel Bure, the pure explosiveness AND the ability of his hands to keep up with his feet which makes him unstoppable. I said it will be curious to see what he does as he ages. Crosby is still producing despite a lack of explosiveness and foot speed because he is so damn intelligent.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Never said he did. But I would put Brown in the category that @Richard listed where he played to Brown's "strengths". Brown was a pylon but had an amazing shot and was willing to go in the dirty areas. Worked perfectly as a foil for 66.

A couple of Mario motto's.

"Go to the net and I'll put the puck on your stick."
"Keep the goals to under 3"

Always be ready because, Mario may not be looking at you, but he'll find you with passes out of the blue. Mario's vision was next level top shelf that of seeing the play happening well ahead, and his patience's would make even the best blink first, everything's looks to be going in slow motion.

Mario was the beach ball and nobody could stop it. (slight exaggeration) Maybe.

Mario wasn't blazing speed, but as others have mentioned, he wasn't slow.

The tape on what made Mario Lemieux 'Le Magnifique'

Pretty long/good read, and multiple video's.

As Lange put it in one video, Studer's "I'mouti - I'm out of words"

Trait No. 1: Straightline speed and power
Trait No. 2: The wrists and the dekes
Trait No. 3: Pure sniper

I understand as @Double-Shift Lasse put it, "to drum up talk", but there's really not much that can be said to even enlighten Connor to Mario's level. I don't even remember such talk when Sid came into the league, for the most part, everyone was unilaterally on pare he simply would not be them even though Gretzky was tagged to his name, I don't think it was about "the points/goals" but greatness that everyone mistook. That's where I think McDavid lands, and has shown over his first 8 years of his own individual greatness of like since Lemieux, but obviously not Lemieux or Gretzky.

That's where things get crossed. Some want to label them as great or greater. Same thing goes with Ovechkin. They are just not on equal ground, but people want them to be. Maybe one day a player will come along and figure out how to take advantage of current times hockey, player with said equal abilities.

I'm relegated to "Not in my lifetime" it will have to be at some point where the league drastically degrades and the players sink to lower levels of skill. We kind of see it a little bit with change in goalies. There's really not a bunch of elite goalies to be found these days.

 

[Ugene Magic]

It's because these discussions begin with a faulty premise -- that there is a clear and objective way to determine or measure things like "which guy was better" or "who's in your top 5/10/20/whatever".

For me, McDavid vs. Mario is easy, right now. It might become more difficult - although I doubt it, given my age and that I grew up a Penguins fan. You think I'm ever going to be able to fully take my personal feelings and opinions out of the discussion?

But the follow-up discussion of whether or not McDavid can insinuate himself into being an all-timer is flawed because he doesn't have to bump someone out of being an all-timer to become one himself. "Top 5" or "top 10" are arbitrary cutoffs. (And don't get me started on the idea that it's too complicated to include goalies in such a discussion.)

If/when McDavid becomes an all-time great won't matter a lick to whether Gordie Howe or Jaromir Jagr or Alexander Ovechkin is an all-time great.

I'm not saying these kinds of barstool topics aren't fun, just that there is no hard and fast way of determining right and wrong. Which is probably what makes them fun.

Well said, but even "all-time great(s)" has a pecking order or levels to that greatness. That's just the way it is.