TSN says McDavid is potentially better than Gretzky

[Video Nasty]

4. Big 5. To me - this would imply that by the time he retires, you can make a legitimate case for McDavid > Orr, or McDavid > Lemieux or even McDavid > Gretzky. To me this seems very unlikely. It's not impossible (which is impressive on its own), but unlikely. Gretzky has 10 art ross trophies. If McDavid could match that, or come close with 8 or 9 (2nd best ever has 6), along with adding a lot of playoff success (multiple cups/smythes) in what will be seen as a more competitive era than Gretzky - maybe he can reach this tier? I'd say below 5% odds he reaches that high, but not impossible.

My best guess is McDavid flirts between #2 and #3.

I look at the Big Four a bit differently. No one tops Gretzky, so that eliminates the remaining three members having arguments for #1, as you first outline. I understand the people who do make their personal cases for any of the other three members. To me, the Big Four is a collection of players who through some combination of play, talent and career, have ironclad arguments against everyone else that comes after.

By legitimate Big Five, I mean that McDavid is on track to join that group and will do so not just as the consensus 5th best player ever, but as someone who one can make an argument for against the other members, excluding Gretzky in my eyes.

If he were to enjoy a full 20 year career, yes I can see myself persuaded into ranking him as being the second greatest player ever, even though I would always have someone like Lemieux ranked ahead of him as a player. I value both longevity and high level of play, and not relying on what ifs whenever possible.

I’m also recognizing the willingness that this current generation and someone who is just beginning to watch hockey right now knowing McDavid as the best player in the game will have to rank him highly going forward.

 

[Juxta Position]

a) Why is this in the polls section?

b) He's not.

Yes, in a vacuum McDavid is likely the most talented hockey player to ever live, but there needs to be some context and relativism when comparing athletes across eras.

Gretzky is one of the most statistically dominate athletes ever, in any sport. He might be a top 10 athlete ever, in the convo with Ali, Woods, Messi, Jordan, and so on. He's on that level.

He's better. he's the most statistically dominant athlete in team sports history.

Individual sport is different, I'd put Ali, Woods, and Phelps (even though that is considered "armature" in the Olympics) on the same level of Gretzky, but team and individual sports need to be ranked somewhat differently.

I don't think it's a stretch to say McDavid is the most talented player to play the game up to this point, but Gretzky was a hockey savant. I'm old enough, any lucky enough to have watched Gretzky play in Edmonton live and he was ALWAYS multiple steps ahead of everyone else. I know this phrase is overused, but he truly was playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers.

and that's what made what Gretzky accomplished so significant, he wasn't the biggest, strongest, or fastest, he was an ugly skater with a mediocre to average shot, but he was a hockey genius. He was hockey's version of Mozart or Newton, and McDavid, or anyone else I'd argue will never reach the heights that Gretzky did.

 

[jigglysquishy]

To me the "big 4" is such because you can argue any of them as #1. Some have a stronger case, but they all have a case to be ranked above one/another depending on what you like.

Gretzky his case is obvious
Lemieux - probably the most talented
Orr - Insane peak/prime till injuries
Howe - insane career/prime

To me - there are 4 separate levels McDavid could reach, realistically:

1. One of many players who can be argued as #5. He'd reach the same tier as guys like Crosby, Hasek, Roy, Jagr, Beliveau, Hull...etc. Probably a good ~8-10 players in this tier. McDavid will 100% reach that tier by the time he retires (he's already close, if he retired today).

2. Most popular pick at #5. I think this is where Crosby is/ends up. If you have 100 people make a top 10 list, I think Crosby is the most popular name for #5. I'm sure some will disagree - but I like his case because he checks all the boxes with very few weaknesses (prime, peak, playoffs, career, longevity, leadership, goals, playmaking, etc). McDavid will....let's say at ~80-90%+ likelihood reach this tier and surpass Crosby. He's not there yet if he retires tomorrow (you might argue his regular season resume is already worthy) - the thing he lacks most of all is playoffs. Ideally a cup or two and maybe a smythe, but even without any cups, if he has a lot of playoff runs like 22 or 23, he could still reach there.

3. Unanimous #5. This would basically mean that everyone (or just about) agrees that McDavid is definitely the best of that tier I listed in option 1. So he's #5 above all of Crosby/Jagr/Roy/Hasek/Beliveau etc unanimously. This is a very high bar. I think to achieve this - McDavid definitely needs to add more. 100 assists would be a nice touch this year - more trophies like Ross/Hart in future also helps. And most of all -playoffs. Cups and smythes. He's young, and is definitely well positioned to achieve this, but he needs more. How likely is this to happen? I don't know....25-50%?

4. Big 5. To me - this would imply that by the time he retires, you can make a legitimate case for McDavid > Orr, or McDavid > Lemieux or even McDavid > Gretzky. To me this seems very unlikely. It's not impossible (which is impressive on its own), but unlikely. Gretzky has 10 art ross trophies. If McDavid could match that, or come close with 8 or 9 (2nd best ever has 6), along with adding a lot of playoff success (multiple cups/smythes) in what will be seen as a more competitive era than Gretzky - maybe he can reach this tier? I'd say below 5% odds he reaches that high, but not impossible.

My best guess is McDavid flirts between #2 and #3.

I functionally agree with all of this.

I think the likelihood is he ends up the unanimous #5. When a proper top 100 is done in 10 years, 90+% of picks have him at 5, which few/none above that spot.

I've slowly come around to the idea that the Big Four doesn't really exist in the way we've talked about it before. Gretzky is alone at top. And then Howe/Orr/Lemieux for 2-4. But trying to take an honest approach to making a list taking everything into account, it's very hard to argue anyone but Gretzky at 1.

And I've definitely come to the point where I struggle to see anyone, but Lemieux at 4. And I'm definitely coming to the point where Howe is locked in at 2. So Gretzky-Howe-Orr-Lemieux is a top four order I struggled to deviate from if I put honest thought into it.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Idk I remember laughing at people saying this about LeBron and Jordan but now I think it's pretty clear LeBron is better than Jordan. McDavid would have have a ridiculous 2nd half of his career though like LeBron if he wanted to close the gap, don't see it happening.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I don't understand why would it be significantly higher though. Like hockey as a sport (and most sports really) is getting less popular among kids. A lot of can't afford it even in Canada. In Eastern Europe which used to be the second region for hockey the game is half dead now...

Might be an unpopular opinion here but hockey players were better 30 years ago.

For a number of reasons including:

-improvements in technology and equipment
-players have better strength and conditioning and diets (no longer smoking cigarettes between periods)
-better access to information (internet and everything is filmed)
-better player development programs for youth
-average IQ of people continues to go up over time
-population growth so larger talent pool to pick from
-basically no more goons in the league, more emphasis on skill and speed

Generally, when humans continue to do something for a long time we get better at it as a result of having more data and information to go off of. Hockey is no different.

 

[bleedgreen]

I’ve been around long enough to have seen Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, and Crosby…the later two mentioned because they were the “next ones”.

Mcdavid belongs in that conversation and that’s the best compliment you can pay a player. He’s beyond Lindros and Crosby. He’s already one of the best ever. I don’t think you’ll ever have an answer to who’s specifically better. Statistically it’s Gretzky, I’m a Lemieux guy….Mcdavid isn’t better than those two to me. Not yet. They had a next level for big games in the playoffs that we’ve seen a glimpse of with 97, but not to the same extent. He’s done it time and again in the regular season. To me it’s not about the hardware, it’s just seeing those big plays in the really big moments.

That’s the difference between him and the top four or five.

 

[BTP]

Why is the most talented player ever ranked 43rd in goals scored this season when he is at the absolute peak of his powers? View attachment 842504

This argument ignores the dilution of the talent pool inherent in expansion. Every time the league expands, 25 more guys who weren’t good enough for the previous pool of teams get full-time gigs.

Is your argument that it is harder for mcdavid to put up points when he plays against guys who wouldn’t get out of the ECHL in gretzky’s era?

Edit - others are making the same talent argument. Erroneous. We have better training and PEDs now, sure, but we don’t have a better hockey mind than Gretzky.

At the end of the day, if we could teleport McDavid back to when Gretzky was playing, for one season, he would probably put up like 15-20 points per game and thats not being sarcastic. Its simply that much better now. People just have to accept this

 

[HolyHagelin]

At the end of the day, if we could teleport McDavid back to when Gretzky was playing, for one season, he would probably put up like 15-20 points per game and thats not being sarcastic. Its simply that much better now. People just have to accept this

At the end of the day, it’s night.

At the end of your post, we all laugh at you.

 

[Video Nasty]

I functionally agree with all of this.

I think the likelihood is he ends up the unanimous #5. When a proper top 100 is done in 10 years, 90+% of picks have him at 5, which few/none above that spot.

10 years from now, McDavid could be in the final season or two of his career. We don’t know what will happen in between now and then, but I think you’re underestimating the power that could come with what he has accomplished, built up over these coming years and coming to a head when we’re saying goodbye to him as a player.

His trophy cabinet case is already among the most elite ever. The Cups will come. If he continues adding more personal hardware…joins Gretzky in the 2000 point club…very possibly could fall back no lower than 4th highest career PPG…second most assists ever while scoring 700 goals…and so on.

It’s just one guy on TSN, but we already have people willing to declare him the greatest as of today. What happens when his accomplishments get out of control?

With all due respect to the HoH board, sub 10% of the votes picking McDavid higher than 5th, will not remotely match the real world if he wraps up his career managing even half of what I expect going forward.

 

[PensandCaps]

It's not that absurd of a question when it's all said and done.

McDavid has lived up to the pre draft hype, and then some.

like are people paying attention to what McDavid has done and is doing? Truly puzzled by people scoffing at the notion.

Probably the same type of people scoffing at Gretzky being the best ever in 1984.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

Gretzky will never be beaten. Statistically, his greatness will never be matched.

But, I don't think the idea is totally far-fetched. I think there is a very good argument that McDavid is the greatest player of all-time when talking at a talent level. The only problem with that is comparing eras when the technology, equipment, medicine/training and speed are far greater today than when Gretzky was around 25 to 45 years go.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Good thing they lost the rights

 

[jigglysquishy]

10 years from now, McDavid could be in the final season or two of his career. We don’t know what will happen in between now and then, but I think you’re underestimating the power that could come with what he has accomplished, built up over these coming years and coming to a head when we’re saying goodbye to him as a player.

His trophy cabinet case is already among the most elite ever. The Cups will come. If he continues adding more personal hardware…joins Gretzky in the 2000 point club…very possibly could fall back no lower than 4th highest career PPG…second most assists ever while scoring 700 goals…and so on.

It’s just one guy on TSN, but we already have people willing to declare him the greatest as of today. What happens when his accomplishments get out of control?

With all due respect to the HoH board, sub 10% of the votes picking McDavid higher than 5th, will not remotely match the real world if he wraps up his career managing even half of what I expect going forward.

No one in the "real world" actually does a list.

How many people, in the entire world, have actually generated a top 100? 50-75? And it's not the guys on TSN.

The ones that took part in the NHL Top 100 explicitly ignored 1885-1920 hockey, and anything that happened outside the confines of the NHL. The Score looked at NHL only and gave lip-service to pre-1950 hockey. The Athletic specifically looked at post-1967 only because they recognized their ignorance of old hockey.

The number of people who have honestly looked at Makarov vs Cook vs Lafleur is very very small.

How many people have done a top 200? Exactly 17. And it's the 17 from the HoH Top 200.

People love to do a top 5 or a top 10. But it's what, 1% of hockey fans even get to the top 25? How many people on here, who didn't take part in the HoH lists, have made it to top 50? 0? 1?

If you can't go through the process of doing a top 100, why should I care what you have to say about a top 5? Until you put in the real work, it's just not worthwhile. And those internal debates about who at 75 vs 77 gets you to take a deep look at your hockey assumptions and provides fruitful experience for making your top 5 more nuanced.

 

[BTP]

At the end of the day, it’s night.

At the end of your post, we all laugh at you.

If you think McDavid wouldn't put up astronomical points playing against guys in the early 80's, against goalies of their quality level, against guys in that equipment, against skaters not even half his speed, against players nowhere near his talent level...I dont know what to tell you. Im not the dumb one here lol thats all I know

Hell the players themselves have said it before.

You are just living in your own fake reality blinded by nostalgia

 

[Overrated]

At the end of the day, if we could teleport McDavid back to when Gretzky was playing, for one season, he would probably put up like 15-20 points per game and thats not being sarcastic. Its simply that much better now. People just have to accept this

I could believe that if we were to talk about 100 years ago when pro hockey was a novelty and even then 15-20 points would be an exaggeration though something like 5 points per game on average and a hattrick every other game would in my opinion be possible.

What I don't get is why would you think Gretzky's generation was somehow so bad? The guy is still alive and not even that old, it's not like he played in the 19th century... You realize that when Gretzky was a child virtually every kid in Canada played hockey? Or that every kid over the age of 6 could swim, climb and skate?

I've already posted this before but it's valid to post this again:


The guy references a study which compared the strength of the average guy today vs 30 years ago. The differences are astounding. People today are much weaker. The worldwide talent pool is also smaller. Fewer kids play the sport.

Is it that players in Gretzky's era look less impressive? That's the skate and stick technology. I'd say that since at least the late 80s the game looks quite modern. When I watch the highlights of the 90s stars I am actually very impressed. How was 43-44 year old grandpa Jagr on the level of Barkov and Huberdeau (young stars of today) while 20 years post prime and never even reaching the levels of Lemieux/Gretzky?

Is it that it is hard to believe there hasn't been a player of such a caliber for 30 years while in the late 80s early 90s there were two at the same time? Well that is down to randomness. Before Orr there hadn't been a player like that since the beginning of hockey. It is what it is.

 

[Wings4Life]

They sad that?

Well, he better start by winning the Ross race this year then. He's been healthy and he's about to play 80 games, Gretzky would win a race like that quite comfortably.

 

[Elvs]

I mean we will never know but they could be right.

The quality of competition (ie the skill and work ethic of the average NHL player) is significantly higher than when Gretzky played. Goalies are also better in terms of technique and equipment. Coaching and system structures are improved. Basically, everything is improved so it it is harder for a player to separate themselves from the pack as much as when Gretzky played.

This message board hates having all time greats compared to modern NHL players and is often blinded by nostalgia or is mystified by the legends. The reality is that athletes continue to get better over time and the NHL is no exception. There’s a reason why Olympic records are routinely broken in sports that are more objective in measuring success (track and field, swimming, etc).

There's a couple of different ways to interpret "best of all time". While what you are saying is mostly true, atlethes tend to be compared against their peers in their respective eras, as they should. Otherwise we might as well remove all the legends from 50 and 100 years ago from the HHOF, or even just from 20 years ago.

Since Nathan MacKinnon entered his prime seven years ago, he's 1.5 PPG and McDavid is 1.6 PPG. So if we are gonna deem McDavid better than Gretzky, we might as well deem MacKinnon better than Lemieux while we're at it. I think neither is true.

 

[CupofOil]

Gretzky was so far above his peers (even when Mario came into the league) that it's almost impossible for anybody to ever compare. There were years (multiple) when he had more assists than anybody else had points. Unprecedented dominance.
If injuries and cancer didn't rob Lemeiux of roughly half of his prime, he'd be in the Gretzky conversation but that wasn't the reality unfortunately.

McDavid is great obviously but there's no comparison whatsoever. Gretzky is arguably the most dominant athlete in team sports history.
McDavid vs. Crosby would be the better poll.

 

[filinski77]

Here's the only real truth:

1) Most modern players are objectively better at hockey than Gretzky was. Athletes are just miles better.

2) But relative to their peers and how dominant they were? Not even close lol.
-> Gretzky lead the league in points 11 times to McDavids 5.
-> Gretzky lead the league in goals 5 times to McDavids 1
-> Gretzky lead the league in assists 16 times to McDavids 3

 

[HolyHagelin]

If you think McDavid wouldn't put up astronomical points playing against guys in the early 80's, against goalies of their quality level, against guys in that equipment, against skaters not even half his speed, against players nowhere near his talent level...I dont know what to tell you. Im not the dumb one here lol thats all I know

Hell the players themselves have said it before.

You are just living in your own reality.

So in your hypothetical, mcdavid brings his new teammates a bunch of modern equipment, coaches them all into playing more modern tactics with more modern baseline concepts, avoids Scott stevens et al, and also has enough left in the tank to outsmart the whole league on the ice every night?

Because otherwise he is going to look like a lost dog on the ice for the first 50 games at least, if he doesn’t get knocked out before then.

Here's the only real truth:

1) Most modern players are objectively better at hockey than Gretzky was. Athletes are just miles better.

2) But relative to their peers and how dominant they were? Not even close lol.
-> Gretzky lead the league in points 11 times to McDavids 5.
-> Gretzky lead the league in goals 5 times to McDavids 1
-> Gretzky lead the league in assists 16 times to McDavids 3

Yes, filip Forsberg, Valeri nichushkin, pat maroon, kaapo kakko, Adam Henrique, all clearly better than Gretzky.

 

[CupofOil]

Here's the only real truth:

1) Most modern players are objectively better at hockey than Gretzky was. Athletes are just miles better.

2) But relative to their peers and how dominant they were? Not even close lol.
-> Gretzky lead the league in points 11 times to McDavids 5.
-> Gretzky lead the league in goals 5 times to McDavids 1
-> Gretzky lead the league in assists 16 times to McDavids 3

No just no and... absolutely NO. There might be guys who can skate faster and shoot a puck harder but nobody even comes close to having the Hockey IQ Gretzky possessed, which is a big part of what makes a great hockey player.

Athletes are better today because they have the modern perks that weren't available to athletes in those times.

 

[filinski77]

So in your hypothetical, mcdavid brings his new teammates a bunch of modern equipment, coaches them all into playing more modern tactics with more modern baseline concepts, avoids Scott stevens et al, and also has enough left in the tank to outsmart the whole league on the ice every night?

Because otherwise he is going to look like a lost dog on the ice for the first 50 games at least, if he doesn’t get knocked out before then.


Yes, filip Forsberg, Valeri nichushkin, pat maroon, kaapo kakko, Adam Henrique, all clearly better than Gretzky.

You clearly missed my point lol. From a pure skill standpoint, most players are faster skaters, more accurate shooters, better stickhandlers, stronger etc. Lots of improvements in technology, training, health/fitness etc.

Just like how every single sprinter in the 2020 mens 100m absolutely dusted the gold medalist time in the 1980 olympics. The 2020 group was objectively faster sprinters, but they were not "better" sprinters.

I also went on to explain how that's irrelevant because the best way to compare is relative to your peers.

 

[the valiant effort]

This whole humans have advanced millions of years in two decades argument that pervades HF is truly exhausting.

 

[filinski77]

No just no and... absolutely NO.

Athletes are better today because they have the modern perks that weren't available to athletes in those times.

I never said anything that opposes that. I understand that Gretzky played in a time where technology, health/fitness, athleticism was lower overall.

 

[Strangle]

Your argument that McLennen is wrong is that he’s likely right?

Gretzky will almost certainly be the greatest player relative to his peers for the rest of time, but with an ever expanding player pool, there will be better hockey players than Gretzky that can never dominate to that extent…so what would it take for a player to be better than Gretzky in your eyes?

This is an easy question to answer, you already know the answer, you just won’t accept it because it makes it basically impossible for any player to surpass gretzky

But that’s the thing about being the ALL TIME GOAT

It was impossible for Gretzky to dominate the way he did too. For someone to pass gretz, they need to score more than gretz

Only one player has scored 200 points in a season, and that player did it 4x

If you’re going to be better than Wayne, there’s your first bar to cross. 200 points

I never said anything that opposes that. I understand that Gretzky played in a time where technology, health/fitness, athleticism was lower overall.

Bullshit, do you think fitness was invented in the new millennium or something?

Have a look at gordie howe and compare him to Ovechkin and McDavid

This fitness argument is ignorant, players were in fantastic shape in the 70’s and 80’s and 90’s

Pavel Bure makes McDavid look like he’s never stepped foot in a gym (he probably hasn’t)