At some point in the future, it may become apparent that the three players in NHL history who put up video game numbers during the time the league expanded it's size four times over were maybe not as far ahead of the pack as their numbers indicated. If by the year 2070, after multiple "next ones" have come and gone, and noone has gotten close to a 200 point season/significantly ahead of the pack like Wayne and Mario, one has to question how much they benefitted from the era in which they played.
I don't have Howe quite on the same offensive level as Wayne and Mario given his lack of multiple seasons at the 52/53 level but his longevity and all around game put him in the Big 4, especially since he was the Big 1 until Orr. Crosby has an argument to be viewed as closer to Howe offensively, particularly in length of prime, than any other player, along with a superior 2-way game than Wayne and Mario but obviously injuries ruined any chance to broach the topic. He still could "Brady" his way into making things interesting though.
McDavid, so far, seems to be exclusively an offensive weapon and is used as such, and has the potential to make as strong a case as anybody that he close to Wayne and Mario is regular season offensive dominance. Whether this can be translated into team success remains to be seen.
Crosby was on track for the Big 5 after his second season, and was making tracks again midway into his 6th season. McDavid has certainly made things interesting with a fuller 6th season, albeit with some obvious caveats.
I think if by the year 2070 no one comes close to the 200 point level then wouldn't it be more of a good thing for Gretzky and Lemieux instead of a "Well, it must mean their era had something do to with it?" Almost everyone who watched them play will be dead by 2070, so basically you are going to have to look at it the same way we look at Babe Ruth today. Because no one is alive that can remember him play either...................who isn't 100 years old anyway. Isn't it a good thing that even to this day, while a couple of people passed Ruth in home runs that both players needed significantly more at-bats/late career performance enhancing drugs in order to do it? Even more so if you count plate appearances and not just at-bats.
Ruth - 714 home runs in 8399 ABs
Aaron - 755 home runs in 12364 ABs
Bonds - 762 home runs in 9847 ABs
I mean, if there are daunting records that are still impressive after 100 years isn't there a reason for it? And this is factoring in that the game of baseball from a statistical level hasn't changed a heck of a lot from Ruth's to the current day. There is a reason Ruth was dominating the home run race for more or less a decade, even after teams starting figuring out the long ball was worth it.
Same with Gretzky and Lemieux, I think people look at their video game numbers and try to justify a way that it isn't possible for this to happen today. I think it is possible. I just think both were better than McDavid. Put it this way, Lemieux comes back from cancer in 1993, he is 12 points or so behind Pat Lafontaine for the scoring lead and racks up 56 points in the final 20 games and beats Lafontaine by 12. And it isn't as if Lafontaine didn't still put up good numbers at the end either. Lemieux was simply just that good, that's why the Penguins had that 17 game winning streak at that time which has never even been tied despite the advent of shootout wins and such.
I think there are times when a player is simply just that good. Whether it is just raw God-given talent or just unreal hockey sense there is always one guy that can do something better than anyone else. And remember to always fall back on how they dominated their peers. Gretzky did this for a decade, so if people say, "Well it was their era" just look at the Stastny/Bossy/Kurri/Trottier/Dionne/Hawerchuk numbers and see just how far behind those great players were.
This is exactly what people have been saying, regardless of these divisions he's absolutely dominating to an extent Crosby or Ovechkin never came close to, and the scoring in the North division is roughly the average of all 4 divisions and no higher than the full regular season last year. I think he probably has a little boost this season, but nothing that would see him not still be the most dominant point producer since one of Lemieux's seasons.
It will be exciting to find out.
Bill Cowley in 1940-41 as well.
Oh wow, no kidding. Okay, I'd have lost that bet that Cowley is the only player outside of Orr and Gretzky to have more assists than the #3 scorer had points. He does strangely get overlooked by everyone - including myself - when thinking about the greats. Honestly, he should truly be discussed among the great centres in history a lot more often.
After his second season? After outscoring Thornton by six points? After getting outscored at ES by Thornton, Iginla, Lecavaliere, St. Louis, Heatley, Vanek, Briere, Tanguay and Olli, I repeat, Olli Jokinen?
In the words of John McEnroe, "you can't be serious!"
Big 5 would take a lasting dominance, or a shorter but otherworldly peak, and, ideally, both.
Sid had neither. At his best, he was dominant, but not that dominant. And he was extremely good for a long time, but rarely had you thinking "wow, this rivals Mario, Gretzky, Orr, Howe!"
It was more like, yeah, he probably is better than Sakic ever was after all.
I agree, and disagree. I think he is right when he says there was plenty of excitement surrounding Sid in 2007. This is a 19 year old kid beating the field in the NHL. I can remember his 6 point game against Philly that season where he overtook the scoring lead in December or so and never looked back. I was thinking "Wow, he's the best player in the NHL". It was a weird season for Crosby in regards to power play points vs. even strength points, but still, 120 points is 120 points. If he scored 61 PP vs. 59 ES then that's fine. It was just the one season where he did this. But there definitely was some excitement surrounding it. I can remember it vividly. I remember sort of comparing him with Gretzky and Mario's first two seasons. I didn't think he quite reached Gretzky's first two years, but there was a decent argument Crosby had at least as good of a first two years in the NHL as Mario. It is a moot point anyway, because at the end of the day both Mario and Wayne hit a level of superstardom (Gretzky 3rd season, Mario 4th) that Sid never was parallel with. So you are right in a way where Crosby is the type that has just been great for a long time but lacks the super greatness of the big 4 (hey, who doesn't?) Him being aligned with Beliveau at the end of his career - or like you said clearly above Sakic - is more like it. But those first two seasons...............I think he's right, you were wondering just where he was going to take his game to.
