What are the odds that McDavid becomes a member of the Big 5?

[Professor What]

Many think McDavid is the next Crosby....

You now indicate you don't. K.

I didn't say that either. I think there's a real potential for him to be the greatest player since Mario came along. But he's not there yet. Far from it, in fact. But I'm not saying that's not what he is. We have to wait and see. The whole point of this was just to create a conversation point that I hoped would be fun, and which appears to have been, considering the discussion that's gone on. But yeah, we'll have to wait and see where it ends up, and six seasons aren't enough to decide.

 

[VanIslander]

To be clear: There is a Big 4 and a huge drop off. There is no Big 5.

 

[Professor What]

To be clear: There is a Big 4 and a huge drop off. There is no Big 5.

No question. We're very much on the same page there. If I were to pinpoint any single thing that I'm most trying to explore with this thread concept, it's asking the question of what would change that. McDavid is an exciting player with a crazy amount of potential that opens the door for that, so his career to this point opens the door for some discussion.

 

[seventieslord]

I feel like in the last 15 minutes the odds took a hit.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

I feel like in the last 15 minutes the odds took a hit.

Overreaction.

Say Oilers get swept, if McDavid goes on to win 3 cups in his career does it matter?

Is Ovechkin's career hurt because it took him a bit to win a Cup?

 

[seventieslord]

Overreaction.

Say Oilers get swept, if McDavid goes on to win 3 cups in his career does it matter?

Is Ovechkin's career hurt because it took him a bit to win a Cup?

No, it's not an overreaction. In the end, McDavid can win all the scoring titles and hart trophies he wants, but unless he gets a chance to do something in the playoffs, and then actually does something in the playoffs, he will never ever be considered a top five player of all time. This year he was scoring at a rate not seen, on an adjusted basis, since the Gretzky years, and he could theoretically go down in four games with three points against an inferior team. He has a finite number of years to achieve these playoff objectives and this is yet another one of them thrown away. Yes, this does reduce the likelihood that he is eventually seen as a top five player of all time. I'm not saying anything drastic like it took it from a 90% chance to a 10% chance. But if there was a 50% chance going into today, those chances might have gone down to 45.

15 minutes before I made that post, he was just fine. Edmonton was cruising to victory and would have only been down two to one in the series and would have still had a very good chance of winning that and going even further in the playoffs. In just 15 minutes, that outlook for this season changed drastically.

And, I said that knowing there was only a 50% chance they would lose in overtime. I didn't say it after they lost. The odds have taken yet another hit.

 

[Troubadour]

It definitely feels that way. Hockey today is pretty tame physically compared to back then in the regular season, but the playoffs today almost seem like a different league from the regular season entirely, especially with no 3 on 3 OT.

I get that feeling too. I mean, I too drool over some of the reg season dekes and goals, but then I notice today's defenders rarely do anything. So some of those feel more like practice showoff. Then playoff comes, no-holds-allowed becomes no-holds-barred, and many sweet-hands, crisp-skating stars of today begin to look kinda lost.

I feel maybe transition from reg season to playoffs was easier for the star players twenty years ago, although the reg season itself may have been harder to play through. But I could be wrong ofc.

 

[VanIslander]

Young people fawn over potential.

Been there.

 

[ted2019]

Overreaction.

Say Oilers get swept, if McDavid goes on to win 3 cups in his career does it matter?

Is Ovechkin's career hurt because it took him a bit to win a Cup?

McDavid won't do anything in the playoffs until they get some decent depth at forward. I think that if he does do something, it will be with another team besides Edmonton. Edmonton has cap issues everywhere you turn and a starting goalie that's 37-38 years old with really no one to take his place. Unless they can catch "lightning in a bottle", they will be looking at a 1B type of tandem to get them through most seasons. RNH is a UFA, Barrie & Larsson. It's going to e a situation sooner then later that either McDavid gets traded or they move Draisaitl and try to gain some cap or get 2 wingers for one Draisaitl.

 

[The Macho King]

McDavid won't do anything in the playoffs until they get some decent depth at forward. I think that if he does do something, it will be with another team besides Edmonton. Edmonton has cap issues everywhere you turn and a starting goalie that's 37-38 years old with really no one to take his place. Unless they can catch "lightning in a bottle", they will be looking at a 1B type of tandem to get them through most seasons. RNH is a UFA, Barrie & Larsson. It's going to e a situation sooner then later that either McDavid gets traded or they move Draisaitl and try to gain some cap or get 2 wingers for one Draisaitl.

I don't know man... Like a player can't win a Cup on his own, sure. But a round? Eh....

 

[Midnight Judges]

To be clear: There is a Big 4 and a huge drop off. There is no Big 5.

The big drop off is after Gordie Howe (6 MVPs) and before Orr (3) and Lemieux (3).

There is no big 4. Calling it that is an insult to Gretzky, and Howe to a lesser extent.

 

[ResilientBeast]

McDavid won't do anything in the playoffs until they get some decent depth at forward. I think that if he does do something, it will be with another team besides Edmonton. Edmonton has cap issues everywhere you turn and a starting goalie that's 37-38 years old with really no one to take his place. Unless they can catch "lightning in a bottle", they will be looking at a 1B type of tandem to get them through most seasons. RNH is a UFA, Barrie & Larsson. It's going to e a situation sooner then later that either McDavid gets traded or they move Draisaitl and try to gain some cap or get 2 wingers for one Draisaitl.

You're somewhat misinformed. The last thing they'll do is trade either of them.

Larsson is a UFA but it's apparently going to get roughly the same as he's being paid now.

RNH had a bad year, so hopefully he'll be reasonable otherwise, we can find another way to spend 6+ million.

Barrie can be replaced by all the young D prospects in our system, so if he wants too much money he can also leave.

This is all ignoring the fact that this team is absolutely pathetic and that our two stars were completely shut out in games 1 & 2 which just can't happen.

I fully expect the sweep to be completed tonight.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Getting swept isn't the issue.

0-3-3 after playing near 2 PPG all season is the issue. That's a stain on his record unless he turns it around dramatically, starting tonight. Whether it's fair or not is a different question, but it is just inevitable that he's going to have to overcome a narrative going forward.

 

[Professor What]

The big drop off is after Gordie Howe (6 MVPs) and before Orr (3) and Lemieux (3).

There is no big 4. Calling it that is an insult to Gretzky, and Howe to a lesser extent.

Trophy counting won't cut it. If it did, there'd be no point to a lot of the discussions we have.

No defenseman had won the Hart for 26 years before Orr did, and none won it again for 28 years after he did. And he still managed to win it three times. That he won it was was remarkable; three times was mind-blowing. And you could get plenty of discussion going as to why he should have won more than three. But really, that doesn't even start getting to the point. A defenseman won two scoring titles, and he did so while still being revered for his defensive play. That shouldn't even be possible on multiple levels. He also literally changed the way the game was played. That can't be quantified, but such an impact on the game has to be taken into account.

As far as Lemieux's trophies go, there is that one Hart that pretty inexplicably went to Gretzky over him, but again, that's beside the point. Here's a guy who put up raw satistical numbers that only he and Greztky have ever done, and his best numbers came when scoring was slightly lower than when Gretzky got his. He also very well might have broken Gretzky's single-season goals and points records if not for a pesky cancer battle. And he went on a pace sufficient to do that over a full season immediately after taking treatment.

But I guess we could just decide that we've got a simple answer to the greatest players of all time.

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Gordie Howe
3. Eddie Shore
T-4. Bobby Clarke
T-4. Mario Lemieux
T-4. Howie Morenz
T-4. Bobby Orr
T-4. Alex Ovechkin
T-9. Jean Beliveau
T-9. Bill Cowley
T-9. Sidney Crosby
T-9. Phil Esposito
T-9. Dominik Hasek
T-9. Bobby Hull
T-9. Guy Lafleur
T-9. Mark Messier
T-9. Stan Mikita
T-9. Nels Stewart
T-19. 38 players, some of whom will never make the Hall of Fame
T-57. Everybody else.

Yeah, I'm sure everybody will go along with that list... Yeah, that was ridiculous, but it should make the point. If you try to use trophy counting to directly compare the careers of two players, you're missing a lot.

 

[VanIslander]

The big drop off is after Gordie Howe (6 MVPs) and before Orr (3) and Lemieux (3).

There is no big 4. Calling it that is an insult to Gretzky, and Howe to a lesser extent.

Wow.

THAT is an original take. I personally love your conclusion (i give 9 & 99 higher status due to career length), but I don't trophy count per se.

There are many, so many who say Orr is #1 and Mario Lemieux proponents triple Crosby fans, at least among those who saw them play mostly while they adults not adolescents.

McDavid can claw over Beliveau, Hull and Hasek, and he still has tons/kms to reach Lemieux and Orr, Howe and Gretzky.

This is foolish.

 

[GMR]

Getting swept isn't the issue.

0-3-3 after playing near 2 PPG all season is the issue. That's a stain on his record unless he turns it around dramatically, starting tonight. Whether it's fair or not is a different question, but it is just inevitable that he's going to have to overcome a narrative going forward.

It's easier for teams to shut down a superstar in the playoffs. Especially on a one-line team. I didn't expect him to score 2 PPG in the playoffs. We haven't seen that in a long time. That said, we'll see how many points he scores in game 4 (and beyond).

No matter how many points he scores, he'll be blamed for losing this series. Just like Mahomes in the Super Bowl. There are people who want to see certain teams lose to pick apart a certain media darling. Didn't Gretzky have his detractors after 1982 and 1983?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Trophy counting won't cut it. If it did, there'd be no point to a lot of the discussions we have.

No defenseman had won the Hart for 26 years before Orr did, and none won it again for 28 years after he did. And he still managed to win it three times. That he won it was was remarkable; three times was mind-blowing. And you could get plenty of discussion going as to why he should have won more than three. But really, that doesn't even start getting to the point. A defenseman won two scoring titles, and he did so while still being revered for his defensive play. That shouldn't even be possible on multiple levels. He also literally changed the way the game was played. That can't be quantified, but such an impact on the game has to be taken into account.

As far as Lemieux's trophies go, there is that one Hart that pretty inexplicably went to Gretzky over him, but again, that's beside the point. Here's a guy who put up raw satistical numbers that only he and Greztky have ever done, and his best numbers came when scoring was slightly lower than when Gretzky got his. He also very well might have broken Gretzky's single-season goals and points records if not for a pesky cancer battle. And he went on a pace sufficient to do that over a full season immediately after taking treatment.

But I guess we could just decide that we've got a simple answer to the greatest players of all time.

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Gordie Howe
3. Eddie Shore
T-4. Bobby Clarke
T-4. Mario Lemieux
T-4. Howie Morenz
T-4. Bobby Orr
T-4. Alex Ovechkin
T-9. Jean Beliveau
T-9. Bill Cowley
T-9. Sidney Crosby
T-9. Phil Esposito
T-9. Dominik Hasek
T-9. Bobby Hull
T-9. Guy Lafleur
T-9. Mark Messier
T-9. Stan Mikita
T-9. Nels Stewart
T-19. 38 players, some of whom will never make the Hall of Fame
T-57. Everybody else.

Yeah, I'm sure everybody will go along with that list... Yeah, that was ridiculous, but it should make the point. If you try to use trophy counting to directly compare the careers of two players, you're missing a lot.

I agree that it misses a lot, such as longevity.

The Hart voters from Orr's era certainly contemplated these things and understood that he was a defenseman - with basically zero restrictions. He was beat by 2 or more players for the Hart in all but 3 seasons, so it's not like he was unlucky or anything. For 3 of his very best seasons, he wasn't even regarded as having the best season on his own team at the time.

The players apparently didn't disagree - giving the Pearson to him only once in five seasons of eligibility during his prime (yes I know that award morphed over time).

Orr preyed on pylons in a post-expansion, pre-international, pre-baby boom NHL at a time when the WHA was also poaching some talent. It was the weakest of eras. The stars aligned for the best players to have ridiculous peak seasons, and Bobby Orr wasn't even the only one to do it. Orr utterly trounced all-time terrible start-up teams. Even Gordie Howe at age 40 put up his first ever 100 point season in Orr's era.

The season after Orr won his last Art Ross, the Bruins significantly improved despite him only playing 10 games. So the best player ever leaves after having one of his best seasons, and the team gets better?!? It simply does not pass the smell test.

3 Harts and 2 cups is just not on the level it needs to be in order for a guy to be untouchable based on half a career.

Gretzky's top 9 seasons are exponentially better than Orr's - they're not remotely in the same ballpark - and then Gretzky has another first ballot hall of fame career on top of that. Putting these two on the same level or in the same group is just not indicative of their contributions as players.

It is clear that Orr's legend grew with the what-ifs after his career was cut short. It's like the hockey equivalent of JFK syndrome. The lore substantially out-stripped the actuals.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Wow.

THAT is an original take. I personally love your conclusion (i give 9 & 99 higher status due to career length), but I don't trophy count per se.

There are many, so many who say Orr is #1 and Mario Lemieux proponents triple Crosby fans, at least among those who saw them play mostly while they adults not adolescents.

McDavid can claw over Beliveau, Hull and Hasek, and he still has tons/kms to reach Lemieux and Orr, Howe and Gretzky.

This is foolish.

Well, the criteria for me is greatness, and greatness is defined as the player who contributed the most, thereby giving their team the best chances to win the most championships.

So peak play is tremendously valuable, but so is longevity. Orr and Lemieux are far lower than Gretzky for peak, and whereas Gretzky is quite good in the longevity department, Bobby Orr is a complete zero, and Lemieux has a huge weakness there too.

So again, I have never seen a rational basis for why Lemieux or Orr should be put on a platform with Gretzky. All I've seen is fans of theirs who desire it.

 

[VanIslander]

Sorry man, but if GREATNESS is your criterion, then Bobby Orr dominates the discussion.

I thought durability, consistency, constitition, or the like explained our shared love of 9&99.

There has never been a greater player than: ____________ (insert Orr or maybe Gretzky here).

 

[VanIslander]

Orr and Lemieux are far lower than Gretzky for peak, and whereas Gretzky is quite good in the longevity department, Bobby Orr is a complete zero, and Lemieux has a huge weakness

...

Orr has a lower peak?

In what universe.

I know Gretzky won 8 consecutive Harts, and 9 Art Ross' as the top scorer,

But Orr transformed the game with his 8 consecutive Norris trophies and end-to-end rushes.

1A & 1B imo.

But then old 20-year-consecutive-top-5-scorer and more intangibles/physical Gordie Howe enters the discussion and -dang- someone HAS to take a backseat. No way Gordie sits in the backseat of any car.

You cannot seriously think Howe is 3rd string on any 60-minute ice surface.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's easier for teams to shut down a superstar in the playoffs. Especially on a one-line team. I didn't expect him to score 2 PPG in the playoffs. We haven't seen that in a long time. That said, we'll see how many points he scores in game 4 (and beyond).

No matter how many points he scores, he'll be blamed for losing this series. Just like Mahomes in the Super Bowl. There are people who want to see certain teams lose to pick apart a certain media darling. Didn't Gretzky have his detractors after 1982 and 1983?

It's completely different, though, to be blamed for losing a series than it is to be blamed for being completely shut down while losing a series.

Gretzky in 1982 scored 12 points in 5 games. In 1983 he led all players with 38 points in 16 games. At that time the narrative was that the Oilers were all flash and no substance compared to the battle-tested Islanders dynasty. To this day, people still talk about the (possibly apocryphal) moment when the Oilers glanced into the Isles' dressing room and saw a team that looked like they had been through hell and back, and understood the sacrifices necessary to become a championship team. That maturity process is part of the grand arc of the 1980s NHL, the story that gets passed down from one generation to the next.

What McDavid is dealing with right now is a lot more closely comparable to Marcel Dionne scoring 137 points in the 1980 regular season, then 0-3-3 in 4 playoff games while being laser-targeted by the Isles defense. Dionne's inability to somehow transcend god-like over the normal dynamics of playoff hockey still follows him to this day, and is the single major reason that he's viewed as a borderline top-20 center of all time rather than bordering on top-10. McDavid is going to have to figure this out (by any means necessary, even if that means bad things for the Oilers franchise) or he will suffer a similar blow to his legacy.

 

[GMR]

It's completely different, though, to be blamed for losing a series than it is to be blamed for being completely shut down while losing a series.

Gretzky in 1982 scored 12 points in 5 games. In 1983 he led all players with 38 points in 16 games. At that time the narrative was that the Oilers were all flash and no substance compared to the battle-tested Islanders dynasty. To this day, people still talk about the (possibly apocryphal) moment when the Oilers glanced into the Isles' dressing room and saw a team that looked like they had been through hell and back, and understood the sacrifices necessary to become a championship team. That maturity process is part of the grand arc of the 1980s NHL, the story that gets passed down from one generation to the next.

What McDavid is dealing with right now is a lot more closely comparable to Marcel Dionne scoring 137 points in the 1980 regular season, then 0-3-3 in 4 playoff games while being laser-targeted by the Isles defense. Dionne's inability to somehow transcend god-like over the normal dynamics of playoff hockey still follows him to this day, and is the single major reason that he's viewed as a borderline top-20 center of all time rather than bordering on top-10. McDavid is going to have to figure this out (by any means necessary, even if that means bad things for the Oilers franchise) or he will suffer a similar blow to his legacy.

That's a good comparison because Dionne's Kings were largely a one-line team that wasn't built to win a Stanley Cup.

Anyway, he scored 3 points last night. They still lost. Maybe that doesn't excuse the first two games, but shows there's a deeper problem than just his scoring.

 

[Professor What]

I agree that it misses a lot, such as longevity.

The Hart voters from Orr's era certainly contemplated these things and understood that he was a defenseman - with basically zero restrictions. He was beat by 2 or more players for the Hart in all but 3 seasons, so it's not like he was unlucky or anything. For 3 of his very best seasons, he wasn't even regarded as having the best season on his own team at the time.

The players apparently didn't disagree - giving the Pearson to him only once in five seasons of eligibility during his prime (yes I know that award morphed over time).

Orr preyed on pylons in a post-expansion, pre-international, pre-baby boom NHL at a time when the WHA was also poaching some talent. It was the weakest of eras. The stars aligned for the best players to have ridiculous peak seasons, and Bobby Orr wasn't even the only one to do it. Orr utterly trounced all-time terrible start-up teams. Even Gordie Howe at age 40 put up his first ever 100 point season in Orr's era.

The season after Orr won his last Art Ross, the Bruins significantly improved despite him only playing 10 games. So the best player ever leaves after having one of his best seasons, and the team gets better?!? It simply does not pass the smell test.

3 Harts and 2 cups is just not on the level it needs to be in order for a guy to be untouchable based on half a career.

Gretzky's top 9 seasons are exponentially better than Orr's - they're not remotely in the same ballpark - and then Gretzky has another first ballot hall of fame career on top of that. Putting these two on the same level or in the same group is just not indicative of their contributions as players.

It is clear that Orr's legend grew with the what-ifs after his career was cut short. It's like the hockey equivalent of JFK syndrome. The lore substantially out-stripped the actuals.

I'm just going to be blunt. That's absurd.

Go look up how often defensemen are even finalists for the Hart. It's a pretty rare occurence. So, the idea that he was beaten by two or more players meaning that he wasn't a deserving candidate absolutely misses the point. Again, that he won the Hart even once, let alone three times reveals something incredible. And so what if he finished below Esposito in balloting? It's a forward-skewed award, and Esposito was putting up record-shattering numbers. If you really think that Hart voters weigh a player being a defenseman vs a forward, I don't know what to say to you. I think the evidence over literally decades proves the exact obvious.

And the weakest of eras? I'd argue that the early 80s, when Gretzky was putting up his biggest numbers was the weakest, but regardless of where someone falls on that debate, it's close. The league was 50% bigger than when Orr won his final Hart, and it wasn't until the 1974 expansion that the comically bad teams started surfacing (such as the the 1974-75 Capitals), and even then, some of the earlier expansion teams were competing, such as the Flyers (especially) and the Sabres, besides which, Orr was nearing the end. If you don't think Gretzky also had some terrible teams to face off against in the early 80s, I just don't know what to say.

Raw numbers are also a problem. Those are so era dependent that I automatically dismiss any argument based primarily on them. That's why I made the point about Lemieux's numbers that approached Gretzky's coming in a lower-scoring time. The context of the scoring rates and styles of play are vital. So, the ageless wonder, one of the greatest players to ever put on skates scored 100 points at age 40 as scoring started to rise? Okay. And? (The fact that so much emphasis is put on it being his first 100 point season misses a lot too, but that's another discussion.) Again, Orr led the league in scoring. He beat Esposito in both of those seasons as a defenseman (not to mention every other forward in the league). Take a look at how rare it is for a defenseman to even finish top five. It really feels like there's an intentional understatement of Orr's achievments. I apologize if I'm reading that wrong, but I can't see any other way that it could be downplayed so harshly. Put in proper context, there's no justification for saying that Gretzky's best seasons were "exponentially better" than Orr's. If you think Gretky's peak was higher, great. That's a reasonable opinion. But to throw out a word like "exponential" is ridiculous. They're more than "remotely in the same ballpark." There are people that find Gretzky to be the greatest because he lasted so much longer (which is entirely reasonable), but this is the first time I've ever actually directly dealt with someone trying to claim that Orr wasn't of a comparable talent level.

As for Orr being gone and the team improving, well, this isn't basketball. It's not a one-man show. Give me a team full of solid players rather than one Orr or Gretzky and then a bunch of nobodies on top of that. That's more a matter of the roster than one player. Yes, we celebrate players that are able to lift their teams, but that only goes so far. That's why I have a serious problem with Cup counting. I don't care if a guy never won a Cup if he pulled his weight in the playoffs. I don't care if he won five if he was a postseason no-show. Expecting one player to be the be-all end-all in hockey just isn't realistic. It is a sport where one of the greatest players of all time can leave a team and the team keep right on firing. Although, that being said, look at Orr's playoff performances, and it's clear he carried his weight and then some. By any reasonable measure of contributing what was expected to his team, Orr was a success.

The one knock you make on Orr that I consider reasonable is his lack on longevity. Depending on how someone weights all the various factors, that could be a significant drag. But, I feel that it's more than counterbalanced by the fact that he literally revolutionized the sport with his play. That's a really, really big deal. You don't have to agree with that. But don't be so dismissive of the huge number of people who do. This is one of those times where someone has put up an argument that I don't think even deserves serious consideration. There are so many things ignored and miscast that it doesn't feel like it has any real point.

Anyway, I've said my peace. It's pretty clear that we're not ever going to come close to seeing eye to eye so I'm just going to leave that there.

 

[wetcoast]

I feel like in the last 15 minutes the odds took a hit.

You might be right but is that more a reflection on what forms opinions or something that McDavid actually did?

 

[wetcoast]

Getting swept isn't the issue.

0-3-3 after playing near 2 PPG all season is the issue. That's a stain on his record unless he turns it around dramatically, starting tonight. Whether it's fair or not is a different question, but it is just inevitable that he's going to have to overcome a narrative going forward.

Seriously though are people so focused on production here, it's not like his possession numbers or the eye test shows that he is stinking out the joint.

Also, Connor Hellebuyck is having a huge impact here too.

The context is that it will soon be a 32 team league with salary caps so some great players, even a potential top 5 guy of all time might not have on the surface the most impressive playoff resume.