Home Sports Talk

You are the GM. All time draft, Gretzky or McDavid

craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

Who would you choose with the number one all time draft pick and why.

George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

«1

Comments

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To add, say they will be playing in the same era. either Gretzky today or McDavid in the 80s

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,426 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That is a hard one knowing what Gretz did. I think McDavid has 0.1% more ability than Gretz, but Gretz played smart. It's like, do you draft Brady or Mahomes? Mahomes has more talent, but..................

    I'd have to take Gretzky, ask again in 10 years.......


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
  • Alfonz24Alfonz24 Posts: 2,999 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As great as they are at scoring, that GM will need another great all around player to win it all.

    Gretzky won 4 Cups. They also had Mark Messier, who was on the 4 cups Gretzky won and then won another with Edmonton after Gretzky left. Then he won another with the 94 rangers.

    The first in person hockey game I ever went to was a playoff game between the Blackhawks and Oilers at the old stadium. I was just amazed at how much Messier dominated that game. He seemed the strongest player on the ice and no one could take the puck from him. If there was a scrum along the boards, he would jump in and emerge with the puck.

    #LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,854 ✭✭✭✭

    Gretzky. No knock on McDavid, but Gretzky has more assists alone than anyone else even has points. That remains true to this day even with almost two decades of league changes designed to to make it a much more offensive and less violent game.

  • 2dueces2dueces Posts: 6,230 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Gretzky was the greatest player in NHL history. Everyone else is competing for 2nd.

    W.C.Fields
    "I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Remember Pavel Bure? He was going to shatter all of Gretzky's numbers.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,206 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Gretzky

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,206 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There was a time when this thread would have gotten an immediate response that sidetracked the thread completely.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • TabeTabe Posts: 5,905 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In the 80s, I might take Gretzky. In today's game, McDavid for sure.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    ^^^^ Interesting take. which player had the greater skill set?

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    to add, does this imply that Gretzky would struggle in modern hockey?

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • jay0791jay0791 Posts: 3,499 ✭✭✭✭

    McDavid
    Greater skating skills, speed and stickhandling. He is capable of doing more himself.
    99 was far more of a ice general and could play well with others and making them better as well.
    Nearly the entire Oiler team is a HOFer. The second question is what time period do we place these 2 guys at?
    If in the early 70's I would choose 99.

    Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets
    1948-76 Topps FB Sets
    FB & BB HOF Player sets
    1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,854 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    to add, does this imply that Gretzky would struggle in modern hockey?

    He wouldnt, hed have the modern training and dominate. If anything hed have more points with the modern offensive game

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jay0791 said:
    McDavid
    Greater skating skills, speed and stickhandling. He is capable of doing more himself.
    99 was far more of a ice general and could play well with others and making them better as well.
    Nearly the entire Oiler team is a HOFer. The second question is what time period do we place these 2 guys at?
    If in the early 70's I would choose 99.

    I may be wrong, but as a comparison: Gretzky is Magic and McDavid is Jordan?

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @jay0791 said:
    McDavid
    Greater skating skills, speed and stickhandling. He is capable of doing more himself.
    99 was far more of a ice general and could play well with others and making them better as well.
    Nearly the entire Oiler team is a HOFer. The second question is what time period do we place these 2 guys at?
    If in the early 70's I would choose 99.

    I may be wrong, but as a comparison: Gretzky is Magic and McDavid is Jordan?

    Good comparison, but with Magic scoring more points than Jordan.

    Lemieux, Bure, Selanne, Karyia, Jagr, (just to name a few).........none of these guys could surpass Wayne, yet all, at one time or another were said to be more skilled.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,854 ✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:

    @jay0791 said:
    McDavid
    Greater skating skills, speed and stickhandling. He is capable of doing more himself.
    99 was far more of a ice general and could play well with others and making them better as well.
    Nearly the entire Oiler team is a HOFer. The second question is what time period do we place these 2 guys at?
    If in the early 70's I would choose 99.

    I may be wrong, but as a comparison: Gretzky is Magic and McDavid is Jordan?

    Good comparison, but with Magic scoring more points than Jordan.

    Lemieux, Bure, Selanne, Karyia, Jagr, (just to name a few).........none of these guys could surpass Wayne, yet all, at one time or another were said to be more skilled.

    People did argue for Lemieux and if it wasnt for injuries he could have ended up in the conversation. Jagr is boarderline at best for people saying more skilled and he fell off really hard before the age of 30, but no on was saying Bure/Selanne/Karyia belonged in the same discussion as Wayne

    Fun fact Jagr is actually still playing pro in Europe

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 10, 2023 7:34PM

    @Basebal21 said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:

    @jay0791 said:
    McDavid
    Greater skating skills, speed and stickhandling. He is capable of doing more himself.
    99 was far more of a ice general and could play well with others and making them better as well.
    Nearly the entire Oiler team is a HOFer. The second question is what time period do we place these 2 guys at?
    If in the early 70's I would choose 99.

    I may be wrong, but as a comparison: Gretzky is Magic and McDavid is Jordan?

    Good comparison, but with Magic scoring more points than Jordan.

    Lemieux, Bure, Selanne, Karyia, Jagr, (just to name a few).........none of these guys could surpass Wayne, yet all, at one time or another were said to be more skilled.

    People did argue for Lemieux and if it wasnt for injuries he could have ended up in the conversation. Jagr is boarderline at best for people saying more skilled and he fell off really hard before the age of 30, but no on was saying Bure/Selanne/Karyia belonged in the same discussion as Wayne

    Fun fact Jagr is actually still playing pro in Europe

    Selanne scored 76 goals in his first season and Bure scored 60 each in his first 2 full seasons. Both players were very fast and YES they were both considered the next "Great One".
    In 6 full seasons (until this year) McDavid hadn't scored even 50.
    Way too early to start Gretzky comparisons, I can't see where anyone would look at the two and think McDavid was better.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • jay0791jay0791 Posts: 3,499 ✭✭✭✭

    When Wayne was a little boy his father would sit down with him and watch hockey games. He would get him to analyze the games. Situation after situation for 100's of hours he would go over where should the players be and how should they work together. Most experts agree that 99 could read the "ice" better than anyone in history. Years ago I remember watching a game. Gretzky passed the puck 1/2 rink along the boards past two defenders within inches and to an outstretched Messier. He somehow caught the puck from directly behind him an in for a goal. I said to my mom there, "only Gretzky could have made that pass and only Messier could have handled it like that." Nothing flashy. But totally jaw dropping. Gretzky's talent was nothing like McDavid's.

    Wayno is Jabbar: McDavid is Jordan

    Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets
    1948-76 Topps FB Sets
    FB & BB HOF Player sets
    1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,854 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 9, 2023 2:29PM

    .

  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,426 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @jay0791 said:
    McDavid
    Greater skating skills, speed and stickhandling. He is capable of doing more himself.
    99 was far more of a ice general and could play well with others and making them better as well.
    Nearly the entire Oiler team is a HOFer. The second question is what time period do we place these 2 guys at?
    If in the early 70's I would choose 99.

    I may be wrong, but as a comparison: Gretzky is Magic and McDavid is Jordan?

    More like Gretz was like Bird.........


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
  • TabeTabe Posts: 5,905 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Basebal21 said:

    People did argue for Lemieux and if it wasnt for injuries he could have ended up in the conversation.

    Between cancer, Adam Graves, and a completely different style of officiating, Lemieux had tyre deck stacked against him - and still averaged just 0.04 points per game less than Gretzky. He was an incredible player.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Tabe said:

    @Basebal21 said:

    People did argue for Lemieux and if it wasnt for injuries he could have ended up in the conversation.

    Between cancer, Adam Graves, and a completely different style of officiating, Lemieux had tyre deck stacked against him - and still averaged just 0.04 points per game less than Gretzky. He was an incredible player.

    Was certainly a more "complete" player.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,054 ✭✭✭✭✭

    i know just a shade more than absolutely nothing about hockey, but i've made it a point to watch some McDavid clips and to my eyeballs he looks like a maestro with a stick in his hands

    like if you're an opposing goalie and he's got an unimpeded view of the net, you might as well blindfold yourself and puff on a cigarette

  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The only thing I’ve learned about hockey from this board is that if your team loses, it’s never the defensemens’ fault, it’s the best offensive players fault for not playing defense. It seems like being a defenseman in hockey would be great, you never get blamed for anything. 😗

    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,054 ✭✭✭✭✭

    btw i'm sitting here trying to talk hockey for the first time in my entire life and i'm getting distracted by the thick set of bars with a gargantuan keyhole

    how am i supposed to give my .02 about Connor Orr and Wayne Lemieux if my thoughts are gravitating toward legal representation and a conjugal visit for joe b

  • lanemyer85lanemyer85 Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭

    @Darin said:
    The only thing I’ve learned about hockey from this board is that if your team loses, it’s never the defensemens’ fault, it’s the best offensive players fault for not playing defense. It seems like being a defenseman in hockey would be great, you never get blamed for anything. 😗

    you do understand that there are 3 forwards and 2 defensemen, at even strength (5 on 5) right? That would be a bit of a daunting task to expect 2 defensemen to cover 3 forwards, since you know, there would always be one open/uncovered forward in that scenario. You'd have a powerplay on every possession in your scenario. So if your forwards are covering their defensive assignments, then there are 2 layers of defense instead of one (which is often how it was pre-mid-90's). BTW it's the opposite, goalies are always the ones who get blamed for allowing goals...even if their collective defense hang them out to dry.

  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,426 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    Selanne scored 76 goals in his first season and Bure scored 60 each in his first 2 full seasons. Both players were very fast and YES they were both considered the next "Great One".
    In 6 full seasons (until this year) McDavid hadn't scored even 50.
    Way too early to start Gretzky comparisons, I can't see where anyone would look at the two and think McDavid was better.

    Sure, but this number of goals thing is way out of context. NHL scoring has changed for a variety of reasons as stated in various threads. Getting 57 as of now by McD is way above the competition in this era, and we will never know how he would have fared in the earlier much higher scoring eras..............


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @spacehayduke said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    Selanne scored 76 goals in his first season and Bure scored 60 each in his first 2 full seasons. Both players were very fast and YES they were both considered the next "Great One".
    In 6 full seasons (until this year) McDavid hadn't scored even 50.
    Way too early to start Gretzky comparisons, I can't see where anyone would look at the two and think McDavid was better.

    Sure, but this number of goals thing is way out of context. NHL scoring has changed for a variety of reasons as stated in various threads. Getting 57 as of now by McD is way above the competition in this era, and we will never know how he would have fared in the earlier much higher scoring eras..............

    Gretzky led the league in points 8 straight years and 10 out of 12.
    McDavid has led in 5 of the last 7.
    As I stated, too early to make a fair comparison, but if you look at their first 7-8 seasons, Wayne is the much better scorer.
    To match Gretzky's 12 year run, Connor will need to win the scoring title for the next 5 consecutive years.
    That's disregarding number of goals and points and just looking at who was the dominant scorer.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,668 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I will accept the position of CEO at GM. Gretzky... McDavid... that is a GM question that can and should be resolved at a level below my pay grade.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • PillarDollarCollectorPillarDollarCollector Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2023 1:23PM

    Gretzky and I am a big McDavid fan and saw both play. McDavid needs to win The Cup without at least one would be a major blow to his career. He is only 26 and in his prime some I hope he wins more than 1 but I doubt 4 or more that would be a lot to ask in this day and age with so many teams.

    Do I think anyone will pass Gretzky points total....never it would be 150 points for 19 straight years almost. Gretzky is the Babe Ruth of Hockey simple as that.

    Will I be watching McDavid's career closely yes of course this guy is on another level but not on Gretzky's level.

    Collecting interests: Mexico & Peru early milled 1 reales + 1796-1891 US dimes

    Sports: NHL & NFL

    Thank you Lord for another beautiful day!!!

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PillarDollarCollector said:
    Gretzky and I am a big McDavid fan and saw both play. McDavid needs to win The Cup without at least one would be a major blow to his career. He is only 26 and in his prime some I hope he wins more than 1 but I doubt 4 or more that would be a lot to ask in this day and age with so many teams.

    Do I think anyone will pass Gretzky points total....never it would be 150 points for 19 straight years almost. Gretzky is the Babe Ruth of Hockey simple as that.

    Winning the Cup (or any championship) has absolutely nothing to do with being a better individual player.....in any team sport.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • PillarDollarCollectorPillarDollarCollector Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2023 4:43PM

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @PillarDollarCollector said:
    Gretzky and I am a big McDavid fan and saw both play. McDavid needs to win The Cup without at least one would be a major blow to his career. He is only 26 and in his prime some I hope he wins more than 1 but I doubt 4 or more that would be a lot to ask in this day and age with so many teams.

    Do I think anyone will pass Gretzky points total....never it would be 150 points for 19 straight years almost. Gretzky is the Babe Ruth of Hockey simple as that.

    Winning the Cup (or any championship) has absolutely nothing to do with being a better individual player.....in any team sport.

    I don't agree no Cup means your career will always be marked by that in conversations. If Ovi never won 1 Cup OK he has over 800 goals but no Cup that is a big issue.

    How can you even talk about someone been the best if they never win a championship just makes no sens at all.

    Collecting interests: Mexico & Peru early milled 1 reales + 1796-1891 US dimes

    Sports: NHL & NFL

    Thank you Lord for another beautiful day!!!

  • HappytrailsHappytrails Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited March 19, 2023 9:40PM

    McDavid is bigger, stronger, faster IMO.... this era is much more gifted all over the ice.... Gretzky and Lemieux were outrageously gifted above all else back then and took full advantage of it.... today G~Keepers are all 6-2 ~ 6-4 and make it so much harder to score with better technique and bigger padding...... athletes in general are just bigger stronger and faster in the NHL vs. back then and in most sports. I'd vote Mcdavid for this era.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Happytrails said:
    McDavid is bigger, stronger, faster IMO.... this era is much more gifted all over the ice.... Gretzky and Lemieux were outrageously gifted above all else back then and took full advantage of it.... today G~Keepers are all 6-2 ~ 6-4 and make it so much harder to score with better technique and bigger padding...... athletes in general are just bigger stronger and faster in the NHL vs. back then and in most sports. I'd vote Mcdavid for this era.

    the only reason McDavid is "bigger, stronger, faster" is because of modern nutrition/training techniques.

    Had McDavid played 40 years ago, he would have been smaller, weaker and slower than he is now.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PillarDollarCollector said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @PillarDollarCollector said:
    Gretzky and I am a big McDavid fan and saw both play. McDavid needs to win The Cup without at least one would be a major blow to his career. He is only 26 and in his prime some I hope he wins more than 1 but I doubt 4 or more that would be a lot to ask in this day and age with so many teams.

    Do I think anyone will pass Gretzky points total....never it would be 150 points for 19 straight years almost. Gretzky is the Babe Ruth of Hockey simple as that.

    Winning the Cup (or any championship) has absolutely nothing to do with being a better individual player.....in any team sport.

    I don't agree no Cup means your career will always be marked by that in conversations. If Ovi never won 1 Cup OK he has over 800 goals but no Cup that is a big issue.

    How can you even talk about someone been the best if they never win a championship just makes no sens at all.

    A lot of people here agree with you and it baffles me.
    It makes no sense to me at all to even consider (in team sports) championships when comparing players.
    There have been numerous examples given of some all time greats who never won championships because they happened to play on poor teams. This is especially true back before players could play out their contracts and sign with a team of their choosing.
    Ted Williams immediately comes to mind. He's regarded by many to be one of the top hitters of all time. How much better would you rank him had the Red Sox won the World Series they made it to? How about if they won 2 or 3?
    DiMaggio was on the Yankee teams that beat the Sox in a lot of those years, was he better because his team finished in first place almost every year?
    How about in basketball, where Kevin Garnett played for the horrible Minnesota Timberwolves? Possibly the worst franchise in all of professional sports. He had to move to another team to win a title.
    It just makes no sense to think that one guy can win a championship if he plays with below average team mates.....to me.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @Happytrails said:
    McDavid is bigger, stronger, faster IMO.... this era is much more gifted all over the ice.... Gretzky and Lemieux were outrageously gifted above all else back then and took full advantage of it.... today G~Keepers are all 6-2 ~ 6-4 and make it so much harder to score with better technique and bigger padding...... athletes in general are just bigger stronger and faster in the NHL vs. back then and in most sports. I'd vote Mcdavid for this era.

    the only reason McDavid is "bigger, stronger, faster" is because of modern nutrition/training techniques.

    Had McDavid played 40 years ago, he would have been smaller, weaker and slower than he is now.

    If I could have one wish involving these discussions, it would be banning the "if my guy played in this era he would have been better, blah, blah blah" arguments.
    McDavid is slightly bigger than Gretzky, maybe a little (or even a lot) faster than Wayne and he may even have a better shot. None of that proves anything.
    To me, Wayne's scoring was dominant for a much longer time than Conner's............so far. McDavid will have to lead the league (or at least be right there with the best) for several more years before he can be compared fairly with Wayne.
    If you want to talk about "bigger, stronger, faster" maybe Lindros was the best ever.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:

    @Happytrails said:
    McDavid is bigger, stronger, faster IMO.... this era is much more gifted all over the ice.... Gretzky and Lemieux were outrageously gifted above all else back then and took full advantage of it.... today G~Keepers are all 6-2 ~ 6-4 and make it so much harder to score with better technique and bigger padding...... athletes in general are just bigger stronger and faster in the NHL vs. back then and in most sports. I'd vote Mcdavid for this era.

    the only reason McDavid is "bigger, stronger, faster" is because of modern nutrition/training techniques.

    Had McDavid played 40 years ago, he would have been smaller, weaker and slower than he is now.

    If I could have one wish involving these discussions, it would be banning the "if my guy played in this era he would have been better, blah, blah blah" arguments.
    McDavid is slightly bigger than Gretzky, maybe a little (or even a lot) faster than Wayne and he may even have a better shot. None of that proves anything.
    To me, Wayne's scoring was dominant for a much longer time than Conner's............so far. McDavid will have to lead the league (or at least be right there with the best) for several more years before he can be compared fairly with Wayne.
    If you want to talk about "bigger, stronger, faster" maybe Lindros was the best ever.

    Do you disagree that had McDavid played 40 years ago he would have been "smaller, slower and weaker?" And likewise, Gretzky would have been Bigger, faster and stronger had he played today? Seems like simple biology.

    Maybe I am not understanding your point?

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • PillarDollarCollectorPillarDollarCollector Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2023 9:55AM

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @PillarDollarCollector said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @PillarDollarCollector said:
    Gretzky and I am a big McDavid fan and saw both play. McDavid needs to win The Cup without at least one would be a major blow to his career. He is only 26 and in his prime some I hope he wins more than 1 but I doubt 4 or more that would be a lot to ask in this day and age with so many teams.

    Do I think anyone will pass Gretzky points total....never it would be 150 points for 19 straight years almost. Gretzky is the Babe Ruth of Hockey simple as that.

    Winning the Cup (or any championship) has absolutely nothing to do with being a better individual player.....in any team sport.

    I don't agree no Cup means your career will always be marked by that in conversations. If Ovi never won 1 Cup OK he has over 800 goals but no Cup that is a big issue.

    How can you even talk about someone been the best if they never win a championship just makes no sens at all.

    A lot of people here agree with you and it baffles me.
    It makes no sense to me at all to even consider (in team sports) championships when comparing players.
    There have been numerous examples given of some all time greats who never won championships because they happened to play on poor teams. This is especially true back before players could play out their contracts and sign with a team of their choosing.
    Ted Williams immediately comes to mind. He's regarded by many to be one of the top hitters of all time. How much better would you rank him had the Red Sox won the World Series they made it to? How about if they won 2 or 3?
    DiMaggio was on the Yankee teams that beat the Sox in a lot of those years, was he better because his team finished in first place almost every year?
    How about in basketball, where Kevin Garnett played for the horrible Minnesota Timberwolves? Possibly the worst franchise in all of professional sports. He had to move to another team to win a title.
    It just makes no sense to think that one guy can win a championship if he plays with below average team mates.....to me.

    The whole point of playing a sport is to win the championship. Personal stats come next in line.

    I understand your point but to me no championship is a stain on a players legacy and a stain that does not go away.

    Collecting interests: Mexico & Peru early milled 1 reales + 1796-1891 US dimes

    Sports: NHL & NFL

    Thank you Lord for another beautiful day!!!

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just how much different in size would McDavid be if he was born in Gretzky's year of birth, 1961? I started lifting weights in the early 1970's, so why couldn't he have done the same? I don't even know how much of a gym rat McDavid is.
    Instead of 6'1" would he have been 5'9"? And Gretzky? Would he have been 6'3" and 210 and a faster skater if he was born in 1997?
    McDavid might have been a work out fanatic back then, and Gretzky might not have been any better if he hit the weights more. He was a "finesse" player, not a grinder. I think "better" training helps average athletes much more than the special guys.
    Most people here look at one thing (scoring) and decide who the best hockey player was. In this case they fall in love with McDavid and say "he would have been better than Gretzky if he played back then" or "Gretzky wouldn't be as great today as he was back then". Who knows?
    Scoring, if that's all we are concerned with was higher then than it is now, but Gretzky AVERAGED 200 points a season for 6 straight years. Was it THAT much easier?
    Let's assume the McDavid people say "yes", well then Connor has several years where he will need to dominate to be comparable to Wayne. Until then, I'll stick with Gretzky.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Just how much different in size would McDavid be if he was born in Gretzky's year of birth, 1961? I started lifting weights in the early 1970's, so why couldn't he have done the same? I don't even know how much of a gym rat McDavid is.
    Instead of 6'1" would he have been 5'9"? And Gretzky? Would he have been 6'3" and 210 and a faster skater if he was born in 1997?
    McDavid might have been a work out fanatic back then, and Gretzky might not have been any better if he hit the weights more. He was a "finesse" player, not a grinder. I think "better" training helps average athletes much more than the special guys.
    Most people here look at one thing (scoring) and decide who the best hockey player was. In this case they fall in love with McDavid and say "he would have been better than Gretzky if he played back then" or "Gretzky wouldn't be as great today as he was back then". Who knows?
    Scoring, if that's all we are concerned with was higher then than it is now, but Gretzky AVERAGED 200 points a season for 6 straight years. Was it THAT much easier?
    Let's assume the McDavid people say "yes", well then Connor has several years where he will need to dominate to be comparable to Wayne. Until then, I'll stick with Gretzky.

    I think that great players would be great regardless of what era they played in. Many people think modern players are so much better than those from previous generations. that is mostly because they think they are bigger, stronger, faster, throw harder etc. I call bunk on that. Given the same nutrition/training, size/speed/strength etc would normalize. it just would. 100 years is far too short a time for evolution to make the human being a larger species (if you believe in such things)

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:

    @Happytrails said:
    McDavid is bigger, stronger, faster IMO.... this era is much more gifted all over the ice.... Gretzky and Lemieux were outrageously gifted above all else back then and took full advantage of it.... today G~Keepers are all 6-2 ~ 6-4 and make it so much harder to score with better technique and bigger padding...... athletes in general are just bigger stronger and faster in the NHL vs. back then and in most sports. I'd vote Mcdavid for this era.

    the only reason McDavid is "bigger, stronger, faster" is because of modern nutrition/training techniques.

    Had McDavid played 40 years ago, he would have been smaller, weaker and slower than he is now.

    If I could have one wish involving these discussions, it would be banning the "if my guy played in this era he would have been better, blah, blah blah" arguments.
    McDavid is slightly bigger than Gretzky, maybe a little (or even a lot) faster than Wayne and he may even have a better shot. None of that proves anything.
    To me, Wayne's scoring was dominant for a much longer time than Conner's............so far. McDavid will have to lead the league (or at least be right there with the best) for several more years before he can be compared fairly with Wayne.
    If you want to talk about "bigger, stronger, faster" maybe Lindros was the best ever.

    Do you disagree that had McDavid played 40 years ago he would have been "smaller, slower and weaker?" And likewise, Gretzky would have been Bigger, faster and stronger had he played today? Seems like simple biology.

    Maybe I am not understanding your point?

    Depends. What if one of their mom's fell in love with Danny Devito?

    It is a complex situation, with many factors. Evolution doesn't really come into play in that short of a period, but population growth is a big factor as well as more populations to draw from(that were once not viable to draw from). The average height of people is higher now than in 1920(both in athletics and in overall society).

    In these debates what typically happens is that the young and old fans tend to go overboard in rating their generations against each other. There is a difference and it has gotten harder and more competitive over time, and the farther in time you go the bigger that difference is. The more people in the world the more freaks of nature athletes are born. It isn't evolution.

    However, the differences are still subtle and I agree with you that Ruth and Jim Brown would be stars in today's respective games, but their stats would most definitely not look the same. Ruth would not be hitting .360 with 58 Home Runs and 176 RBI. Just wouldn't happen because of those several complex reasons. But he could certainly be a multi MVP winner etc, but with different looking numbers both raw and compared to his peers.

    What has also happened recently with the richness of pro athletics is that some people do pick their mates with this in mind to increase their chances of stronger offspring to cash in on that. Obviously it isn't a guarantee but does increase your chances. It is a form of evolution and does add more competitive players to the mix

    Another prevailing factor is the style of the game.

    If I was told to take one of two MLB players back in time with me to play baseball in 1909 and I had to choose between Joey Gallo(when he was hitting 40 home runs), and Billy Hamilton who was not a very effective MLB player compared to Gallo. In MLB, if I plop Joey Gallo(when he was hitting 40 home runs still) into 1909, I may be better off with the modern day Billy Hamilton to take back with me who was inferior to Gallo, but his skill set would suit the league environment more.

    But then again, Hamilton would not have been allowed to play due to the rules in place in 1909.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭✭

    Size absolutely matters in all professional sports. If it didn't, then the size of the pro athletes would mirror the average sizes in all of society and they clearly don't.

    The smaller guys with less muscle mass certainly are at a disadvantage, and the ones who do make it are few and far between. Jose Altuve is a rare bird but even he weighs 165 pounds. If he weighed 120 he wouldn't be there.

    Anyone who plays against a group of X sized people and then has to play against a bigger X sized group of people(with elite athletic attributes), will have a harder time competing with them. How hard depends on a lot of factors. Some may have a harder time than others.

    Assuming a guy being born in 1999 would automatically be bigger than if he was born in 1920(and assuming he had the same parents) isn't accurate regardless of nutrition. That dude would be the same size if he was born now or then. 1920 America was not Ethiopia. People ate.

    But now he would have more people bigger to compete against(with naturally bigger muscle mass not trained mass) because there are simply more people to choose from and more people in the world to produce more bigger gifted athletes, and there are also sociological factors that allow for more competitive athlete pool now. That is independent of nutrition and training(both the science of the sport and body training)

    That is not a knock on a 1930 athlete. Their mark on history is undeniable and much respected.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:
    Size absolutely matters in all professional sports. If it didn't, then the size of the pro athletes would mirror the average sizes in all of society and they clearly don't.

    The smaller guys with less muscle mass certainly are at a disadvantage, and the ones who do make it are few and far between. Jose Altuve is a rare bird but even he weighs 165 pounds. If he weighed 120 he wouldn't be there.

    Anyone who plays against a group of X sized people and then has to play against a bigger X sized group of people(with elite athletic attributes), will have a harder time competing with them. How hard depends on a lot of factors. Some may have a harder time than others.

    Assuming a guy being born in 1999 would automatically be bigger than if he was born in 1920(and assuming he had the same parents) isn't accurate regardless of nutrition. That dude would be the same size if he was born now or then. 1920 America was not Ethiopia. People ate.

    But now he would have more people bigger to compete against(with naturally bigger muscle mass not trained mass) because there are simply more people to choose from and more people in the world to produce more bigger gifted athletes, and there are also sociological factors that allow for more competitive athlete pool now. That is independent of nutrition and training(both the science of the sport and body training)

    That is not a knock on a 1930 athlete. Their mark on history is undeniable and much respected.

    I'll speak to your point in the case of hockey where a lot of little guys who are really good get injured by bigger players who can barely skate and are just there to goon the better, smaller players.
    There haven't been a whole lot of big hockey players that were great imo. Lemieux and Lindros come to mind, but a lot of the highly skilled guys are 6' and under.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson

    you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.

    of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,426 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Just how much different in size would McDavid be if he was born in Gretzky's year of birth, 1961? I started lifting weights in the early 1970's, so why couldn't he have done the same? I don't even know how much of a gym rat McDavid is.
    Instead of 6'1" would he have been 5'9"? And Gretzky? Would he have been 6'3" and 210 and a faster skater if he was born in 1997?
    McDavid might have been a work out fanatic back then, and Gretzky might not have been any better if he hit the weights more. He was a "finesse" player, not a grinder. I think "better" training helps average athletes much more than the special guys.
    Most people here look at one thing (scoring) and decide who the best hockey player was. In this case they fall in love with McDavid and say "he would have been better than Gretzky if he played back then" or "Gretzky wouldn't be as great today as he was back then". Who knows?
    Scoring, if that's all we are concerned with was higher then than it is now, but Gretzky AVERAGED 200 points a season for 6 straight years. Was it THAT much easier?
    Let's assume the McDavid people say "yes", well then Connor has several years where he will need to dominate to be comparable to Wayne. Until then, I'll stick with Gretzky.

    Really we will just never know how each player would have developed at different times. It is true that nutrition and athletic ability have improved together over time. The one thing I always liked about Gretzky when he played for the Oil, and hated him for it when he played elsewhere, is that he played so damn smart and that gave him an edge on everyone in combination with his incredible skill set. Like Brady, his edge was not being the most talented athletically, but being smart and executing.

    McD is probably going to be the best of his generation if he stay healthy, but it will be hard for anyone to do what Gretz did...........


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,126 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    @1948_Swell_Robinson

    you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.

    of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.

    I must have missed something. Why are we mentioning 1920?
    Gretzky was born in 1961.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    @1948_Swell_Robinson

    you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.

    of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.

    All depends. Some have more genetic potential than others.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    @1948_Swell_Robinson

    you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.

    of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.

    I must have missed something. Why are we mentioning 1920?
    Gretzky was born in 1961.

    Just an example.

    Gretzky played in the NHL in 1998 so the difference compared today is very minimal.

    Your points about Gretzky's dominance are the best starting point.

    One thing to consider about the stats of Gretzky is the teammate dynamic. He had great teammates that helped him accumulate points. His teammates even won a title just two years after he left.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @craig44 said:
    @1948_Swell_Robinson

    you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.

    of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.

    All depends. Some have more genetic potential than others.

    Correct, and that genetic potential is met when modern nutrition and training methods are employed. that is why todays athletes are "bigger, faster, stronger"

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    @1948_Swell_Robinson

    you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.

    of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.

    I do want to make sure that I don't disagree that it is a component though. One of many components, but the sheer number of people to choose from in later generations is independent of that component.

Sign In or Register to comment.