THN article using more precise/accurate/realistic comparisons between Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid on who's better

[zackmak]

These types of arguments or comparisons are not new between these three or four players, especially in the last decade. But I've always been surprised how even the "hockey experts / researchers / historians" that wrote these hundreds of articles fell trap to coming to their conclusions using the basic NHL goals/game annual stats and simply rewarding or sacrificing a players skill/points-accumulation by picking them up from their era...and plopping them into another. Do a little easy math, and voila!

I guess because the other 'era' factors are not definitively measurable, nor is there an exact percentage to how much they attributed to a player's accomplishments (these factors being the differences between training, equipment, hockey schooling, medicines, healing/maintenance techniques, skill refining advancements, opportunities, and options, body science, etc., etc., etc, - with all your foes/allies being in the same boat).......everything is hypothetical.

And gaining/losing (by way of 'statistical points') what a player gained/lost through the above mentioned unmeasurables, is also impossible, during their 'era jumping'.

Granted, the results still come out 99% of the time as 1. Gretzky 2. Lemieux and then 3. whomever. Yet it's always been with more 'what ifs' and facts that were met with 'but...'.

And there's always the 'teammates, goalies, goons, and coaching styles' arguments too, which all have 'guessing' involved when cross-referencing.

This recent article that came out from The Hockey News seems to be the most convincing (in my opinion), with the least flaws, and little hypothesis (with the exception of McDavid's 3rd-10th year stats being a projection), by measuring how far a player’s performance is from the league average per year and avoiding era vs. era.

I much prefer seeing this type of comparison going forward, than anything else. The future will always have stars and it will be neat seeing how McDavid, Laine, Mathews, etc. will compare to the usual.

Any thoughts?

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/a...cdavid-we-level-the-playing-field-to-find-out

It's titled:HOW SPECIAL IS MCDAVID? WE LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD TO FIND OUT by Dom Luszczyszyn (July 19, 2017 magazine edition)

 

[newfiecomicguy1]

Too early to compare Mcdavid to any legend outside of potential. Gretzky had such vision, drive, hockey sense, unquestionable competitive nature, skill and a true professional in every way. Mario is probably the most pure skilled on offensive skill but didn't seem to have the same compete level even though he battled through some serious health issues but he didn't have that same level. Sid like Gretzky is complete, plays hard at both ends, kills penalties, wins draws and maybe be the best after Gretzky. Sid can do it all.

I really like Mcdavid but can we please stop comparing him to every great legend. Let's wait until he has 5-6 good seasons under his belt. After only season one he has a serious injury. He doesn't have the complete game that Sid do and will have to change his style to be considered on his level. He has to start winning a lot of awards and championships to get to the level of these other three. I hope for the Oilers fans that he can win with hopes my Leafs can win something in there as well lol.

 

[zackmak]

I agree. I think ever since Lindros came into the NHL, the hype and wishful thinking to make a superb new player the 'Next One' has always led to premature comparisons.

This will always exist. But I'm more focused on the method of how this article compares the stars, and would like to see it adapted more often in the future.