I have a problem with the bolded. Again, I get his stats are way whack-a-doo and, to achieve that, he does nifty things on the ice, but, to me, his team needs to win it all for him to earn that crown. I'm not saying this is the correct viewpoint, but it bugs me every time I see it or hear it. Without dragging his team over the finish line, bloody knuckles and broken teeth, he can't possibly be "The Greatest of All Time" - he has to be missing something to truly be that guy.
Cue: "yeah, he's missing a real team to play on..." which is true.
**I just thought of this, which will extend the post - sorry, drop out here if you're disgusted beyond repair.**
I liken it to calling a guitarist "the greatest guitarist alive" or something - which is something that obviously can't be quantified in the end because it's art. However, many people back in the day would point to a specimen like Yngwie Malmsteen because he plays lots of notes fast. Or Steve Vai or John Petrucci. But, IMHO, those guys are supremely boring to listen to.
I'm not going to claim a guy like Sam Bennett is anywhere near "the best" - but I would rather watch him play hockey right now than McDavid - and if that's true McDavid can't possibly be "the greatest of all time."
Once again, I know the argument has flaws and is barely defensible in its current form. If I cared enough I might try and flesh it out one day.