Better peak: Howe vs Lemieux?

[bobholly39]

Looks like your idea of context is a bunch of what ifs.

Talk about zero context.

Joe Malone: 143 goals in 126 games for his career.

Newsy Lalonde: 125 goals in 99 games, playoffs 15 goals in 7 games.

Seriously? In back to back posts?

Well for Joe Malone with 143 goals in 126 games. You have to ask well "what if" he had played in the 1980s, does that translate to the same GPG? Does it translate to above 92 goals a year? Above 50? What if Gretzky had played in the same years as Joe Malone - does it translate to more than 143 goals in 126 games? More than 200? 300? Less than 100?

Context is all about asking what if's.

Just because i'm more thorough and don't draw a conclusion after limited data doesn't mean i'm wrong. If not Crosby > Lemieux since you know, he beat the competition in 2014 by more than Lemieux ever did.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Lemieux had three big statistcal advantages over Howe. When he played, the seasons had longer schedules; there were significantly more goals per game; and there also more assists per goal.

Here's their scoring stats if you look at their six Art Ross seasons and normalize the key variables to 2017-18 (82 games, 2.97 goals per game, 1.685 assists per goal):

Howe - 82 games, 56 goals, 66 assists, 123 points (doesn't quite add due to rounding)
Lemieux - 71 games, 56 goals, 82 assists, 138 points

The difference between them, offensively, is about 15 points (all assists) per season. Lemieux, obviously, was better on a per-game basis. Howe was better defensively, much more of a physical force, and more consistent.

It's close enough that I would call this a draw (ultimately dependent upon stylistic preferences and team needs).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lemieux had three big statistcal advantages over Howe. When he played, the seasons had longer schedules; there were significantly more goals per game; and there also more assists per goal.

Here's their scoring stats if you look at their six Art Ross seasons and normalize the key variables to 2017-18 (82 games, 2.97 goals per game, 1.685 assists per goal):

Howe - 82 games, 56 goals, 66 assists, 123 points (doesn't quite add due to rounding)
Lemieux - 71 games, 56 goals, 82 assists, 138 points

Thgainst e difference between them, offensively, is about 15 points (all assists) per season. Lemieux, obviously, was better on a per-game basis. Howe was better defensively, much more of a physical force, and more consistent.

It's close enough that I would call this a draw (ultimately dependent upon stylistic preferences and team needs).

Even closer if you adjust for level of competition. Lemieux never played against the same team with elite HHOF defencemen and goalies 14 times a season. Howe never faced the 21st or weaker goalies, centers wingers or defencemen regularly like Lemieux did.

 

[bobholly39]

Lemieux had three big statistcal advantages over Howe. When he played, the seasons had longer schedules; there were significantly more goals per game; and there also more assists per goal.

Here's their scoring stats if you look at their six Art Ross seasons and normalize the key variables to 2017-18 (82 games, 2.97 goals per game, 1.685 assists per goal):

Howe - 82 games, 56 goals, 66 assists, 123 points (doesn't quite add due to rounding)
Lemieux - 71 games, 56 goals, 82 assists, 138 points

The difference between them, offensively, is about 15 points (all assists) per season. Lemieux, obviously, was better on a per-game basis. Howe was better defensively, much more of a physical force, and more consistent.

It's close enough that I would call this a draw (ultimately dependent upon stylistic preferences and team needs).

At first glance this certainly seems a lot more involved and relevant than simply looking at domination over peer and drawing a preliminary conclusion. I'd argue it's still nowhere near 100% in context as there's always going to be a lot of factors that differ across eras, but it's a start.

138 points in 71 games for Lemieux is 1.94 PPG. Over 82 games that would be 159 points
123 points in 82 games is 1.5 PPG for Howe

Over 82 games it translates to a 36 point advantage for Lemieux. That's pretty significant.

How does Gretzky come out looking in that regard, if you take his best 6 seasons?

Also - since we're talking peak and not prime, 6 season is a bit much. What if you compare the top 2 seasons, or even top 1 season?

 

[Rick Kehoe]

I keep seeing people saying that they rank Howe over Lemieux based on Howe's longevity. Am I the only one who would also rank Howe over Lemieux for peak?

In my book Howe was almost as good offensively as Lemieux, but better in almost any other aspect of the game: Defense, leadership, toughness, competitiveness etc.

Who would you rather have on your team in a Stanley Cup final - Howe or Lemieux?

Lemieux over Howe in a SC Cup Final, despite enjoying better health, Howe won just two more Cups than Mario during an era when it was easier to hoist Lord Stanley. In the Original Six Era, fewer playoff rounds, and three times, losing teams won it all. That didn't happen in Lemieux's era, and it won't happen today. Mario was just far more dynamic offensively than Howe, he could hurt teams his physical strength, hands, and skating ability. ee

You lost me with the last three intangible traits. The Red Wings were already an established three time Cup winner by the time Howe entered the NHL, while the Penguins were struggling mightily when Mario was drafted. Lemieux was under more pressure from the get go, and led the turnaround of the franchise. That's the kind of leadership you have with an inner circle HOF talent. Toughness and competitiveness? How many players overcome back problems and beat cancer? When Lemieux came back strongly in 2001, that's about as competitive as it gets.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, I'd call it about even -- it just depends on the particular needs of your team.

If your team is already defensively sound, I'd take Mario for elite offensive talent and game-breaking ability.

But if your team is already getting outscored and out-battled five-on-five, I'd take Howe because he'll tilt the ice in your favor in any situation.

You can't just look at it in terms of who could score more points, otherwise we're taking 1988-1990 Bernie Nicholls over Mark Messier. Lemieux scored a ton of points 1984 to 1990, and how did it help his team?

I think there's also two (or more) Mario Lemieux's: there's the c.1984-1990 lazy floater who actually told the media that his team told him not to bother with defense and had a hissy-fit when he didn't win the Hart trophy, and then there's the 1991-ish and beyond Mario who developed a more team-dedicated champion's attitude.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I'd lose sleep not taking Lemieux. A peak Lemieux is essentially a peal Gretzky. Just had injury woes.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Even closer if you adjust for level of competition. Lemieux never played against the same team with elite HHOF defencemen and goalies 14 times a season. Howe never faced the 21st or weaker goalies, centers wingers or defencemen regularly like Lemieux did.

Unlike his peers, Gordie Howe also never played the best defensive team 14 times a year in his prime, the Red Wings.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The biggest issue for me is that you really have no idea if Lemieux is going to be healthy enough to play. Howe missed exactly 0 games during his generally-accepted 1951-54 peak. 6 games missed if you stretch it out to 1957. Lemieux's health concerns need no detailing. This is probably what would incline me to choose Howe.

Something that tends to be understated is just how great of a goal scorer Howe was at his peak. His gap over the field in terms of goal scoring is just as pronounced as his overall production gap.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Unlike his peers, Gordie Howe also never played the best defensive team 14 times a year in his prime, the Red Wings.

1953-54 and 1954-55 Howe's last two SC seasons Toronto and Detroit give-up the same number of goals.

 

[daver]

The eye test sees Howe's peak seasons in the early 50's being matched point-wise in the late '50s. It also sees Belliveau's 55/56 season (Howe removed as an outlier) and Hull's 65/66 season matching Howe's peak seasons in terms of domination over peers except his 52/53 season.

I think Howe's peak was up a tier from everyone else during his era and his playoff performances back this up.

Looking strictly at offensive production, Mario's peak season rivals Wayne's best and he played long enough at, or close to that level, to establish his very best as being more dominant that Howe's best. I.e. Howe's peak was arguably more represented by his other three Art Ross seasons in the 51 to 54 time period.

I think Mario's peak was up two tiers, or clearly above Howe's, from everyone else during his era and his playoff performances back this up.

I think Mario's domination relative to the league was a bit enhanced given the era he played in and that Howe clearly brought more than just offense to the table.

That makes it pretty close.

 

[Eye of Ra]

How can Howe be a better hockeyplayer than Lemieux When Mario had much higher ppg , Mario did This in a time Where hockey was better than it was in gordies Days, If gordie did not dominante the NHL point wise in his time then How could he do that in marios NHL When NHL was better? Common sense says that peak Howe in 1985-2000 NHL would be a 50 pointer with grit. Why would i take a 50 pointer with grit over 150 point Mario?

 

[daver]

What do people think of these tiers of all-time great seasons from their respective eras:

First tier

Wayne (any of his 82 to 86 seasons)
Mario 88/89
Mario 92/93 (per game basis)

Second tier

Howe 52/53

Third tier

Howe 51/52
Howe 50/51
Belliveau 55/56
Hull 65/66
Yzerman 88/89
Jagr 98/99

 

[JackSlater]

How can Howe be a better hockeyplayer than Lemieux When Mario had much higher ppg , Mario did This in a time Where hockey was better than it was in gordies Days, If gordie did not dominante the NHL point wise in his time then How could he do that in marios NHL When NHL was better? Common sense says that peak Howe in 1985-2000 NHL would be a 50 pointer with grit. Why would i take a 50 pointer with grit over 150 point Mario?

That's some interesting common sense. A 50 year old Gordie Howe was a borderline all star level player as late as the 1978 season, and yet seven years later a peak version of Howe would only be a 50 point player with some grit.

 

[bobholly39]

What do people think of these tiers of all-time great seasons from their respective eras:

First tier

Wayne (any of his 82 to 86 seasons)
Mario 88/89
Mario 92/93 (per game basis)

Second tier

Howe 52/53

Third tier

Howe 51/52
Howe 50/51
Belliveau 55/56
Hull 65/66
Yzerman 88/89
Jagr 98/99

At first glance this seems in line with how i'd see it. Of course you're missing a few more of Gretzky/Lemieux seasons in there that also belong in arguably tier 2 or even 1, but comparing specifically only those seasons you mentioned i think it's fine like that.

 

[bobholly39]

That's some interesting common sense. A 50 year old Gordie Howe was a borderline all star level player as late as the 1978 season, and yet seven years later a peak version of Howe would only be a 50 point player with some grit.

I actually agree with the poster.

Gordie Howe probably would have been a 50 point player with a lot of grit in 1985 had he played in the NHL.

p.s. Take my post literally.

 

[daver]

At first glance this seems in line with how i'd see it. Of course you're missing a few more of Gretzky/Lemieux seasons in there that also belong in arguably tier 2 or even 1, but comparing specifically only those seasons you mentioned i think it's fine like that.

I agree that there are seasons missing for Mario, it was more to highlight their absolute peak season. Maro has at least two more in Tier 2 at worst which should highlight the quantity of peak along with highlighting the quality.

 

[daver]

From strictly an offensive production perspective, could one argue that a peak Jagr is closer to a peak Howe than Howe is to Mario when looking at quantity of peak?

Outside of Howe's 52/53 season, I see Howe's other five Art Rosses as being close to Jagr's five Art Rosses; both players won with varying degrees of domination, but none stands out as being the clear best, nor do they stand out as being the best of any non-Wayne/Mario Ross wins. Jagr's PPG during his peak/prime was also dominant (but not as dominant as Howe's).

If one looks at Howe's 52/53 as a bit of an anomaly as he did not quite reach the same level of dominance for a 2nd time, then I think there is an argument there.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

At first glance this certainly seems a lot more involved and relevant than simply looking at domination over peer and drawing a preliminary conclusion. I'd argue it's still nowhere near 100% in context as there's always going to be a lot of factors that differ across eras, but it's a start.

138 points in 71 games for Lemieux is 1.94 PPG. Over 82 games that would be 159 points
123 points in 82 games is 1.5 PPG for Howe

Over 82 games it translates to a 36 point advantage for Lemieux. That's pretty significant.

How does Gretzky come out looking in that regard, if you take his best 6 seasons?

Also - since we're talking peak and not prime, 6 season is a bit much. What if you compare the top 2 seasons, or even top 1 season?

No player should get credit for the games they didn't play.

Over their three best seasons (sticking with the adjusted numbers I posted before), Lemieux averaged 64 goals and 152 points, while Howe averaged 61 goals and 131 points - about a 16% advantage.

Looking at Gretzky*, he averaged 57 goals and 160 points over his best six seasons (1982 to 1987). That works out to a 17% advantage over Lemieux, and a 31% advantage over Howe.

If you pick Gretzky's top three (1982, 1985 and 1986 - but very little difference between any of his top six), he averaged 56 goals and 164 points - an 8% advantage of Lemieux and a 25% advantage over Howe.

* I haven't done a full re-calculation of the assists-per-goal ratio for Gretzky's years but I've assumed it's the same as what it was for Lemieux, which I think is a reasonable assumption.

 

[bobholly39]

No player should get credit for the games they didn't play.

Over their three best seasons (sticking with the adjusted numbers I posted before), Lemieux averaged 64 goals and 152 points, while Howe averaged 61 goals and 131 points - about a 16% advantage.

Looking at Gretzky*, he averaged 57 goals and 160 points over his best six seasons (1982 to 1987). That works out to a 17% advantage over Lemieux, and a 31% advantage over Howe.

If you pick Gretzky's top three (1982, 1985 and 1986 - but very little difference between any of his top six), he averaged 56 goals and 164 points - an 8% advantage of Lemieux and a 25% advantage over Howe.

* I haven't done a full re-calculation of the assists-per-goal ratio for Gretzky's years but I've assumed it's the same as what it was for Lemieux, which I think is a reasonable assumption.

Thank you for doing this.

In terms of getting credit for games they didn't play - well I agree when comparing Gretzky to Lemieux it's more relevant, especially if you look at an individual season. You can't take his 60 games in 93 and prorate it to equal some of Gretzky's 200 point seasons for example as it's unfair and makes many assumptions.

But when doing Howe vs Lemieux. I mean if on average you're saying Lemieux played 71 games per season for the 6 peak years you picked...technically Howe only played 70 games in his seasons. I think if you prorate Howe from 70 to 82 games it's ok to prorate Lemieux from 71 to 82 too. Especially if what we're after is the height of peak - not necessarily looking at length of peak or even prime where longevity and games played is more important.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

But when doing Howe vs Lemieux. I mean if on average you're saying Lemieux played 71 games per season for the 6 peak years you picked...technically Howe only played 70 games in his seasons. I think if you prorate Howe from 70 to 82 games it's ok to prorate Lemieux from 71 to 82 too. Especially if what we're after is the height of peak - not necessarily looking at length of peak or even prime where longevity and games played is more important.

The way that I looked at it is I'm giving Howe credit for playing 100% of the schedule in his six Art Ross years (420 out of a possible 420 games). In Lemieux's case, he played 87% of the games (423 out of 488). It doesn't matter whether we're setting the base as 82 games, or 70, or 50 - Howe would get credit for playing six full seasons and Lemieux would get credit for playing 87% of the schedule (or about 5.2 out of 6 seasons). He's still ahead in terms of point production, even with that disadvantage, but I don't want to pretend that he was never injured.

 

[Sentinel]

I wasn't saying Toews is to Crosby what Howe is to Lemieux. I was saying if people can find a way to justify Toews above Crosby for being better "all around", the gap between Howe and Lemieux is much less than that so of course it can be done there too.


Context. Offensive peak. Basically boils down to, in a vacuum, would Howe have topped 199 points in 1989 with proper era adjustments, or Lemieux have topped 95 in 1953? It's too lazy to just look at domination over #2 and draw an immediate conclusion. To me 199 in 1989 is much more impressive and unattainable than 95 in 1953.

Competition. Richard 61 points. He had .87 PPG that year. That's his 2nd lowest in his career to date. He was also 31, 1953 was out of his peak. Howe benefited from weak competition (as Crosby in 14)
Yzerman 1989. 155 points. Career year, both in points, and PPG. Anomaly, much greater than anything else he's come close to.
Bernie Nichols? Again - career year. Anomaly. Howe's 1953 season is missing any anomalies.

Is Sidney Crosby's 2014 season pretty great? What if Kane had peaked in 2014 instead of 2016 - does it make Crosby's season suckier? I think scoring 104 points in 2014 should be evaluated based on how much we decide 104 points in 2014 should be, and not draw drastically different conclusions based on 1 or 2 player's career season occurring at the same time. Is 95 points in 1953 = to 199 points in 1989? What if Beliveau plays in 1953 and has his 1956 season then, do you change your answer?

In 1956 Beliveau scored 88 points. If Beliveau had been 3 years younger and had had his 56 season in 53 - do you think he scores 88 points? More? Less? Less than Richard's 61? Would Howe's peak have all of a sudden been that much weaker without changing a single thing to his own resume? You need proper context.

when I ask whose offensive peak was better - I try to answer the question "If Howe had played in 1989, or 1993, and had his best year then, what would his point and PPG total have looked like vs Lemieux's, with all appropriate adjustments". And Vice Versa.

There's a ton of context that needs to be considered.

This is the biggest collection of "what ifs" I have ever seen in a single post.

 

[Sentinel]

Am I the only person here who assigns any value to two-way play? It doesn't mean you have to compare Toews to Crosby, but at which point does one's stellar two-way play overcome the difference in offensive output? Clarke, Trottier, Messier, Fedorov, Sakic? In a must-win game I'd rather take peak Datsyuk than peak Ovechkin.

The answers to the OP questions are: Lemieux had slightly better offensive peak, Howe had a better overall peak.

In the Finals, it's too era-dependent. In the late 80s-early 90s I take Lemieux in the Finals. All other time (even now) I take Howe.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lemieux had three big statistcal advantages over Howe. When he played, the seasons had longer schedules; there were significantly more goals per game; and there also more assists per goal.

Here's their scoring stats if you look at their six Art Ross seasons and normalize the key variables to 2017-18 (82 games, 2.97 goals per game, 1.685 assists per goal):

Howe - 82 games, 56 goals, 66 assists, 123 points (doesn't quite add due to rounding)
Lemieux - 71 games, 56 goals, 82 assists, 138 points

The difference between them, offensively, is about 15 points (all assists) per season. Lemieux, obviously, was better on a per-game basis. Howe was better defensively, much more of a physical force, and more consistent.

It's close enough that I would call this a draw (ultimately dependent upon stylistic preferences and team needs).

Good post. What happens if you only look at their 4 best seasons?

 

[ImporterExporter]

We will see a Gordie Howe again. We will never see a Mario Lemieux again (nor a Wayne Gretzky or Bobby Orr).

What, you mean a guy who had 20 straight seasons as a top 5 scorer? Or was a 1st team all star as a 40 year old?

No, we will not.