Big 4: 2 Questions

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
I appreciate that speculation is appropriately frowned upon in the HOH and seems to be trigger for less than practical discussions. I do enjoy the "Best Player" discussion so it may be better to continue that in that specific thread.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,664
OV was not better than Crosby to the extent that Belliveau was better than Howe in 55/56. In a vacuum, Crosby has the better case to still hold the title or share than Howe does based on those seasons. You want to say OV was the better player without reasonable context then I will say Belliveau was the better player in 55/56 with a similar lack of context and earned the title of Best player.

But I don't believe that. I have tried to compromise here by saying things are debatable; you seem hellbent on putting things in black and white which seems to based on your belief that there is nothing Crosby could possibly do to move into Big Four territory despite having one of the more successful 18 month periods of his era just last year and just turned 30. Surely if you are going to give McDavid some credit for having an unknown factor, then Crosby deserves some too. There are plenty of examples of players having peak, or close to peak seasons in their '30s and look no further than Mr. Hockey himself for an extension of close to prime level well into their late '30s/early '40s.

There is nothing that Crosby can reasonably do to pass Howe. Howe beats Crosby on peak. The odds of Crosby matching Howe for longevity are miniscule, the odds of him surpassing Howe's longevity by enough that it bridges the peak gap are basically zero. I'm not one to go out of my way to crap on Crosby and try to keep him low enough to preserve the status of various legends. This is about being realistic. There is no reasonable way to expect him to even have a case against Howe, Orr, Gretzky or Lemieux.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
There is nothing that Crosby can reasonably do to pass Howe. Howe beats Crosby on peak. The odds of Crosby matching Howe for longevity are miniscule, the odds of him surpassing Howe's longevity by enough that it bridges the peak gap are basically zero. I'm not one to go out of my way to crap on Crosby and try to keep him low enough to preserve the status of various legends. This is about being realistic. There is no reasonable way to expect him to even have a case against Howe, Orr, Gretzky or Lemieux.

I have never said that Crosby said could pass Howe so for the love of God, please stop mentioning this . I am surmising the possibility he (or any player for that matter) achieves something that is viewed as better than one or more members of the Big Four.

Crosby has a playoff resume thru age 30 that potentially can be up there with any non-Wayne playoff resume. He has a playoff peak that is arguably close to Howe's. He could continue to accumulate the type of accolades that puts Howe ahead of Mario despite a lower peak and lower playoff peak.

Are these reasonable expectations? No

Are they 100% not possible? No

Do any or all of these things put him ahead of the any member of the Big Four? No
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
You just used the key word "argued". Of course everything to do with rating players is an argument, especially when most of these players usually never played at the same time and/or in the exact same role and situation even if they did.

The OP was asking for a legitimate argument. Crosby has legitimately been in the conversation for the best player since 2006 if one chooses to look beyond assessing seasons individually and in a complete vacuum, and with reasonable consideration for partial seasons. Using the same metrics, Howe was the best player fro 50/51 to 63/64 IMO. Crosby has a chance to be in that position for a longer period of time. I understand that "Best Player" can be very subjective but I would argue that any argument against Crosby being the best/co-best at any time from 06/07 to 16/17 can be made against Howe, or any other player for that matter.

Does this mean the quality of prime is better? Nope

Does this lessen the gap in their peaks? Nope

Should it hold some value? I think it would make him the unanimous #5 player, and at least present a legitimate argument whether he did enough to be put on the same tier as the Big 4. If he can add to his playoff resume to be clear of Mario and Orr, and maybe Howe, then that would also significantly add to the argument.

Would he be close in peak to Orr, Wayne, and Mario? Nope but there are strong arguments that Howe, on peak alone, would not be in the Big 4. IMO, Howe has the 4th best RS peak but does not have a clear 4th best playoff peak, let alone one that is as statistically close to the other 3 as his RS peak is.

Would he have a "longevity" argument that, like Howe, makes up for perceived differences in peak? I don't see why not.

Would he have a resume that "outacheives" Mario's? I don't see why not since actual achievements usually place Mario 4th behind Howe who is usually viewed has not being on the same level talent-wise or peak-wise.

Would a playoff resume that matches or even betters Howe's add a significant second argument for inclusion with the Big 4? I don't see why not.

The narrative for Crosby would be a career that was spent at the very top of the league longer than any other player in history plus one of the best playoff resumes and/or peaks other than Wayne.

So in other words, there really isn't a legitimate argument that could place Crosby above Howe. Lesser peak, lesser prime, and far lesser longevity as of now. Unless we take longevity to strictly mean "number of consecutive seasons where a reasonable person might argue the player is the best in the world", absent of any other context.

This idea that Crosby could cross the finish line with a better playoff resume than Howe/one of the best non-Gretzky playoff peaks is too far-fetched to take very seriously. Howe's playoff performance from the 60's is arguably better than what he did in the 50's. Do you expect Crosby's playoff performance going forward to arguably exceed his body of work to date? With regards to playoff peak, Crosby's is not particularly high when stacked up against the best of the best all-time. It's not particularly high when stacked up against his direct contemporaries, in fact.

Any argument centered around peak play has already left the building. Unless, as JackSlater has stated, he pulls a Barry Bonds and miraculously peaks at some point in the future and we haven't actually seen his best. So longevity is the last card Crosby has in his hand, in which case Howe of all people being his "target" makes little sense. Lemieux would seemingly be in the greatest danger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadiens1958

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
So in other words, there really isn't a legitimate argument that could place Crosby above Howe. Lesser peak, lesser prime, and far lesser longevity as of now. Unless we take longevity to strictly mean "number of consecutive seasons where a reasonable person might argue the player is the best in the world", absent of any other context.

This idea that Crosby could cross the finish line with a better playoff resume than Howe/one of the best non-Gretzky playoff peaks is too far-fetched to take very seriously. Howe's playoff performance from the 60's is arguably better than what he did in the 50's. Do you expect Crosby's playoff performance going forward to arguably exceed his body of work to date? With regards to playoff peak, Crosby's is not particularly high when stacked up against the best of the best all-time. It's not particularly high when stacked up against his direct contemporaries, in fact.

Any argument centered around peak play has already left the building. Unless, as JackSlater has stated, he pulls a Barry Bonds and miraculously peaks at some point in the future and we haven't actually seen his best. So longevity is the last card Crosby has in his hand, in which case Howe of all people being his "target" makes little sense. Lemieux would seemingly be in the greatest danger.

First bolded: I agree. The argument is he could surpass Howe in one or two respects, surpass Orr and Mario in playoff resume, surpass Mario in achievements. I have clearly said that, IMO, he would not surpass any of the Big 4 but rather would at least make a discussion about a Big 5 reasonable.

Second Bolded: To date, he arguably has the better playoff resume thru their first 13 seasons. It's reasonable to not completely dismiss him doing it. Howe's playoff resume and peak is not as untouchable as his RS resume as his HOH placing behind Roy, Richard and Belliveau will attest.

Third bolded: I agree. I do think that Howe's peak is unquestionably the 4th best but the gap between his peak and the other Big Four could be argued is bigger than the gap between his peak and the peak of the #5 candidates. His playoff peak is not necessarily one that automatically makes him a no-brainer to take over every other player in NHL history like the other Big 4 players are.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
First bolded: I agree. The argument is he could surpass Howe in one or two respects, surpass Orr and Mario in playoff resume, surpass Mario in achievements. I have clearly said that, IMO, he would not surpass any of the Big 4 but rather would at least make a discussion about a Big 5 reasonable.

Second Bolded: To date, he arguably has the better playoff resume thru their first 13 seasons. It's reasonable to not completely dismiss him doing it. Howe's playoff resume and peak is not as untouchable as his RS resume as his HOH placing behind Roy, Richard and Belliveau will attest.

Third bolded: I agree. I do think that Howe's peak is unquestionably the 4th best but the gap between his peak and the other Big Four could be argued is bigger than the gap between his peak and the peak of the #5 candidates. His playoff peak is not necessarily one that automatically makes him a no-brainer to take over every other player in NHL history like the other Big 4 players are.

The only thing I'd disagree with here is that Howe's peak is unquestionably 4th-best. Statistically, he blew away the competition in the early 50's to a degree that just doesn't get appreciated by looking at the raw numbers compared to numbers from later eras. He is right there with Lemieux in terms of dominating the competition at his peak. His peak might well be 4th, but I believe it is absolutely closer to 3rd than it is to 5th if this is the case.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
The only thing I'd disagree with here is that Howe's peak is unquestionably 4th-best. Statistically, he blew away the competition in the early 50's to a degree that just doesn't get appreciated by looking at the raw numbers compared to numbers from later eras. He is right there with Lemieux in terms of dominating the competition at his peak. His peak might well be 4th, but I believe it is absolutely closer to 3rd than it is to 5th if this is the case.

In case you missed it, I used that exact wording. I agree that statistically his peak season is right there with Mario's and Wayne's best. Where some reasonable doubt can be raised is:

(1) The dramatic jump from 49/50 to 50/51 and beyond was quite different from Wayne and Mario's more traditional rise in point totals as they moved from their teens to early 20's.

(2) The dramatic drop in Art Ross wins and placings after 53/54 where he went from blowing the competition away to playing 2nd fiddle to Belliveau and being beat by a handful of players, some of whom who put up point totals similar to Howe's peak. Wayne, Mario and Orr seemed to play at, or close to their peak for considerably longer while Howe became a player that, with his four peak seasons removed, would be battling with others for the #5 player rating.

(3) Not blowing away the competition in the playoffs to a degree that was close to Wayne's, Mario's and Orr's best.

What is the significance of this reasonable doubt? It doesn't remove from the Big 4 but maybe makes his claim for #2 or #3 a bit weaker depending on how much one's peak factors into a ranking.

In terms of the OP, it perhaps opens the door to a player who has a peak that is not on Howe's level but could put a player in the Big Four realm if they have, similar to Howe, other attributes that make up for a weaker peak.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Howe became a player that, with his four peak seasons removed, would be battling with others for the #5 player rating.

Is that supposed to be, like, a negative thing? This hypothetical removal of a player's four-best seasons, and saying "Oh, he's only as good as Bobby Hull now," because after his fourth-straight Art Ross in 1953-54, he only won four more Hart Trophies.

If you have to project future success onto a player or pretend another player didn't reach a certain level, you're beyond history.
 

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
Yes. I suspect that removing the 4 best years from almost any iconic player's career would decimate his numbers:

Gretzky's highest point total is only 196 (no 200 point seasons), a loss of many trophies
Mario's highest point total is only 141, a loss of many trophies
Orr no Art Rosses, no Harts, and only half as many Norrises
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
I'll rank the big four in two different ways
If it's career I'll go
Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux
Orr

If it's strictly best player I'll go
Lemieux
Gretzky
Orr
Howe

The ship has sailed for Crosby but injuries had A LOT to do with that
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
In regards to Crosby catching Howe for career it's impossible

6x art Ross
6x hart
6x leading playoff scorer
5x rocket Richard
5x Stanley Cup Finals leading scorer
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
JMO, but there is no big 4. There is a big 1.

Then there is a second tier. The second tier is not close to the first.

Putting anyone else with Gretzky is not indicative of the truth. Gretzky is head and shoulders above every other player. Nobody compares.

I assume you never saw Orr play.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
I'll rank the big four in two different ways
If it's career I'll go
Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux
Orr

If it's strictly best player I'll go
Lemieux
Gretzky
Orr
Howe

The ship has sailed for Crosby but injuries had A LOT to do with that

I assume you never saw Orr play.
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
No.

Its just that its hard for me to believe that anyone who saw Orr play could rank two guys as better players.

Not to mention the opportunity to use the old "exact same response to two different posts" trick.
The two guys I ranked ahead of him are Gretzky and Lemieux. Not exactly unheard of. Not like I listed two shmuks.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
In case you missed it, I used that exact wording. I agree that statistically his peak season is right there with Mario's and Wayne's best. Where some reasonable doubt can be raised is:

(1) The dramatic jump from 49/50 to 50/51 and beyond was quite different from Wayne and Mario's more traditional rise in point totals as they moved from their teens to early 20's.

(2) The dramatic drop in Art Ross wins and placings after 53/54 where he went from blowing the competition away to playing 2nd fiddle to Belliveau and being beat by a handful of players, some of whom who put up point totals similar to Howe's peak. Wayne, Mario and Orr seemed to play at, or close to their peak for considerably longer while Howe became a player that, with his four peak seasons removed, would be battling with others for the #5 player rating.

(3) Not blowing away the competition in the playoffs to a degree that was close to Wayne's, Mario's and Orr's best.

What is the significance of this reasonable doubt? It doesn't remove from the Big 4 but maybe makes his claim for #2 or #3 a bit weaker depending on how much one's peak factors into a ranking.

In terms of the OP, it perhaps opens the door to a player who has a peak that is not on Howe's level but could put a player in the Big Four realm if they have, similar to Howe, other attributes that make up for a weaker peak.

I know you used that exact wording...and I'm disputing the notion. Howe's peak is not unquestionably 4th-best. People have argued quite reasonably that it's better than or at least equal to Lemieux's peak.

1) Why does this matter, exactly? Unless you feel the dramatic jump was caused by some unknown circumstance that advantaged Howe specifically in relation to his peers. I don't see why Howe being a lesser player than Gretzky or Lemieux pre-peak should have any bearing on how we evaluate his peak itself.

2) Agree on Gretzky. Six years of absolute peak, several more within earshot that only Howe himself or Lemieux could rival. Orr, six consecutive peak seasons to Howe's four. But then of course, Orr was then finished, period. Howe had two more Ross/Hart/1st AST seasons ahead of him, just not quite at the previous level of dominance. "Considerably longer"? I think that's maybe pushing it. Lemieux...on a per-game basis, yes. Probably about 1988-1996. But so much time was missed that he really only has four, perhaps five peak seasons that stack up to Howe's anyway, and never more than two in a row.

3) I feel that once again, raw numbers are making Howe look worse here. In 1955 playoffs he had 50% more points than his nearest non-linemate. This stacks up pretty well against the best that Lemieux, Orr, and Gretzky had to offer. It simply wasn't possible for a player in the two-round era to lead the playoff scoring race by 10-15 points.

Bolded: What "reasonable doubt" have you raised? That Howe might only have the 4th-best peak of the Big 4? This is not an earth-shattering revelation. You seem to be supposing that Howe is part of the club in spite of his supposedly weaker peak. I don't think any non-Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr player has any reasonable argument that their peak was better than Howe's. As I said, even if it's decided that Howe's peak ranks 4th all-time, surely it is closer to 3rd than it is to 5th. The "other attributes" are what allows Howe to build a case for #1-3. They are not what pushes him above #5.

From your perspective, an argument that a player who has a peak below Howe could break into the Big 4 seems untenable. You've taken the stance that Howe's peak lags behind Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr. So if a player comes along who has a peak that yet lags behind the guy you've identified as having the weakest one, what avenue does he have to make it a Big 5? Seemingly his longevity and playoff career would have to both exceed Howe's by some measure. The second one is not impossible, a few others have done it according to this board. The first one is unmatched, perhaps only one player (Ray Bourque) making a serious challenge. The odds of BOTH happening to a player that didn't match Howe's peak are beyond long.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
I don't think putting Lemieux above Orr disrespects the latter in any way, shape, or form. I wouldn't put him, but it's a defensible position.

Again, I hope we stop bringing Crosby into this conversation.

Correct, I stated that it wasn't disrespectful.

Just didn't think it was right.
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
I know you used that exact wording...and I'm disputing the notion. Howe's peak is not unquestionably 4th-best. People have argued quite reasonably that it's better than or at least equal to Lemieux's peak.

1) Why does this matter, exactly? Unless you feel the dramatic jump was caused by some unknown circumstance that advantaged Howe specifically in relation to his peers. I don't see why Howe being a lesser player than Gretzky or Lemieux pre-peak should have any bearing on how we evaluate his peak itself.

2) Agree on Gretzky. Six years of absolute peak, several more within earshot that only Howe himself or Lemieux could rival. Orr, six consecutive peak seasons to Howe's four. But then of course, Orr was then finished, period. Howe had two more Ross/Hart/1st AST seasons ahead of him, just not quite at the previous level of dominance. "Considerably longer"? I think that's maybe pushing it. Lemieux...on a per-game basis, yes. Probably about 1988-1996. But so much time was missed that he really only has four, perhaps five peak seasons that stack up to Howe's anyway, and never more than two in a row.

3) I feel that once again, raw numbers are making Howe look worse here. In 1955 playoffs he had 50% more points than his nearest non-linemate. This stacks up pretty well against the best that Lemieux, Orr, and Gretzky had to offer. It simply wasn't possible for a player in the two-round era to lead the playoff scoring race by 10-15 points.

Bolded: What "reasonable doubt" have you raised? That Howe might only have the 4th-best peak of the Big 4? This is not an earth-shattering revelation. You seem to be supposing that Howe is part of the club in spite of his supposedly weaker peak. I don't think any non-Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr player has any reasonable argument that their peak was better than Howe's. As I said, even if it's decided that Howe's peak ranks 4th all-time, surely it is closer to 3rd than it is to 5th. The "other attributes" are what allows Howe to build a case for #1-3. They are not what pushes him above #5.

From your perspective, an argument that a player who has a peak below Howe could break into the Big 4 seems untenable. You've taken the stance that Howe's peak lags behind Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr. So if a player comes along who has a peak that yet lags behind the guy you've identified as having the weakest one, what avenue does he have to make it a Big 5? Seemingly his longevity and playoff career would have to both exceed Howe's by some measure. The second one is not impossible, a few others have done it according to this board. The first one is unmatched, perhaps only one player (Ray Bourque) making a serious challenge. The odds of BOTH happening to a player that didn't match Howe's peak are beyond long.
The best Crosby can reach and it's certainly not impossible is the universally accepted #5 player all time. Something like

The big four (whichever order a person prefers)

Crosby

then the rest of the players
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,114
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
2) Agree on Gretzky. Six years of absolute peak, several more within earshot that only Howe himself or Lemieux could rival.
Only six?

1981 - highest scoring season in League history (highest ever ES points, too)
1982 - 147 ES points, 212 points, 92 goals
1983 - 196 points, 125 assists, highest-ever playoff scoring season
1984 - 87 goals, 205 points in 74 games (2.77 PPG), wins Stanley Cup
1985 - Canada Cup leading scorer / winner, 1st in NHL goals, 135 assists, +98, Stanley Cup, 47 playoff points in 18 games, Conn Smythe, Stanley Cup
1986 - 215 points (points in 77 of 80 games), 163 assists
1987 - 183 points, largest gap between 1st and 2nd in scoring in his career (largest gap ever in ES points), leads playoffs in scoring, wins Cup
1988 - Canada Cup leading scoring / winner / MVP; higher PPG than the year before (point-reduction due to injuries), 43 playoffs points, Conn Smythe, Stanley Cup

I mean, that's 8 right there and we haven't even gotten into his first three L.A. seasons (and I've left off two Hart trophy winning seasons!).

I personally think 1990-91 was his best L.A. season and was better than a few of his Edmonton ones...
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Only six?

1981 - highest scoring season in League history (highest ever ES points, too)
1982 - 147 ES points, 212 points, 92 goals
1983 - 196 points, 125 assists, highest-ever playoff scoring season
1984 - 87 goals, 205 points in 74 games (2.77 PPG), wins Stanley Cup
1985 - Canada Cup leading scorer / winner, 1st in NHL goals, 135 assists, +98, Stanley Cup, 47 playoff points in 18 games, Conn Smythe, Stanley Cup
1986 - 215 points (points in 77 of 80 games), 163 assists
1987 - 183 points, largest gap between 1st and 2nd in scoring in his career (largest gap ever in ES points), leads playoffs in scoring, wins Cup
1988 - Canada Cup leading scoring / winner / MVP; higher PPG than the year before (point-reduction due to injuries), 43 playoffs points, Conn Smythe, Stanley Cup

I mean, that's 8 right there and we haven't even gotten into his first three L.A. seasons (and I've left off two Hart trophy winning seasons!).

I personally think 1990-91 was his best L.A. season and was better than a few of his Edmonton ones...

I think 1982 to 87 or 88 is pretty clearly identifiable as his peak. Most would say he was in absolute top form around 1985 or so. Pre-82 and the LA seasons are too far removed from that level of play to be considered part of his peak IMO.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
The best Crosby can reach and it's certainly not impossible is the universally accepted #5 player all time. Something like

The big four (whichever order a person prefers)

Crosby

then the rest of the players

Pretty much.

It's hard to envision any player cracking the top 4 without a comparable level of peak play.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->