Has McDavid's peak surpassed Howe's peak?

[MadLuke]

..if that's the claim...?

The claim that could be wrong is that the nhl became more and more mature quick from the ww2 to the end of the 50s.

That good player could quite to play in different league being a perfect expression of that. Would a player able to end up top 10 play only 6.5 season in his whole career in the nhl, does it say something ?

 

[Michael Farkas]

If the claim is that the War years extend to somewhere between 1949 and 1953, then I agree and have been tooting that horn for a while myself. If it's not, then I'm sorry to say that I don't understand...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Out of curiosity I wanted to add some other big names into this metric. So I've added in Gretzky and Lemieux for comparison

Player Season	Points	#2 Points	#3 Points	Vs2	Vs3
Gretzky 87	183	107	105	1.71	1.74
Gretzky 84	205	122	118	1.68	1.74
Gretzky 85	208	130	126	1.60	1.65
Gretzky 83	196	124	121	1.58	1.62
Howe 53	95	61	59	1.56	1.61
Gretzky 86	215	141	123	1.52	1.75
McDavid 21	105	69	67	1.52	1.56
Gretzky 82	212	147	136	1.44	1.56
Gretzky 91	163	115	113	1.42	1.44
McDavid 23	153	111	99	1.38	1.54
Lemieux 96	161	120	115	1.34	1.40
Howe 52	86	65	61	1.32	1.41
Howe 51	86	66	62	1.30	1.39
Jagr 99	127	101	96	1.26	1.32
Jagr 96	149	120	115	1.24	1.30
Hull 66	97	78	78	1.24	1.24
Lemieux 97	122	99	97	1.23	1.26
Howe 54	81	67	54	1.21	1.50
Mikita 67	97	80	70	1.21	1.39
Gretzky 81	164	135	131	1.21	1.25
Crosby 14	104	87	86	1.20	1.21
Kane 16	106	89	85	1.19	1.25
Lemieux 89	199	168	155	1.18	1.28
Draisaitl 20	110	953	87	1.18	1.26
Gretzky 94	130	112	111	1.16	1.17
McDavid 19	116	100	100	1.16	1.16
Lemieux 88	168	149	131	1.13	1.28
Jagr 98	102	90	87	1.13	1.17
McDavid 17	100	89	85	1.12	1.18
Lafleur 77	136	122	97	1.11	1.40
Kucherov 19	128	116	100	1.10	1.28
Gretzky 90	142	129	127	1.10	1.12
Lemieux 92	131	121	107	1.08	1.22
Lemieux 93	160	148	142	1.08	1.13
McDavid 22	123	115	106	1.07	1.16
Howe 57	89	84	77	1.06	1.16
Howe 63	86	81	76	1.06	1.13
McDavid 18	108	102	97	1.06	1.11
Jagr 00	96	91	86	1.05	1.12
McDavid 20	97	93	87	1.04	1.11
Jagr 01	121	118	95	1.03	1.27
Gretzky 98	90	87	83	1.03	1.08
Jagr 95	70	70	62	1.00	1.13
Gretzky 80	137	137	125	1.00	1.10
Jagr 06	123	125	103	0.98	1.19

The methodology produces a lot of weird results (like Gretzky 98>Gretzky 80 and Jagr 06) and obviously fails with Lemieux's injuries and competing against Gretzky. But it does demonstrate Gretzky's insane dominance well.

Edit: Added in some more seasons too for transparency. Of note, I am not excluding Hull/Mikita from each other as they played on separate lines.

2019 is a really bizarre year. McDavid gets a higher score than Kucherov because McDavid counts toward's Kucherov's competition, while Kucherov doesn't count towards McDavid's.

 

[Professor What]

Why do these comparisons always seem to be based on offense only?

 

[overpass]

The claim that could be wrong is that the nhl became more and more mature quick from the ww2 to the end of the 50s.

That good player could quite to play in different league being a perfect expression of that. Would a player able to end up top 10 play only 6.5 season in his whole career in the nhl, does it say something ?

Jim McFadden was actually born in 1918, not 1920, per his obituary.

https://passages.winnipegfreepress.com/passage-details/id-71819/MCFADDEN_JAMES

His NHL career was short not because he retired early, but because he was a late bloomer who spent his age 23-27 years playing hockey in the army, and made the NHL at 29. When he retired he was 35 years old, and the only older NHL players were HHOFers Woody Dumart, Milt Schmidt, and Elmer Lach. He had a very successful season at age 34, leading Chicago in scoring as they made the playoffs after 3 seasons at the bottom of the league.

All of which is to say that I can't see what McFadden's career being 6.5 seasons says about league strength.

 

[MadLuke]

All of which is to say that I can't see what McFadden's career being 6.5 seasons says about league strength.

It seem it should be obvious (it could be saying something wrong) but that an hockey player good enough to make a top 10 can be a late bloomer and play hockey in the army instead of the nhl, than go play in the whl instead of staying in the nhl.

What it say can be misleading-false-wrong, but it say that the nhl was not that good at attracting the best players and that you could be a late bloomer and make a top 10.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think these claims can be vetted with the information available on paper.

I mean, a minor league goalie won two Vezinas in the last 15 years. Sandwiched around an all-minor leaguer/fringe NHLer Stanley Cup Final. What does it say? Is it the same thing that Brian Rafalski's age 26+ seasons mean?

 

[overpass]

It seem it should be obvious (it could be saying something wrong) but that an hockey player good enough to make a top 10 can be a late bloomer and play hockey in the army instead of the nhl, than go play in the whl instead of staying in the nhl.

What it say can be misleading-false-wrong, but it say that the nhl was not that good at attracting the best players and that you could be a late bloomer and make a top 10.

I think the events of McFadden's career are completely consistent with the NHL being a small, competitive league where it was hard to win and keep a spot. When he lost a step at age 35, he wasn't good enough to keep a spot in the six team NHL. But is there any doubt that McFadden could have played to age 40 in the expansion NHL if he had been born in 1935, considering his NHL and WHL career in his 30s?

Why is a late bloomer finishing top ten scoring strange? Do the two scoring titles by Martin St. Louis call the quality of the NHL of the 00s and early 10s into question? Strictly speaking, "late bloomer" refers to the chronological sequence of the player's career, and not the quality of the player. To be fair to McFadden, I'm not sure how accurate I was in saying "late bloomer" either. He may well have been an NHL quality player while he was serving in the armed forces between age 23 and 27. Many NHL stars did the same.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but he also quit...

 

[MadLuke]

Why is a late bloomer finishing top ten scoring strange? Do the two scoring titles by Martin St. Louis call the quality of the NHL of the 00s and early 10s into question?

Depends what we mean by late bloomer, but yes St.Louis art ross not having first line minutes until late would be an argument against late 90s hockey that some could make, that it did not deploy talent correctly (over favorising size for example). I had more in mind he started to play hockey at a pro-serious level late in mind than slow development curve.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but he also quit...

So he dominated the WHL showing he could have continued to score in the nhl, had regular old age drop and quitted hockey all at the same time ?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Precisely why you need proper talent evaluation. No shortcuts.

 

[Overrated]

I rank all Hasek, Jagr and McDavid ahead of Howe.

 

[overpass]

Depends what we mean by late bloomer, but yes St.Louis art ross while not having first line minutes until late would be an argument against late 90s hockey that some could make, that it did not deploy talent correctly (over favorising size for example). I had more in mind he started to play hockey at a pro-serious level late in mind than slow development curve.


So he dominated the WHL showing he could have continued to score in the nhl, had regular old age drop and quitted hockey all at the same time ?

At age 22 McFadden was playing minor league hockey in Portland, and finished 3rd in scoring on a team where the other top scorers all had NHL experience. At age 23 he played top level senior hockey in Montreal and was a teammate of 20 year old Rocket Richard. Not the NHL but those were good hockey leagues with good players.

So yeah, maybe he was a couple of years late developing, and maybe that's why his birth year was listed as 1920 rather than 1918, to allow him to compete against younger players.

McFadden won the Calder trophy in his first NHL season, which suggests that he could have played in the league at a younger age.

Anyway, I think my point is you need to know the actual history before saying that a 6.5 year NHL career by a player who finished in the top 10 in scoring is evidence that said player was a weak top 10 scorer, and then take that to mean the league was weak. McFadden was an individual player with an individual development path, which included a major interruption by a world war. If you want to say the line between being a top 6 NHL centre and being a top 6 centre in the WHL or AHL was thin at times, I could agree with that. I think that's evidence that there were a lot of good hockey players playing in the NHL, the WHL, the AHL, and even the QSHL of the 1940s.

 

[67 others]

Why do these comparisons always seem to be based on offense only?

I am questioning that myself.

Howe played with all the physical intangibles of Prime Hart winning Messier and Howe was a better scorer and defensive player.

This being a peak thread, it also doesn't factor in that he did it for 20+ years. But his peak years were pretty impressive for outscoring the rest of the league by large margins.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Why do these comparisons always seem to be based on offense only?

Because that is how you discredit Howe.

 

[The Panther]

In terms of 2-way play, there's a massive massive gap. And that's why I think it's still a vote for Howe.

You may be right, but here's my question: How many full games of Howe in his prime have you seen?

As for playoffs . . . Howe is definitely stronger there.

Howe has more significant playoff runs, so it's a bit hard to compare fairly. Was he "better" at the per game level? I'm not sure. Remember that McDavid recently led the entire League in playoff scoring while playing only three rounds.

I don't think we can even begin to compare playoffs until McDavid, maybe, is done.

Anyway, I'd still have Howe ahead, but the gap is getting smaller.

 

[tinyzombies]

McDavid has Draisaitl, but he's a redundancy. That's not what he needs to win a Cup. MacKinnon had Makar and Rantonen and won a Cup. McDavid doesn't have a Makar.

Howe had Sawchuk, Kelly, Lindsay.

Surround McDavid with a Red Kelly (one of the greatest two-way dmen ever) and give him an elite robust point machine like Lindsay and early period Sawchuk where he was unbeatable, and I'm sure we'd see some Cups quickly pile up.

So, I still have Howe ahead, but not by much. Will McDavid ever get there? I'd be willing to bet yes.

 

[jigglysquishy]

You may be right, but here's my question: How many full games of Howe in his prime have you seen?

Across his career, probably 15 full Howe games. Mostly in the mid 60s, but that's the easily accessible stuff.

 

[Crocodiligator]

You may be right, but here's my question: How many full games of Howe in his prime have you seen?

Howe has more significant playoff runs, so it's a bit hard to compare fairly. Was he "better" at the per game level? I'm not sure. Remember that McDavid recently led the entire League in playoff scoring while playing only three rounds.

I don't think we can even begin to compare playoffs until McDavid, maybe, is done.

Anyway, I'd still have Howe ahead, but the gap is getting smaller.

Bernie Federko also led the entire League in playoff scoring while playing only three rounds.

 

[overpass]

In terms of 2-way play, there's a massive massive gap. And that's why I think it's still a vote for Howe.

How much do we actually know about Howe's two-way play from his peak seasons? I.e. from the Detroit dynasty years? Unfortunately we don't have video from those seasons, as others have pointed out.

Stan Fischler made a distinction between Howe's all-around play at different points of his career in his 1973 book, Gordie Howe. He pointed out that during Howe's peak scoring years, he wasn't the same all-around player that he would later become.

To most hockey observers, the years between 1952 and 1957 marked the second phase of Gordie Howe's career.

Following Sid Abel's departure from Detroit, Howe and Lindsay formed the most productive and fearsome one-two punch in the history of professional hockey....(snipped more detail about Howe and Lindsay practicing plays together).

During this second phase, however, Howe's critics noted a tendency on his part to let some of the other players on the team perform the rough chores of hockey--the forechecking and the backchecking. Not that Howe didn't do well in these areas. It's just that he might have done even better if he had applied himself more diligently to the tasks at hand.

But as the fortunes of the Wings began to fall following the 1956-57 seasons, Howe took on more responsibility. In so doing he reached full maturity as both a hockey player and a person and entered the third and final phase of his fabulous career.

When the Wings were locked in a tight game, for example, Howe would skate with his own line, then fill in for a full turn on one of the other lines. He became the balance-wheel of the Detroit power play, sometimes working from the point position, at other times muscling his way in front of the enemy cage for a tip-in or rebound shot. When the Wings were a man short, Howe went out as a penalty killer, and his very presence on ice often forced the opposing team to play more conservatively. For even though the other club was playing with five skaters to Detroit's four, the enemy forces still had to guard against the type of miscue that would give Howe a break-away opportunity.

Between 1957 and 1964, Howe averaged between 40 and 45 minutes per game on ice—twice the ice time put in by most NHL forwards. While Howe's playing time has been cut by the advancing years, he still works every minute that he is on the ice.

Howe backchecks...forechecks...carries the puck from his own zone into enemy territory...normally draws coverage of the top scorer on the opposing team...sets up plays with astonishing regularity...and, of course, scores goals.

"Howe has rewritten the entire game," says one NHL official.

Fischler also noted later that Howe was spotted on defence at times in the 60s, especially if the Wings had an injury.

Now the Wings of the early-mid 50s had excellent checking forwards Marty Pavelich was an all-time great defensive forward who played all 3 forward positions, and Tony Leswick and Glen Skov were strong checkers. So Howe didn't have to be the go-to player in checking situations, and he could focus on scoring. It was a reasonable choice based on the way the team was built. Later in Howe's career, the Wings management used his two-way ability and stamina to cover for a lack of depth at forward.

I think Howe always had the two-way ability, and his two-way play at his peak was better than McDavid's. But I don't think he was an all-time great defensive forward at the same time he was lapping the league in scoring.

(Also, I don't think the estimate of 40-45 minutes/game for Howe is at all accurate. For one thing, the plus-minus component data available from 59-60 shows that Howe couldn't have been playing even half the game on average. Take it for an expression of emphasis on the huge role he did play, much like Dave Keon's statement "There are four good teams in the league: Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, and Gordie Howe.")

 

[MadLuke]

Why do these comparisons always seem to be based on offense only?

Because they are significantly easier (even if still quite hard) than other form of comparison.

Steve Yzerman apparently was really good about receiving new players home for diner and building a team culture, trying adding that value to a comparison versus goal scored would be quite something.

Things measured get emphasized, for better or worst.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Unfortunately we don't have video from those seasons, as others have pointed out.

We do. Not a ton, necessarily. But it doesn't take much to figure out players traits, qualities, and characteristics.

 

[overpass]

Here are a couple more passages from the book I found interesting.

For one, Howe was known for playing all over the ice rather than sticking to his wing. More like a modern winger than a traditional, pre-expansion, up-and-down-the-wing player who stayed within 15 feet of the boards.

Gordie also changed the basic pattern of attack in professional hockey. Under his leadership, Detroit abandoned the position play used by all other NHL clubs in favor of a wide-open, non-restrictive type of assault that has the forwards sweep down ice in a series of criss-cross designs. Montreal now favors that type of attack and to a degree the Canadiens are now more adept at it than the Wings. But the strategy was formulated by Howe for the Wings.

It's interesting that the Detroit and the Montreal dynasties broke the "rules" of forward positional play, but their success didn't change the way the game was taught and understood. A more flexible understanding of forward positions would have to wait until it was pioneered by the WHA Winnipeg Jets and the Edmonton Oilers.

Howe also made a direct comparison between Ted Lindsay and Frank Mahovlich, two all-time great left wingers who had both spent years on Howe's line.

To Howe, the difference between (Frank) Mahovlich and Gordie's former partner on the left, Ted Lindsay, was fascinating.

"The difference," said Howe, "was like night and day. Ted was rambunctious. He'd lay the lumber on everybody. Frank skates for the holes. I've never seen a player who could skate for those holes better, although Ted was pretty good at it. Then there's the difference between being quick and fast. Ted was quick. He was like a quarter horse--a fast starter. Say, take from the net to the blueline, he could beat Frank. But from the net to the far blueline, Frank could beat Ted. Frank is fast.

"Ted had stamina but Frank has strength. Frank rushes down the ice a couple of times and then he must head for the bench to get some wind. Ted could do it maybe four, five, six times before he needed to collect wind. Frank can skate right over people, but he doesn't have the stamina for a big guy that Ted had.

"You have to lead Frank pretty good with a pass. Ted could take a pass in his skates or behind him or wherever it happened to be. Frank is a positional player. Ted wasn't. He was a darter. Frank is easier to play with in that way because you know where he'll be.

 

[norrisnick]

Let McDavid pass Lemieux before you get bogged down in comparisons to Howe...

 

[Professor What]

Because that is how you discredit Howe.

I was wondering who would say that. You, sir, I believe have hit the correct answer.