Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

[Big Phil]

There is a big difference.

Wilt put up IMPOSSIBLE numbers that nobody ever will be able to replicate. Babe Ruth has a similar story. That is why they will always be immortalized in the sport. Funny enough Wilt is routinely underrated.

Maurice Richards and Jean Beliveau didn't do any of that despite playing in a weak local league at the inception of the sport of hockey. Maurice grew up in the 20s when nobody took sports seriously. Top players nowadays compete against the finest of talents from all over the world. Their competition is likely 100x larger in number. Hockey is the only sport where people consider random guys born in 1920s better than the superstars of today just because they won ten Stanley Cups while in a stacked team in a league of 6 teams which is not at all comparable to winning the cup today.

Maurice Richard in the 1940s had a factory job during the day, not because he wanted to, but it was because he wasn't making $10 million a year. He had to work. These guys worked in the summers. Phil Esposito has mentioned that he worked in the summer until he was about 30 years old.

Richard and Beliveau are NOT playing hockey at its inception. Hockey in the 1950s was pretty good. There were only 120 players in the league. That's not easy to penetrate, smaller talent pool or not. If you want to talk about the NHL when it first truly began then there are some things we can discuss. There were forward passes right away, the league was in its infancy and people were learning things as they went along. But by the 1950s the game had long been established. It is not like there were patsies playing in it.

If Richard could have worked out and focused on that solely in his free time then so be it, but he actually had to work in his early years. Also, it isn't as if training camps were easy then. This was the Original 6. Conn Smythe had those military-style training camps. You had plenty of players waiting to take your place if you didn't work hard.

I guess my question to you again is by watching the players of yesteryear what makes you think that they wouldn't thrive under the same advantages the players today have? You need to explain your work better than just dismissing players who were born before 1995.

Here is some of my evidence. In the 1950s and 1960s Beliveau was a star. He won a Hart Trophy 8 years apart, in two different decades. He finished top 10 in scoring in his final year, 1971, in a 14 team league when he was 39 and he had 22 playoff points that year. Bobby Hull won the Art Ross (his first one) in 1960. By 1976 he was on the Canada Cup team and despite being 37 years old did very well against prime NHL stars on his own team and from other countries. I am not keen on the WHA, but he was dominating a pro league after the age of 33 onwards.

Gordie Howe, 20 straight years where he was a top 5 scorer in the NHL. Enough said.

Gretzky led the NHL in points in two different decades. Lemieux has great years in three different decades. Was dominating the NHL scoring race in 2003 when he is 37 years old before he missed some games due to injury. Gretzky led the NHL in assists 16 times. Had more assists in 1998 than every other player in the NHL (tied with Jagr). Had more assists than anyone else in 1980.

Patrick Roy was a star goalie in three different decades and was a star before the butterfly style got popular, and during it. Won a Conn Smythe in three different decades.

Jacques Plante led the NHL in save % and GAA in a season in three different decades, last one being 1971 when he was 41 years old. A prime Giacomin, Esposito, Cheevers or Vachon didn't do it, Plante did.

I don't know what else I have to prove here. But what you can see is that the NHL is filled with superstars who were elite during different eras of the NHL with much younger players. We have the proof right there and it is indisputable, so why don't we think Beliveau would be able to sneak past defenses in 2021 when a player who looks a lot like him (Malkin) has done it so well for the past 15 seasons?

 

[Overrated]

Maurice Richard in the 1940s had a factory job during the day, not because he wanted to, but it was because he wasn't making $10 million a year. He had to work. These guys worked in the summers. Phil Esposito has mentioned that he worked in the summer until he was about 30 years old.

Richard and Beliveau are NOT playing hockey at its inception. Hockey in the 1950s was pretty good. There were only 120 players in the league. That's not easy to penetrate, smaller talent pool or not. If you want to talk about the NHL when it first truly began then there are some things we can discuss. There were forward passes right away, the league was in its infancy and people were learning things as they went along. But by the 1950s the game had long been established. It is not like there were patsies playing in it.

If Richard could have worked out and focused on that solely in his free time then so be it, but he actually had to work in his early years. Also, it isn't as if training camps were easy then. This was the Original 6. Conn Smythe had those military-style training camps. You had plenty of players waiting to take your place if you didn't work hard.

I guess my question to you again is by watching the players of yesteryear what makes you think that they wouldn't thrive under the same advantages the players today have? You need to explain your work better than just dismissing players who were born before 1995.

Here is some of my evidence. In the 1950s and 1960s Beliveau was a star. He won a Hart Trophy 8 years apart, in two different decades. He finished top 10 in scoring in his final year, 1971, in a 14 team league when he was 39 and he had 22 playoff points that year. Bobby Hull won the Art Ross (his first one) in 1960. By 1976 he was on the Canada Cup team and despite being 37 years old did very well against prime NHL stars on his own team and from other countries. I am not keen on the WHA, but he was dominating a pro league after the age of 33 onwards.

Gordie Howe, 20 straight years where he was a top 5 scorer in the NHL. Enough said.

Gretzky led the NHL in points in two different decades. Lemieux has great years in three different decades. Was dominating the NHL scoring race in 2003 when he is 37 years old before he missed some games due to injury. Gretzky led the NHL in assists 16 times. Had more assists in 1998 than every other player in the NHL (tied with Jagr). Had more assists than anyone else in 1980.

Patrick Roy was a star goalie in three different decades and was a star before the butterfly style got popular, and during it. Won a Conn Smythe in three different decades.

Jacques Plante led the NHL in save % and GAA in a season in three different decades, last one being 1971 when he was 41 years old. A prime Giacomin, Esposito, Cheevers or Vachon didn't do it, Plante did.

I don't know what else I have to prove here. But what you can see is that the NHL is filled with superstars who were elite during different eras of the NHL with much younger players. We have the proof right there and it is indisputable, so why don't we think Beliveau would be able to sneak past defenses in 2021 when a player who looks a lot like him (Malkin) has done it so well for the past 15 seasons?

Guys who played in the 1950s were born two to three decades before. There is a reason the guys worked summers as you mentioned. Pro-sport just wasn't well established yet period.

I actually wrote two posts ago that the skill has likely plateaued (with some minor improvements) since 1990 (these guys were born in the 60s for the most part) and that the biggest growth in competitiveness happened in the post war years. Gretzky and Lemieux already played in a very competitive hockey world. These guys deserve the spots at the top of these lists. Orr's era was significantly weaker but he is the closest hockey player to having those impossible numbers of Wilt Chamberlain. He likely deserves the spot in the top5 as well.

I unfortunately can't find the participation rates for the sport going that far back. I am pretty sure the average Canadian kid wasn't coached to play hockey back in the 1920s. These guys were competing against a very tiny pool of talent. Very lucky they got to play in the 50s when the sport was booming among spectators yet their competitors were still a bunch of guys born in the 1920s.

 

[Overrated]

Howe is a part of the Big 4, without question. I will say that I find him "overrated" in the sense that many people put him above #4 in terms of skill.

Lemieux, Greztky and Orr are all more impactful players than him when it comes to what happens on the ice.

However when you consider what he had done for the game overall, I'd argue his overall influence is challenged only by Gretzky. Dude was an absolutely amazing ambassador for the sport, and by every account, one of the most fan friendly athletes to every grace the Earth. We call him Mr Hockey for a reason.

The OG, the first real star, played until he was 50, a great dad who brought up a son to play with him on his own line. I agree. I don't think being an ambassador for the sport should give you any points in the ranking though. Ironically enough he likely does belong in the top10 due to his longevity and for the very wrong reason of winning 2 Avco cups. Can't be above Hasek (who revolutionized goaltending, had the highest goaltender peak ever and was at the top since early 80s for 30 years) and Jagr (similar longevity to Howe but in the modern supercompetitive era). If Crosby, Kane, Ovechkin keep it up in both accomplishments and longevity they would have to be put above him as well if we're going to be objective.

 

[Vegeta]

The OG, the first real star, played until he was 50, a great dad who brought up a son to play with him on his own line. I agree. I don't think being an ambassador for the sport should give you any points in the ranking though. Ironically enough he likely does belong in the top10 due to his longevity and for the very wrong reason of winning 2 Avco cups. Can't be above Hasek (who revolutionized goaltending, had the highest goaltender peak ever and was at the top since early 80s for 30 years) and Jagr (similar longevity to Howe but in the modern supercompetitive era). If Crosby, Kane, Ovechkin keep it up in both accomplishments and longevity they would have to be put above him as well if we're going to be objective.

It's incredibly difficult to judge goalies next to skaters. Hasek is the GOAT goalie though, I agree there.

I'm not sure I agree with him being revolutionary though. Hasek was Hasek. The only person that has somewhat imitated his goaltending style at the NHL level, is Tim Thomas.

Roy was more revolutionary, albeit a slightly lesser goalie imo. Modern goaltending is built upon Roy's butterfly/hybrid.

 

[The Panther]

Lemieux, Greztky and Orr are all more impactful players than him when it comes to what happens on the ice.

It's hard to be sure when I didn't see the guy play, but I doubt that Howe's prime-era on-ice impact was less than Mario Lemieux's. Mario, even in his prime and on decent teams, had some very ordinary ES results, though of course his incredible size + talent made him dynamite on the PP. (Howe also had some ordinary ES results, but those tend to be after he was 31 -- we don't, to my knowledge, have any numbers from his Stanley Cup / Art Rosses-in-a-row period).

I think most people agree that Mario was the more talented player in terms of raw offensive skill, but it's not like Howe wasn't super-elite in that area, too, and was the complete package of physicality, two-way effectiveness, and offensive skill.

 

[Johnny Engine]

This didn't need to be bumped. If anyone has anything new or interesting to say about the topic, I'm sure there can be other threads.