Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

[Overrated]

I do agree with you to an extent. Back then in the 1950's and 1960's, there weren't any elite hockey players from BC, the Maritimes and the United States, let alone foreign europeans. 85% of the overall talent pool back then was simply Ontario and Quebec. The overall talent pool of registered hockey players was minuscule. If Gordie Howe was playing today I have doubts he would be considered a notch above Crosby, Ovechkin and Mcdavid.

Also:
1998‑1999 NHL Scoring Leaders
almost 900 players for 98-99 season competed in the NHL

1951‑1952 NHL Scoring Leaders
only about 150 players did in the 51-52 season

 

[Overrated]

I thought people putting 66 ahead of Howe was bad.... now he's apparently not even top 4 because 1950s?

Why would it be bad? Lemieux was skill wise on Gretzky's level. How can anyone put a 90 pointer from the 50s ahead of Lemieux

 

[quoipourquoi]

Sure it is a decent gap, though 1.24 isn't that extremely impressive (for a top4 ever).

1.24 for a player in a four-year period when teams averaged 2.53. Removing Detroit, teams averaged 2.30.

But hey, if you don't want to assign value to accomplishments because they occurred in the Original 6 era, you don't have to. But do recognize that you have come to a History board; we're not subscribing to a theory that precludes Mr. Hockey from being recognized as one of the greatest players simply because there weren't a collection of European players in the NHL for Gordie Howe to be better than.

And if you say "rofl" again, I'm closing the thread. There are standards here.

 

[Voight]

Why would it be bad? Lemieux was skill wise on Gretzky's level. How can anyone put a 90 pointer from the 50s ahead of Lemieux rofl!

Did you ever consider scoring was higher in the 80s than the 50s? And its very easy to put a 6x Hart winner, 6x Art Ross winner, 5x goal leader etc ahead of him.

 

[Overrated]

1.24 for a player in a four-year period when teams averaged 2.53. Removing Detroit, teams averaged 2.30.

But hey, if you don't want to assign value to accomplishments because they occurred in the Original 6 era, you don't have to. But do recognize that you have come to a History board; we're not subscribing to a theory that precludes Mr. Hockey from being recognized as one of the greatest players simply because there weren't a collection of European players in the NHL for Gordie Howe to be better than.

And if you say "rofl" again, I'm closing the thread. There are standards here.

Why were the 50s such a low scoring era? Gordie played in the late 40s when a lot of goals were still being scored. That did not seem to affect his statistics. It is not that he was caught up in an era which made him unable to score, it is more that the players created the era. He could have scored more if he were simply better. Jagr played in a low scoring era as well (though that one was caused by better goal-tending and a much stronger league) and he still managed to have a near 150 point season.

 

[Bluesguru]

All ERAS are linked. Think about that for a moment. It's like that in all sports. The stars from yesteryear would be stars today. Howe started playing in the 40's and there he was in a WHA All-Star game playing on a line with Wayne Gretzky in 1979. And the competition was high back then when there was only 6 teams in the NHL. And you don't think it was difficult to play then when you had tremendous built in rivalries playing against the same players over and over again? Today's NHL is soft. It's a lot of zone/spatial play with zero hitting. It's a system generated league where players aren't allowed to play and freelance but instead adhere to team structure. So I wouldn't toot about today's game because today's game doesn't compare to how hockey was previously once played. You really don't know or understand hockey, but that's okay.

 

[Panthera]

If Gordie Howe had retired 15 years earlier, he would go from being seen as one of the four best players ever to being seen as one of the four best players ever by an ever so slightly smaller margin.

Actually maybe not, if anything losing the freakish longevity might force more people to stop saying that longevity was all he had and instead look at what he actually did during his younger years as well. Howe's legacy as "Mister Hockey" might be hurt a bit but his legacy as a player might actually be even stronger to a general audience if he had...played less hockey? Which is pretty nonsensical but hey, what can you do (besides not insist Gordie Howe wasn't great because he played in the 50s but that's clearly a difficult task)

 

[BenchBrawl]

I always felt that Ryan Suter was overrated, just based on what I saw.I mean I'd take him on my team, but not on a #1 salary.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let's attack the argument, not the poster. I'm not having a repeat of the last time I closed a Gordie Howe is overrated thread. We need to be more welcoming.

 

[Epsilon]

Most overrated player of all-time by casual fans is Wendel Clark, no question.

By the hockey media, it's probably Scott Niedermayer or Jonathan Toews.

On HFBoards specifically, and mostly sticking to retired/historical players, I'd probably go with Pavel Bure (note: I mean over the whole forum, not referring to HoH board regulars/veterans). I also think there's a bit of an exaggeration these days in terms of how "unstoppable" Eric Lindros was.

 

[Overrated]

Did you ever consider scoring was higher in the 80s than the 50s? And its very easy to put a 6x Hart winner, 6x Art Ross winner, 5x goal leader etc ahead of him.

The poster "OVERRATED" is overrated himself.

Doesn't know what he's talking about.

All ERAS are linked. Think about that for a moment. It's like that in all sports. The stars from yesteryear would be stars today. Howe started playing in the 40's and there he was in a WHA All-Star game playing on a line with Wayne Gretzky in 1979. And the competition was high back then when there was only 6 teams in the NHL. And you don't think it was difficult to play then when you had tremendous built in rivalries playing against the same players over and over again? Today's NHL is soft. It's a lot of zone/spatial play with zero hitting. It's a system generated league where players aren't allowed to play and freelance but instead adhere to team structure. So I wouldn't toot about today's game because today's game doesn't compare to how hockey was previously once played. You really don't know or understand hockey, but that's okay.

What is your argument though? Sure there is little hitting and physical violence in the game these days, but how does that make the game anything but more skill based? All sports were less competitive 70 years ago. If 1984 Gretzky teleported to 1951 he'd be putting up a 300 point season.

 

[quoipourquoi]

What is your argument though? Sure there is little hitting and physical violence in the game these days, but how does that make the game anything but more skill based? All sports were less competitive 70 years ago. If 1984 Gretzky teleported to 1951 he'd be putting up a 300 point season.

You think Wayne Gretzky, a single player, would score 300 points 33 years earlier. 64 more points than the best offensive team's GF numbers. 26% of the total goals in the league.

But why? I mean, did you pull 300 out of nowhere? I see a series of assertions but little evidence in-between.

 

[Iapyi]

Gordie Howe. By far!

His greatness lies in his seemingly never-ending career. If he retired 15 years earlier nobody would even mention him in any top list. Not to mention he peaked in the 50s when nobody could even play hockey (or any sport really).

The true big 4 is:

Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Hasek

I know Canadian extremists will get mad but yes, there are non Canadians in the top 10.

I hope you don't ban me because I am not trolling, this post is dead serious.

it would be really nice to have a rational discussion on this subject matter.

i feel that in order to go forward in that vein we should clarify exactly what this term and statement entails.

looking forward to your explanation and the opportunity for us to then pro-actively have fun and educational discourse which will hopefully enlighten everyone. i am really excited about this opening broad new horizons and understanding.

 

[swoopster]

You base your evidenece on the fact that it was only a 6 team league, yet that defeats your arguement. Those six teams had the best available talent when a teams roster consisted of 16 to 18 players tops including 2 goalies. That is the top 120 players in all of Canada at a time, with a dominant Junior and Minor league system up and thriving.

The game was different, and so was the equipment, but to say it negated greatness is absurd. Would todays player be as bold and creative sans helmet,... skates that you would laugh at, with minimalist equipment, and playing with a heavy wood stick.

Next you will tell me that Babe Ruth couldn't hit in the modern baseball era!

 

[Overrated]

You think Wayne Gretzky, a single player, would score 300 points 33 years earlier. 64 more points than the best offensive team's GF numbers. 26% of the total goals in the league.

But why? I mean, did you pull 300 out of nowhere? I see a series of assertions but little evidence in-between.

I said points, not goals. This is a hypothetical scenario, so I can't prove this of course. However hockey in the 80s was way more developed. He did 200+ in 84 when youth hockey development was already quite evolved and the NHL had all sorts of great players so making 50% more against a way weaker competition from the 50s does not seem that huge of a stretch.

I mean am I the only person on this forum who actually thinks players (of any sport) today are better than 70 years ago? How can it be not obvious? I even saw a post on this forum saying if Howe played in the 80s he'd be getting 180+ seasons, essentially saying the opposite. This is beyond delusional.

 

[Jay96]

Jeff finger was a lot overrated by the leaf's GM. An overpaid defenseman with a bad hockey IQ and

finished his career struggling in the minors.

 

[Overrated]

You base your evidenece on the fact that it was only a 6 team league, yet that defeats your arguement. Those six teams had the best available talent when a teams roster consisted of 16 to 18 players tops including 2 goalies. That is the top 120 players in all of Canada at a time, with a dominant Junior and Minor league system up and thriving.

The game was different, and so was the equipment, but to say it negated greatness is absurd. Would todays player be as bold and creative sans helmet,... skates that you would laugh at, with minimalist equipment, and playing with a heavy wood stick.

Next you will tell me that Babe Ruth couldn't hit in the modern baseball era!

I am not necessarily saying it negates greatness, I can just go by sheer numbers to prove my point. 90 points during his peak just isn't top 4 ever. I don't understand baseball, but I am pretty sure it has evolved a lot too. Hockey has still evolved heavily since the 70s/80s yet I don't try to discredit Gretzky or Orr because they were statistically so amazing it just wouldn't be possible. I mean how was Howe better than Crosby other than being a nice guy and a great father who played until he was like 52?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The most overrated player ever is Sidney Crosby. People think he's one of the best ever, but he never scored more than 120 points! Come on! In 1992-93 alone, there were 10 players better than Crosby ever was!

 

[BenchBrawl]

The most overrated player ever is Sidney Crosby. People think he's one of the best ever, but he never scored more than 120 points! Come on! In 1992-93 alone, there were 10 players better than Crosby ever was!

I'm amazed he scored 120 points in a season at all.Seems like yesterday, yet so long ago.

 

[Midnight Judges]

IMO longevity is highly underrated on hfboards and in hockey in general. In other sports that's not an issue.

For this reason I think Gordie Howe is under appreciated and guys like Orr, Lemieux, and Bossy are overrated. The total value of Howe's career is immense.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I am not necessarily saying it negates greatness, I can just go by sheer numbers to prove my point. 90 points during his peak just isn't top 4 ever.

But why? You've given us your topic (Gordie Howe is overrated) and your assertion (90 points during his peak isn't top-4 material). Follow through. We need the meat of your argument and not just the next unsupported statement.

Because I would counter that 95 points in a year in which the closest non-teammate scored 61 points is substantial. Likely a bigger gap than any we've seen since 1995-96, right? Maybe even bigger than that (Lemieux had a 40-point gap on 120-point Sakic - one-third of Sakic's totals; Howe's 34-point gap on Richard was over half of Richard's totals). So what about that year that you've highlighted is not top-4 material? The raw number 95?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'll copy and paste my generic "Howe had a better peak than most people realize" post:

1. Howe won six Hart trophies. Only one player (Gretzky) won more. Howe won twice as many Hart trophies as the next closest forwards (Morenz, Clarke, Lemieux, Ovechkin).
2. Howe was a Hart finalist (top three) twelve times - the most in the NHL history. Gretzky was second with eleven times. The next closest players are Hull (eight times) and Beliveau, Orr and Lemieux (seven times each).
3. Howe won the Art Ross trophy six times. Only one player (Gretzky) won more, and Lemieux won just as many.
4. Howe led the playoffs in scoring six times, which ties him with Gretzky. The next closest players have led the playoffs in scoring only three times (Esposito and Lafleur).
5. On a combined basis (regular season and playoffs), Howe led the league in scoring twelve times. Only Gretzky did so more often (a staggering seventeen times). The next closest players are Esposito and Lemieux (eight times each).
6. Howe is the only player in NHL history (aside from Gretzky, obviously) to win multiple Art Ross trophies by a 20% margin (which he did in 1951 and 1953, plus 1952 if you round to the nearest whole number).
7. Howe is one of only a handful of players to lead the league in goals and assists at least three times each (the others were Esposito, Gretzky, and Lemieux).
8. After the 1955 season, Howe had the highest-scoring season in NHL history, the 2nd highest, the 3rd highest, and the 5th highest. These records soon fell because he peaked in a low-scoring era, then scoring rapidly increased around the league.
9. After the 1955 season, Howe also had the highest-scoring playoff run in NHL history. Even at the end of the Original Six era, when scoring rose significantly, he still had the 2nd and (tied for) 3rd highest-scoring playoff runs ever.
10. Howe led his team in scoring 10 times in the playoffs. Only Gretzky has done that more (14 times).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I watched some hockey games down to the 50s, and it looked like the toughest era to play in by far.Like an eternal playoff.Gordie Howe stomped that era.

 

[Panthera]

I mean am I the only person on this forum who actually thinks players (of any sport) today are better than 70 years ago? How can it be not obvious? I even saw a post on this forum saying if Howe played in the 80s he'd be getting 180+ seasons, essentially saying the opposite. This is beyond delusional.

Players generally improve as fitness/nutrition trend upwards and coaching has the benefit of accounting for everything that has come before. However, that doesn't really say anything about the talent of the players or their accomplishments. Gordie Howe was a product of the time he played in, so was Gretzky, so is Crosby, and so on. Given access to the same training methods and experiences as one another, the best players in any given age will be pretty much the same, relatively, no matter where in time you throw them. If you time machine Gordie Howe into a later era, sure he looks pretty sketchy at first, he's playing a game where none of the other players, his own teammates included, are doing what he expects them to. If you time machine little kid Howe into any era so by the time he hits the NHL, he's well aware of how the game is played in that time period, he's going to be the same dominant force he was back in his day.

At the end of the day, Gordie Howe played in a league where every other played had more or less the same opportunities to be good at hockey that he did, and he was the best at it. Any criticism you give him based on the era he played in can be turned around to ask "how much better would he have been had he had <insert modern advantages>?" Ultimately every comparison across eras comes down to that, if you believe the players of one time period have access to better training/equipment/fitness/etc, then you have to admit that the guys from outside your favourite era would be even better if they had the advantages your favourites had. Whether we're talking Howe or Gretzky, we have no reason not to assume it evens out enough that we can judge them based on how much they stood out from their direct competition.

 

[Overrated]

NHL trophies are now worth more than before. It is like bringing up the fact Tretiak won 3 Olympic golds and not adding it was when the NHL did not take part. Winning a Hart trophy in the 50s when the NHL was a Canadian league with 150 players means a lot less than winning it now when the NHL is a World Wide league with a 1000 players.

@quoipourquoi what meat do you need? I think I provided a lot of reasons why Howe simply wasn't top4 skill wise. Also the 90s were the most competitive years ever. Gretzky and Lemieux were still playing, not to mention all the Russian stars + Hasek, Jagr etc. Again I can go back and claim Bobrov was the best hockey player of all time citing some hundred year old statistics.