Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

[Canadiens1958]

No disrespect to Drillon but he does not compare well with what came later from the Maritime provinces. Buckna is an even bigger stretch.

Another opinion about Gordie Drillon differs:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/140401629/

Short, solid interesting career.

 

[Theokritos]

I don't know how long you've been on this board. Maybe you went by another name, or I just don't remember you, but I guess I've been around for well over 10 years now.

FYI, the join date of every user can be found in the box right below the username.

 

[Sentinel]

... Wait.
You're telling us that you're... Gordie Howe?

And you're pulling that old Gretzky trick by putting on a pedestal (above you) a player that is clearly a notch below (in that case, Dominik Hasek).

In my own list of 7 0r so years ago I put Hasek at #4. Above Lemieux. I felt peak Hasek influenced games to greater degree than peak Lemieux. I'm not sure I still feel the same way, but at least this position is defensible.

Howe is virtually untouchable.

 

[danincanada]

Another opinion about Gordie Drillon differs:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/140401629/

Short, solid interesting career.

Right, and even though the Maratimes have never produced loads of elite players it’s still better now this it was back in the O6 and pre-O6.

It’s also extremely telling that you bring up Mike Buckna, who may have contributed greatly to Hockey but did not add to the NHL talent stream from BC directly. Look what came from BC after the O6. Not even comparable.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm not sure what part of "do not speculate publicly about what the moderation staff does or does not do" was unclear.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Right, and even though the Maratimes have never produced loads of elite players it’s still better now this it was back in the O6 and pre-O6.

It’s also extremely telling that you bring up Mike Buckna, who may have contributed greatly to Hockey but did not add to the NHL talent stream from BC directly. Look what came from BC after the O6. Not even comparable.

Maritimes did produce the early hockey and James Creighton who popularized and grew hockey soon after confederation.

James Creighton (ice hockey) - Wikipedia

BC and the Maritimes operated as company towns, closed shops. The Patricks established the PCHA in 1911 due to family logging interests. Imported and produced local talent. Interior BC with company towns - Trail, Penticton, Kimberley, Nelson, etc produced dominant Senior hockey teams. A job, benefits and hockey allowed the players a financial package superior to the NHL without the additional cost of leaving home and family. See Seth Martin:

Seth Martin - Wikipedia

Puzzled why you think anyone years ago O6 era and before had an obligation to accept an NHL contract when other employers offered more? Mike Buckna in the 1930s was offered more from Czechoslovakia. Wouldn't it be common sense to accept the better offer?

Also your view of early hockey and players colours your narrative. Perhaps a comparison across eras including Gordie Drillon will illustrate the quality and strength of players thru the history of the NHL.

 

[Theokritos]

Puzzled why you think anyone years ago O6 era and before had an obligation to accept an NHL contract when other employers offered more? Mike Buckna in the 1930s was offered more from Czechoslovakia. Wouldn't it be common sense to accept the better offer?

I've pointed this out to you time and time again, but if you want we can keep doing this forever. So here we go again: No-one is saying anyone had an obligation to accept an NHL contract. The fact there were better offers available just explains why the NHL talent pool was smaller, it does not debunk the claim that the NHL talent pool was smaller.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I've pointed this out to you time and time again, but if you want we can keep doing this forever. So here we go again: No-one is saying anyone had an obligation to accept an NHL contract. The fact there were better offers available just explains why the NHL talent pool was smaller, it does not debunk the claim that the NHL talent pool was smaller.

Not the point which is there was always a pool of NHL quality talent outside the NHL. This is evident in the 1967 expansion, minor league hockey, senior, international and university hockey before and after.

For the hockey talent pool to be SMALLER you would have to show that at various points the NHL teams were not able to find qualified talent anywhere to meet game day roster requirements. This never happened. The closest you might come would be individual teams having financial issues producing weak rosters but inevitably outside the team(s) in question there were NHL quality players available.

Very easy to show that regardless of era the available NHL quality talent was there BUT for various reasons it was not strictly concentrated in the NHL. Be it for financial reasons, educational opportunities, military obligations and so forth.

The issue and this is what has been avoided is how much larger than the total NHL team requirements was the talent pool.

Someone accepting a better offer or a different career path does not erase their hockey skills. Nor does any type of temporary retirement from the NHL, injury, personal situation etc.

 

[blogofmike]

That said, I do believe it's easier to be the best out of 150 players than out of a 1000.

If a player can't crack the top 150, what are the chances they were going to compete for #1?

Finishing in the Top 1 probably doesn't change, but the oft-cited Top 5 for 2 decades line could be. There are going to be a lot more opportunities to post a high point total in a 21 or 31 team league. In a 6-team league, Howe had a few seasons near the end of the O6 where he would be 8th to 12th in ES scoring, but edge past a few guys on the basis that he had a far greater PP role.

It doesn't really change a whole lot. If he were "just" Top 10 for 2 decades, it would still be something only Howe had the longevity and health to pull off.

 

[danincanada]

Not the point which is there was always a pool of NHL quality talent outside the NHL. This is evident in the 1967 expansion, minor league hockey, senior, international and university hockey before and after.

For the hockey talent pool to be SMALLER you would have to show that at various points the NHL teams were not able to find qualified talent anywhere to meet game day roster requirements. This never happened. The closest you might come would be individual teams having financial issues producing weak rosters but inevitably outside the team(s) in question there were NHL quality players available.

Very easy to show that regardless of era the available NHL quality talent was there BUT for various reasons it was not strictly concentrated in the NHL. Be it for financial reasons, educational opportunities, military obligations and so forth.

The issue and this is what has been avoided is how much larger than the total NHL team requirements was the talent pool.

Someone accepting a better offer or a different career path does not erase their hockey skills. Nor does any type of temporary retirement from the NHL, injury, personal situation etc.

This makes no sense. We are talking about the talent pool feeding the NHL. If great players choose to play elsewhere, can’t play in the the NHL for political reasons, or due to personal situations or injury, that takes away from the talent pool feeding the league. You’re trying to skirt around this constantly and it just shows you can’t form a strong rebuttal.

This debate was over before it started.

 

[Canadiens1958]

This makes no sense. We are talking about the talent pool feeding the NHL. If great players choose to play elsewhere, can’t play in the the NHL for political reasons, or due to personal situations or injury, that takes away from the talent pool feeding the league. You’re trying to skirt around this constantly and it just shows you can’t form a strong rebuttal.

This debate was over before it started.

Two distinct concepts and groups. The ready talent pool of NHL quality players and the feeder pool of future hockey players who eventually will be NHL ready.

You and a few others conflate or interchange the two groups.

Ready talent playing elsewhere never takes away from the total amount of NHL ready talent. Like grains of sand on an ocean beach this talent pool just takes a different shape with each wave.

The feeder talent pool is another group all together. Varying distances away from the beach.

 

[Theokritos]

Not the point which is there was always a pool of NHL quality talent outside the NHL. This is evident in the 1967 expansion, minor league hockey, senior, international and university hockey before and after.

Since we're arguing about the competition O6 players faced in relation to later era players, the pool of "NHL quality talent outside of the NHL" is exactly the opposite of what we're talking about. We're debating the pool of talent actually feeding the NHL.

For the hockey talent pool to be SMALLER you would have to show that at various points the NHL teams were not able to find qualified talent anywhere to meet game day roster requirements.

Except that we're talking about "smaller" in relation to later times when there were a lot more teams. Whether the six NHL teams of the pre-1967 era were able to find enough talent to meet their own roster requirements is of no primary consequence for the question whether the talent pool available to the NHL in the O6 era was smaller than the talent pool feeding the NHL in a later era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Since we're arguing about the competition O6 players faced in relation to later era players, the pool of "NHL quality talent outside of the NHL" is exactly the opposite of what we're talking about. We're debating the pool of talent actually feeding the NHL.



Except that we're talking about "smaller" in relation to later times when there were a lot more teams. Whether the six NHL teams of the pre-1967 era were able to find enough talent to meet their own roster requirements is of no primary consequence for the question whether the talent pool available to the NHL in the O6 era was smaller than the talent pool feeding the NHL in a later era.

In theory and on the ice are two different things. One is academic, the other is applied

Prime example Charles Hudon on the 2017-18 Canadiens. Third tier talent, roughly 13-18th on the team and virtually all present day NHL teams, or lower. Rarely a healthy scratch. Only attribute, fast skater that does not fall down. At times open ice opportunities arise and surprise him. See his claim to fame.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/140405201/

At least Charles Hudon did not fall down. O6 era NHL, he would be a depth forward on a Senior semi-pro team, no NHL training camp invite, roughly 1200 to 1500 range in a Canadian talent pool system.

Today in an International talent pool feeder system to the NHL no replacement can be found for a player who is roughly ranked in the 500-700 NHL range. Effectively you have roughly 40-50% of NHL players who are NHL players in name only or by default.

Using Charles Hudon as an example because he actually has a bit more talent than those who lack talent to be isolated and immortalized on video.

Setting aside the desire to split hairs, the elite mature adult hockey talent pool going back to the NHA/PCHA days to today has been relatively constant.

Keeping the elite talent, polishing it and having them play at an elite level for an optimum level has always been a challenge.

 

[Sentinel]

At least Charles Hudon did not fall down. O6 era NHL, he would be a depth forward on a Senior semi-pro team, no NHL training camp invite, roughly 1200 to 1500 range in a Canadian talent pool system.

I'm sorry, what is the basis for you stating this? How can you be so sure?

 

[Voight]

Somehow being in the top 5 of scoring for over a decade doesn't mean anything if you played before the 1980s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm sorry, what is the basis for you stating this? How can you be so sure?

Video or gif is rather clear about the not falling down part. Plus watching Hudon from Midget onwards.

Well over 50 years of critically watching hockey. One of our home rinks featured junior, minor pro and senior hockey, touring European teams, international teams.

After awhile the indicators are there.

 

[ChuckLefley]

While I do consider Howe to be one of the greats, I do think his legend has become so romanticized that I can see people thinking he really wasn’t one of the greats.

Tales of his greatness always make his dirty play sound like a good thing.
The “Gordie Howe Hat Trick” something he did a whopping two times.

As two examples.

 

[The Panther]

The “Gordie Howe Hat Trick” something he did a whopping two times.

First of all, did he really do this only two times? I've heard the stats are only recorded back to a certain period, after his prime...

Second, does anyone care how many times he did it? It's a trivial thing that's irrelevant to his legend.

For me, I can't at all see anyone's excuse for under-valuing Howe. Basically, if you don't think Howe was one of the 3 or 4 greatest players ever, you can't be my friend.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I'm not sure fights really work as a counting stat. If someone never fights and still carries the reputation of the baddest mother in town, that's great. And if they're constantly losing their temper and taking themselves out of the play, that's bad.

 

[Michael Farkas]

As someone who is 5'9, 160 lbs., I generally steer towards fighting people weaker than me...just seems like a good business model...

 

[ChuckLefley]

First of all, did he really do this only two times? I've heard the stats are only recorded back to a certain period, after his prime...

Second, does anyone care how many times he did it? It's a trivial thing that's irrelevant to his legend.

For me, I can't at all see anyone's excuse for under-valuing Howe. Basically, if you don't think Howe was one of the 3 or 4 greatest players ever, you can't be my friend.

Stats have been recorded since before Howe played. I have seen a Rangers vs. Maroons score sheet from 1932 that has goals, assists and penalties on it.

It is relevant because it shows how his legend has been enhanced by the media. They named something after him even though he rarely accomplished it because it helped push the idea that he was such a complete player.

As I said, he is one of the top players of all time, but I can see how his legend has become romanticized.

 

[Canadiens1958]

As someone who is 5'9, 160 lbs., I generally steer towards fighting people weaker than me...just seems like a good business model...

Into the 1960s in Canada, youngsters had militia training via cadets(armed forces)- self-defence and a number of grade schools and community centers had boxing, junior and senior Golden Gloves. Some of the youngsters also played hockey, including later in the NHL. Size was never a factor.

A number of Lady Byng types - Red Kelly, Don Marshall, others had a boxing background.

 

[K Fleur]

Stats have been recorded since before Howe played. I have seen a Rangers vs. Maroons score sheet from 1932 that has goals, assists and penalties on it.

It is relevant because it shows how his legend has been enhanced by the media. They named something after him even though he rarely accomplished it because it helped push the idea that he was such a complete player.

As I said, he is one of the top players of all time, but I can see how his legend has become romanticized.

I also think there is too much of a focus of this kind of stuff, Mr. Elbows, Howe Hatrick, etc., by the media and not enough focus on what Howe really accomplished throughout his career.

Howe was the best player of his time, the best winger of all time, and the only player who I can at least see/understand the reasoning for someone ranking him ahead Gretzky.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I always remember Gordie Howe's card appearing in The Simpsons.

 

[daver]

Unless there is some statistical evidence to the contrary, you have to believe that a dominant talent from one era would be dominant in another. Trying to measure dominance from a six team league to a 21 or 30 team league requires some reasonable context.

I don't see where talent from supposedly weaker eras struggled to maintain their stature with expansion or more European players so it is all conjecture IMO. The OP recognizes Orr as a GOAT yet doesn't seem to realize that he was playing against players that were stars in Orr's era and in the O6.