Who was better- Lemieux or Howe?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
KOVALEV10 said:
Well Lemieux was one of those players who comes once in a lifetime and dominates the game of hockey. Same could be said about Howe. However Lemieux has the highest point per game as well as goals per game average in history and a lot better then Howe. Lemieux was clearly ahead in goal scoring whereas both were great playmakers. I dont know honestly who was better as I've not seen Howe play that much.


Gee, you wouldn't think the fact that they played in two different eras would make that a pretty moot point, would You?? :propeller :propeller :propeller
 

CH

Registered User
Jul 30, 2003
865
249
Visit site
First, I would like to point out that you HAVE NOT ADDRESSED MY POINTS IN POSTS 40 or 44. Maybe you haven't understood it, so I will try to address it with this attempt you have.

Ogopogo said:
Who is the greatest 100m sprinter of all time?

Is it Asafa Powell? He is the current world record holder with a 9.77.

The 100m sprint record will be broken time after time after time after time. That is human evolution for you. Some guy in 50 years will run a 9.65. Does that make this mythical future boy the greatest sprinter of all time? No, it just makes him the benefactor of human evolution.

The greatest sprinter of all time is the one that dominates the other sprinters of his era to a greater extent than any other sprinter. It could be Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis or Ben Johnson. I don't know enough about sprinting to know who it really is. The fact is that it is not Powell. If he goes on to win Olympic gold and dominate the sport for the next 5 or 6 years, he could become the greatest. But, a guy that won race after race after race and gold medal after gold medal and held the world record with a 10.30 is far greater than a guy that splashes on to the scene with a new world record at 9.77. The new record is a result of human evolution. If Powell continues to win race after race after race, then he may be spoken in the same breath as Owens.

There are many ways to address the question of who is the best sprinter of all time.

Who had the fastest 100 m ime ever is one way, but it is unsatisfactory because increases in training techniques, running shoes, steroids etc are lost.

Who led their peer group by the largest margin is another way, but it is unsatisfactory because it assumes all peer groups are the same AND THEY ARE NOT.

You can come up with several other unsatisfactory methods also.

Off the top of my head, I would try to find a sprinter who was dominant for a long period of time, winning all the major races for several years. I would try to normalize race times to take into account thed standards of the time. I would also try to account for the increasing talent pool from which world class sprinters are drawn. You refuse to accept this last adjustment so I will discuss it further in the next paragraph. If I knew more about sprinting, I might realize there are also other factors that must be adjusted for.

In sprinting, like hockey, over the years, more and more people have been involved. This is bec ause the world population is increasing and also because more and more countries have programs that can produce world class sprinters. With a bit of a google search, I learned that only 17 counties participated in the track and field events in the 1912 Olympics (I could not find any numbers for the first modern Olympiad in 1896 but I assume it is even less. 80 athletes from over 50 countries participated in the 2004 mens 100 meters alone. It is reasonable to assume that this is a deeper higher calibre peer group then in 1912 and that fact should be accounted for. It is most likely that the guy who dominated his peer group by the largest manner was from the earlier years of the Olympics when he had a much smaller peer group (this would be easier to accomplish when you are racing a smaller portion of the world). Probably you would find the most doimant people in all timed Olympic events come from the early days of the event for this reason. Is it logical to assume that all the best athletes came from the early days and no modern guys have ever come along who are as good? Is it logical to assume this despite the large increase in people participating in the event? Obviously it isn't. But you stubbornly refuse to address this point.

We should note the significant difference between sprinting and hockey in that in hockey we are using points scored (or goals scored) to measure greatness. Every goal scored by an NHL player is a goal allowed by another one. So the level of scoring does have some measure ofr the opposition in it - and this is something we try to normalize out. In sprinting there is no measurement of the opposition in numbers. It is just you against the clock.

I don't know who would be the best sprinter of all time. I do not in any way assume it is the current world record holder as you are incorrectly arguing I would. I also do not in any way assume it is the person who most dominated their peer group (likely because they had a much smaller peer group then today's sprinters - I might assume the person who most dominated his peer group ran in one of the early Olympiads because its next to impossible to dominate the much larger peer groups of today by the same margin).

Ogopogo said:
Dominance of one's peers is the mark of greatness. Really, was Jesse Owens crap because so many nations did not participate in the Olympics or the 100m back in 1936? No, Owens may be the greatest sprinter of all time, even though his best time was 10.30 seconds.

Dominance of ones peer group is one measure of greatness but it depends on how good one's peer group is for how good a measure it is. In this case in hockey it is a poor method because it assumes implicitly that Ted Lindsay and Wayne Gretzky are equal hockey talents.
 

temporary pencil

Registered User
Aug 10, 2003
225
0
Visit site
Lemieux: Better scorer, better playmaker, better puckhandler, better vision
Gordie Howe: Better everything else

I think it pretty much comes down to this.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
It's very important to distinguish between Career and Peak value. Gordie Howe obviously had a much better career; but I don't think anyone disputes this point.

The more interesting and relevant discussion is: which player was better in their prime? I'll start off by using some adjusted-for-era statistics.

Top 5 Point-Scoring Seasons
Lemieux: 169, 159, 144, 133, 130 pts (averaging 147 pts over 72 games)
Howe: 129, 111, 111, 106, 106 pts (averaging 113 pts over 82 games)

This indicates that, in his prime, Lemieux was a 30% better scorer than Howe.

Howe was, clearly, a significantly better defensive player and checker. Is this enough to offset an extra 34 points (which works out to about 14 goals) per year? I would imagine it would be very close, but I don't have a definite answer.

One thing that weighs strongly in Howe's favor is that he has 6 Hart Trophies compared to Lemieux's 3. If Lemieux was far more dominant than Howe, why does he have half as many MVP awards?

Some people have argued that Lemieux has (relatively) few Hart Trophies because he competed against Gretzky. In the years Lemieux finished 2nd or 3rd for the Hart:

2001: 2nd to Sakic
1997: 3rd to Hasek and Kariya
1989: 2nd to Gretzky
1986: 2nd to Gretzky

The argument that Lemieux was robbed of numerous Hart Trophies because he was up against Gretzky is partially true. He probably would have won it in '86 and '89 if not for the Great One. Still, even if we credit Lemieux for two extra Hart's, Howe still has a 6-5 lead.

Let's do the same thing for Howe:

1966: 3rd to Hull and Beliveau
1965: 3rd to Hull and Ullman
1964: 3rd to Beliveau and Hull
1961: 3rd to Geoffrion and Bower
1959: 2nd to Bathgate
1951: 3rd to Scmidt and Richard; tied with Kelly

Howe was competing (until his late 30's!) against Bobby Hull (3 times), Jean Beliveau (twice) and Rocket Richard, Red Kelly, Bernie Geoffrion and other Hall-of-Famers, so it's certainly not as if Howe had no competition.

--------

In the end, I would probably take Howe in his prime over Lemieux. His incredible all-around game and big edge in Hart Trophy's, in my mind, makes up for the 34 more pts Lemieux would produce through offense. But it's a close call and I would understand people picking Lemieux too.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
CH said:
First, I would like to point out that you HAVE NOT ADDRESSED MY POINTS IN POSTS 40 or 44. Maybe you haven't understood it, so I will try to address it with this attempt you have.



There are many ways to address the question of who is the best sprinter of all time.

Who had the fastest 100 m ime ever is one way, but it is unsatisfactory because increases in training techniques, running shoes, steroids etc are lost.

Who led their peer group by the largest margin is another way, but it is unsatisfactory because it assumes all peer groups are the same AND THEY ARE NOT.

You can come up with several other unsatisfactory methods also.

Off the top of my head, I would try to find a sprinter who was dominant for a long period of time, winning all the major races for several years. I would try to normalize race times to take into account thed standards of the time. I would also try to account for the increasing talent pool from which world class sprinters are drawn. You refuse to accept this last adjustment so I will discuss it further in the next paragraph. If I knew more about sprinting, I might realize there are also other factors that must be adjusted for.

In sprinting, like hockey, over the years, more and more people have been involved. This is bec ause the world population is increasing and also because more and more countries have programs that can produce world class sprinters. With a bit of a google search, I learned that only 17 counties participated in the track and field events in the 1912 Olympics (I could not find any numbers for the first modern Olympiad in 1896 but I assume it is even less. 80 athletes from over 50 countries participated in the 2004 mens 100 meters alone. It is reasonable to assume that this is a deeper higher calibre peer group then in 1912 and that fact should be accounted for. It is most likely that the guy who dominated his peer group by the largest manner was from the earlier years of the Olympics when he had a much smaller peer group (this would be easier to accomplish when you are racing a smaller portion of the world). Probably you would find the most doimant people in all timed Olympic events come from the early days of the event for this reason. Is it logical to assume that all the best athletes came from the early days and no modern guys have ever come along who are as good? Is it logical to assume this despite the large increase in people participating in the event? Obviously it isn't. But you stubbornly refuse to address this point.

We should note the significant difference between sprinting and hockey in that in hockey we are using points scored (or goals scored) to measure greatness. Every goal scored by an NHL player is a goal allowed by another one. So the level of scoring does have some measure ofr the opposition in it - and this is something we try to normalize out. In sprinting there is no measurement of the opposition in numbers. It is just you against the clock.

I don't know who would be the best sprinter of all time. I do not in any way assume it is the current world record holder as you are incorrectly arguing I would. I also do not in any way assume it is the person who most dominated their peer group (likely because they had a much smaller peer group then today's sprinters - I might assume the person who most dominated his peer group ran in one of the early Olympiads because its next to impossible to dominate the much larger peer groups of today by the same margin).



Dominance of ones peer group is one measure of greatness but it depends on how good one's peer group is for how good a measure it is. In this case in hockey it is a poor method because it assumes implicitly that Ted Lindsay and Wayne Gretzky are equal hockey talents.

I have addressed this point but, you seem to have missed it.

First, how can you tell me what the best peer group of NHLers was? Can you say it was the group that played in the 80s? Can you say it was the group from the 60s? The truth is, you cannot determine the best peer group ever because there is no way to do it.

Secondly, it stands to reason that the greatest athletes are not all born at exactly the same time. The greatest hockey players in the world were not all born between 1960 and 1965. God spreads out the great people of society over the course of history. Some were in their primes in the 20s, others in the 80s and others were in the 1500s. Great members of society are not all from one era, they are spread out across all eras. That is simply how it is. All NHL seasons feature the best players available. All peer groups are equal, save for evolution.

Saying that I am putting Ted Lindsay and Wayne Gretzky as equals is a complete misunderstanding. Gordie Howe beat ALL NHLers by at least 34% in his best season. He not only beat Lindsay, he beat 3rd place Rocket Richard by 56% that year. Howe's margin of victory tells us that he completely blew away the competition and was totally dominant that season. As I said in a previous post, in Mario's best year he beat Gretzky by 18% but, if you pull Gretzky out of the equation, he still only beat Yzerman by 28%. In Mario's second best season, he beat Gretzky by 13%. Pull Gretzky out of the equation again and he beat Denis Savard by 28%. The bottom line is, Mario did not dominate the rest of the league to the extent that Gordie Howe did - EVEN WHEN YOU PULL GRETZKY OUT OF THE EQUATION.

The larger peer groups of today are a non-issue. If a person is the best in the world at anything, they are the best in the world. Period. Just because the Swedes didn't take hockey seriously until the middle of the 20th century (Not sure when they did, it is irrelevant) that does not make the players of the early 20th century any worse. In the 20s no Swede would ever have made an NHL roster because they were complete novices at the game. Same as today. When India and China take hockey seriously, we will have a talent pool 2 billion people larger than it is now. Obviously that means Jarome Iginla and Peter Forsberg are not that great. :sarcasm:

If the Russians weren't in the NHL in the 60s, who cares? Gordie Howe dominated the best players the top hockey league in the world had to offer. He was the greatest player of his time by a wide margin.

A truly great athlete will dominate his peer group by a large margin no matter how large the pool of athletes is. Saying that being dominant in the 80s is better than being dominant in the 60s becuase there is a larger pool of players to draw from, is a flawed thought process. You are talking about evolution. The world evolves and grows and that automatically makes us bigger, stronger, faster and more educated than our forefathers. Being the best in the world now is the same as being the best in the world in 1950. I don't know how to help you understand that point. Using your thought process, we will never see the greatest player of all time because that will only be the player that plays in the last ever season before Armageddon.

Again, how can you determine what peer group is the best? Maybe the numbers were so much higher in the 80s because there were so many bad players in the league? Maybe it was the weakest peer group ever? There is no way to determine that. If you have a system that allows you to do it, I would love to hear about it.

Again, my system is designed to reward players for their accomplishments no matter when they played. If the two greatest players of all time, played at the same time, that is no matter. They will still end up #1 and #2 on my list.

The results of the poll on this thread tell me that A. Most people saw Mario play but have never seen Howe play and B. Most people know little or nothing about Gordie Howe. It is simply people voting for what they are familiar with. Most people would say that they live in the best city as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Poe22222

Registered User
Jun 23, 2005
10
0
Ogopogo, I must say that I completely disagree with you and completely agree with CH. You are very misguided, and I'm too lazy to type out exactly why because CH already has.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,440
9,062
Hockey Outsider said:
It's very important to distinguish between Career and Peak value. Gordie Howe obviously had a much better career; but I don't think anyone disputes this point.

The more interesting and relevant discussion is: which player was better in their prime? I'll start off by using some adjusted-for-era statistics.

Top 5 Point-Scoring Seasons
Lemieux: 169, 159, 144, 133, 130 pts (averaging 147 pts over 72 games)
Howe: 129, 111, 111, 106, 106 pts (averaging 113 pts over 82 games)

This indicates that, in his prime, Lemieux was a 30% better scorer than Howe.

Howe was, clearly, a significantly better defensive player and checker. Is this enough to offset an extra 34 points (which works out to about 14 goals) per year? I would imagine it would be very close, but I don't have a definite answer.

One thing that weighs strongly in Howe's favor is that he has 6 Hart Trophies compared to Lemieux's 3. If Lemieux was far more dominant than Howe, why does he have half as many MVP awards?

Some people have argued that Lemieux has (relatively) few Hart Trophies because he competed against Gretzky. In the years Lemieux finished 2nd or 3rd for the Hart:

2001: 2nd to Sakic
1997: 3rd to Hasek and Kariya
1989: 2nd to Gretzky
1986: 2nd to Gretzky

The argument that Lemieux was robbed of numerous Hart Trophies because he was up against Gretzky is partially true. He probably would have won it in '86 and '89 if not for the Great One. Still, even if we credit Lemieux for two extra Hart's, Howe still has a 6-5 lead.

Let's do the same thing for Howe:

1966: 3rd to Hull and Beliveau
1965: 3rd to Hull and Ullman
1964: 3rd to Beliveau and Hull
1961: 3rd to Geoffrion and Bower
1959: 2nd to Bathgate
1951: 3rd to Scmidt and Richard; tied with Kelly

Howe was competing (until his late 30's!) against Bobby Hull (3 times), Jean Beliveau (twice) and Rocket Richard, Red Kelly, Bernie Geoffrion and other Hall-of-Famers, so it's certainly not as if Howe had no competition.

--------

In the end, I would probably take Howe in his prime over Lemieux. His incredible all-around game and big edge in Hart Trophy's, in my mind, makes up for the 34 more pts Lemieux would produce through offense. But it's a close call and I would understand people picking Lemieux too.
this is probably the post of the thread. succinct without any bs. i can definitely understand people picking howe because of his better all around game, but there is no denying mario was a superior offensive player and excelled in the areas(vision, stickhandling, goalscoring, playmaking) that i personally watch hockey for.
 

Deleted member 3032

Guest
Ogopogo said:
I have addressed this point but, you seem to have missed it.

First, how can you tell me what the best peer group of NHLers was? Can you say it was the group that played in the 80s? Can you say it was the group from the 60s? The truth is, you cannot determine the best peer group ever because there is no way to do it.

Secondly, it stands to reason that the greatest athletes are not all born at exactly the same time. The greatest hockey players in the world were not all born between 1960 and 1965. God spreads out the great people of society over the course of history. Some were in their primes in the 20s, others in the 80s and others were in the 1500s. Great members of society are not all from one era, they are spread out across all eras. That is simply how it is. All NHL seasons feature the best players available. All peer groups are equal, save for evolution.

Saying that I am putting Ted Lindsay and Wayne Gretzky as equals is a complete misunderstanding. Gordie Howe beat ALL NHLers by at least 34% in his best season. He not only beat Lindsay, he beat 3rd place Rocket Richard by 56% that year. Howe's margin of victory tells us that he completely blew away the competition and was totally dominant that season. As I said in a previous post, in Mario's best year he beat Gretzky by 18% but, if you pull Gretzky out of the equation, he still only beat Yzerman by 28%. In Mario's second best season, he beat Gretzky by 13%. Pull Gretzky out of the equation again and he beat Denis Savard by 28%. The bottom line is, Mario did not dominate the rest of the league to the extent that Gordie Howe did - EVEN WHEN YOU PULL GRETZKY OUT OF THE EQUATION.

The larger peer groups of today are a non-issue. If a person is the best in the world at anything, they are the best in the world. Period. Just because the Swedes didn't take hockey seriously until the middle of the 20th century (Not sure when they did, it is irrelevant) that does not make the players of the early 20th century any worse. In the 20s no Swede would ever have made an NHL roster because they were complete novices at the game. Same as today. When India and China take hockey seriously, we will have a talent pool 2 billion people larger than it is now. Obviously that means Jarome Iginla and Peter Forsberg are not that great. :sarcasm:

If the Russians weren't in the NHL in the 60s, who cares? Gordie Howe dominated the best players the top hockey league in the world had to offer. He was the greatest player of his time by a wide margin.

A truly great athlete will dominate his peer group by a large margin no matter how large the pool of athletes is. Saying that being dominant in the 80s is better than being dominant in the 60s becuase there is a larger pool of players to draw from, is a flawed thought process. You are talking about evolution. The world evolves and grows and that automatically makes us bigger, stronger, faster and more educated than our forefathers. Being the best in the world now is the same as being the best in the world in 1950. I don't know how to help you understand that point. Using your thought process, we will never see the greatest player of all time because that will only be the player that plays in the last ever season before Armageddon.

Again, how can you determine what peer group is the best? Maybe the numbers were so much higher in the 80s because there were so many bad players in the league? Maybe it was the weakest peer group ever? There is no way to determine that. If you have a system that allows you to do it, I would love to hear about it.

Again, my system is designed to reward players for their accomplishments no matter when they played. If the two greatest players of all time, played at the same time, that is no matter. They will still end up #1 and #2 on my list.

The results of the poll on this thread tell me that A. Most people saw Mario play but have never seen Howe play and B. Most people know little or nothing about Gordie Howe. It is simply people voting for what they are familiar with. Most people would say that they live in the best city as well.

Well put. I don't think most people will be able to follow that though, as that was pretty confusing. I don't really think there is an easy way to put it, though.

Essentially, what everyone is arguing here is that 30 or 40 years from now (assuming even a slight increase in players available), the best player then has to be better than Gretzky or Lemieux, because he had a larger pool of players to play against. That isn't necessarily true, though. It could be true, it could not. People are stating that it HAS to be true that Lemieux is better than Howe for that exact reason, though.
 

cassius

Registered User
Jul 23, 2004
13,560
706
Mario. You won't find a more complete package of size, vision, goalscoring poise, playmaking ability, deking, and soft hands.


You will see what he still can do next season too. :yo:
 
Last edited:

Ogopogo*

Guest
Tanguay40 said:
Well put. I don't think most people will be able to follow that though, as that was pretty confusing. I don't really think there is an easy way to put it, though.

Essentially, what everyone is arguing here is that 30 or 40 years from now (assuming even a slight increase in players available), the best player then has to be better than Gretzky or Lemieux, because he had a larger pool of players to play against. That isn't necessarily true, though. It could be true, it could not. People are stating that it HAS to be true that Lemieux is better than Howe for that exact reason, though.

As confusing as my post may be, you have gotten the point exactly!

It is difficult to explain but, if a few more people read the whole post and took the time to understand it, they would get it too.

Thanks for helping me to believe that my post did make some sense. ;) I knew it was a tough concept to explain.
 

KariyaIsGod*

Guest
Ogopogo said:
I have addressed this point but, you seem to have missed it.

First, how can you tell me what the best peer group of NHLers was? Can you say it was the group that played in the 80s? Can you say it was the group from the 60s? The truth is, you cannot determine the best peer group ever because there is no way to do it.

Secondly, it stands to reason that the greatest athletes are not all born at exactly the same time. The greatest hockey players in the world were not all born between 1960 and 1965. God spreads out the great people of society over the course of history. Some were in their primes in the 20s, others in the 80s and others were in the 1500s. Great members of society are not all from one era, they are spread out across all eras. That is simply how it is. All NHL seasons feature the best players available. All peer groups are equal, save for evolution.

Saying that I am putting Ted Lindsay and Wayne Gretzky as equals is a complete misunderstanding. Gordie Howe beat ALL NHLers by at least 34% in his best season. He not only beat Lindsay, he beat 3rd place Rocket Richard by 56% that year. Howe's margin of victory tells us that he completely blew away the competition and was totally dominant that season. As I said in a previous post, in Mario's best year he beat Gretzky by 18% but, if you pull Gretzky out of the equation, he still only beat Yzerman by 28%. In Mario's second best season, he beat Gretzky by 13%. Pull Gretzky out of the equation again and he beat Denis Savard by 28%. The bottom line is, Mario did not dominate the rest of the league to the extent that Gordie Howe did - EVEN WHEN YOU PULL GRETZKY OUT OF THE EQUATION.

The larger peer groups of today are a non-issue. If a person is the best in the world at anything, they are the best in the world. Period. Just because the Swedes didn't take hockey seriously until the middle of the 20th century (Not sure when they did, it is irrelevant) that does not make the players of the early 20th century any worse. In the 20s no Swede would ever have made an NHL roster because they were complete novices at the game. Same as today. When India and China take hockey seriously, we will have a talent pool 2 billion people larger than it is now. Obviously that means Jarome Iginla and Peter Forsberg are not that great. :sarcasm:

If the Russians weren't in the NHL in the 60s, who cares? Gordie Howe dominated the best players the top hockey league in the world had to offer. He was the greatest player of his time by a wide margin.

A truly great athlete will dominate his peer group by a large margin no matter how large the pool of athletes is. Saying that being dominant in the 80s is better than being dominant in the 60s becuase there is a larger pool of players to draw from, is a flawed thought process. You are talking about evolution. The world evolves and grows and that automatically makes us bigger, stronger, faster and more educated than our forefathers. Being the best in the world now is the same as being the best in the world in 1950. I don't know how to help you understand that point. Using your thought process, we will never see the greatest player of all time because that will only be the player that plays in the last ever season before Armageddon.

Again, how can you determine what peer group is the best? Maybe the numbers were so much higher in the 80s because there were so many bad players in the league? Maybe it was the weakest peer group ever? There is no way to determine that. If you have a system that allows you to do it, I would love to hear about it.

Again, my system is designed to reward players for their accomplishments no matter when they played. If the two greatest players of all time, played at the same time, that is no matter. They will still end up #1 and #2 on my list.

The results of the poll on this thread tell me that A. Most people saw Mario play but have never seen Howe play and B. Most people know little or nothing about Gordie Howe. It is simply people voting for what they are familiar with. Most people would say that they live in the best city as well.

Excellent post...

I mean really, if things like league size, teammates, competition etc. are going to be determining factors in Mario vs. ______ arguments, Mario's extremely gaudy powerplay scoring numbers should be accounted for too.

Nearly 40% of his career goals were PP markers. That dwarfs anyone's numbers that I could find, even Gretzky by a significant amount...
 

Corey

Guest
Howe never scored 100 points until the NHL overexpanded excessively and every top forward seemed to rack up 100. Lemieux would always have outscored him. However, that may not be the whole story. I prefer to rank players against rivals in the same era in which they played.
 

RazorRamon12

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
249
0
If you ask me i think lemieux could have performed miracles like multiply fish and loaves in his prime.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
Corey said:
Howe never scored 100 points until the NHL overexpanded excessively and every top forward seemed to rack up 100. Lemieux would always have outscored him. However, that may not be the whole story. I prefer to rank players against rivals in the same era in which they played.

Until the year Gordie, at 40 years old, scored 100+ points (along with only Espo and Hull) NOONE had ever scored 100 points.

And yes it had something to do with expansion from 6 teams to twelve and the longer season than Howe had to work with in his prime but so has every stastistic since.

Anybody tried to base a stat "correction" on the number of teams?

You could base one on Canada's population and the percentage of Canadian players vs the number of NHL teams. Not sure how it would work otherwise.
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Who was better?

c) neither

Their accomplishments speak for themselves but were achieved in completely different eras of the game.

In Mario's early days the highlight of the season was the waiver draft. That's when he would find out who his wingers would be for the season. Mr Hockey was linemates with several legends of the game (Abel, Lindsay, Delvecchio). GH played on a true dynasty in the '50's. Mario benefiited from several weak sisters in the league and eventually a very strong supporting cast.

I think it's important to point out that both players excelled at more than offence. I would call both 'two way' players.

I have no doubt that both players could have dominated the other's era. But to what level? No one will ever know.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
Crosbyfan said:
Until the year Gordie, at 40 years old, scored 100+ points (along with only Espo and Hull) NOONE had ever scored 100 points.

And yes it had something to do with expansion from 6 teams to twelve and the longer season than Howe had to work with in his prime but so has every stastistic since.

Anybody tried to base a stat "correction" on the number of teams?

You could base one on Canada's population and the percentage of Canadian players vs the number of NHL teams. Not sure how it would work otherwise.

Awhile back I did a study comparing how players performed in the last year of the Original Six era to the first year of expansion and found that when the league-wide scoring rates and games played were evened out, those players scored about 15% more in the expansion year, which would imply that the overall talent pool decreased by 15% that year.

All years are not equal, the World War II years were weaker quality-wise than the following years, obviously if there were replacement players this season the quality would drop, even though in those cases the number of teams and percentage of Canadian players would be similar.

I bring that up because in the earlier debate about whether the talent is better today than back in the 50s, expansion and its effects weren`t mentioned. Was the increase in available talent offset by the increase in available NHL jobs? Every game Howe played in his prime was against one of the six best goalies in the league, there were other 20 teams in Lemieux`s era, each with two goalies, so sometimes Lemieux was playing against the 30th or 40th best goalie in the league.

Howe never scored 100 points until the NHL overexpanded excessively and every top forward seemed to rack up 100. Lemieux would always have outscored him.

100 points is an irrelevant figure because of the differences in games played and scoring rates between the two eras. When Howe hit 100, only two other players did it (Hull and Esposito). On the other hand, in Lemieux`s MVP season in `93 over 20 other players had 100+ points, not all of them were superstars either (Janney, Juneau), so that argument weakens the case for Lemieux more than the case for Howe.

Doesn't your list put Mario at #9? That alone gives the list no legitimacy, because no reputable publication has ever put mario any lower than #4.

Another way to look at that is to say that some experts have said Howe was the greatest player ever; some say Gretzky, some say Orr while I`ve never heard many who actually saw them all claim Lemieux was the best ever. Unpoular/different opinions don`t necessarily make a list any less reputable.

I`m not trying to argue with you, actually I thought your comments about sabermetrics (sp) and how certain formulas in baseball could be adapted for hockey were quite interesting.

Their accomplishments speak for themselves but were achieved in completely different eras of the game.

That`s the thing. I`d wager about 70% of the posters here are under 30 and therefore never saw Howe play. Probably another 20% are in their 30s (including myself) and only remember Howe as "the old guy in the WHA". I`m interested in hearing the opinions of the other 10% who are over 40 and saw enough of Howe in his prime to make a comparison. Where`s McPhee and Classic Hockey?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
moneyp said:
Wetcoaster, you saw Howe in his prime?

It's an unanswerable question. Howe played a different game than Mario. How would Mario have done in the fifties? How would Howe have performed in the 80s and 90s?
Yes, I started watching hockey in the 1958-59 season. Howe was in his prime. Heck he was in his prime for the first 25 years of his NHL career.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Ogopogo said:
You need to do a little research on Howe. He DOMINATED his era to a greater degree than Lemieux did. If Lemieux had been fully healthy his whole career, perhaps he would have done the same. But, what ifs are worthless.

People think that Howe just played a long time to put up huge numbers. Remember, he played during a more defensive era than Lemieux with less games on the schedule. The man was DOMINANT. Research it, he was amazing.
He also averaged 45 minutes a game when other elite players averaged 25 minutes. His recovery time on the bench was legendary.

As you noted the NHL of the 1950's to 1967 was extremely defensive. IMHO not only was gordie a way better HOCKEY player than Mario - he was superior offensive hockey player as well. If you had actually watched him play, you would not be asking the question.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Crosbyfan said:
That is why Gordie is second only to Gretzky and who knows if Gretzky would have survived in the forties or fifties. Gordie himself was almost killed by Ted Kennedy on a hit from behind into the boards.

It was not hit from behind. Howe was throwing the check not Kennedy. Howe had Kennedy lined up and Teeder saw him. He moved at the last second throwing Howe's hit off and Howe crashed headfirst into the boards fracturing his skull and nearly dying.
"This has been told a lot through the years, but my version is the official version," he declares. "We were playing in Detroit in the first game of the playoffs and we'd beat them the past two years 4 games to none both times. I was carrying the puck up the boards and out of the corner of my eye I see Howe coming at me from the centre of the ice and he's going to hammer me. The referee has his hand raised to give Howe a penalty for charging or boarding when he made contact. When I stopped and pulled up, Howe tried to halt his own progress but instead hit the fence and gets knocked out cold. The trainer hops out to give him first aid says to me 'you dirty s.o.b., you butt ended him.' Which I couldn't have since the end of my stick was pointing towards the boards being a right hand shot going up the left side of the ice. Now Jack Adams who ran the Red Wing organization and who was a very high strung man started to rant and rave about me injuring Howe. But I wasn't even given a penalty and I was officially exonerated, I never had to appear before the president of the NHL at all. Joe Klukay said later about the incident 'when have you heard of a guy carrying the puck committing a penalty?' We lost that series in 7 games on a couple of very fluky goals from the point. That series with the Red Wings was only the semi finals, but the Rangers who made it to the finals that year were a very mediocre team. If we had won that series, we probably would have been the first team to win 5 in a row."
http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononep196605.htm

I have actually seen footage of the hit and discussed it with Howe himself who told me that he was in the process of throwing the hit on Kennedy. Gordie's brother was in the navy with my uncle and lived around the corner from my parents' house when I was growing up - Gordie used to vist his brother during the summers and I met him numerous times.

The legacy of the hit - some permanent neurological damage causing Howe to blink uncontrolaably - hence his nickname "Blinky".
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Glad you corrected the poster of the Kennedy-Howe incident.

A few years ago, both Red Kelly & Leo Reise, who were on that Red Wing team, confided to me that they knew Kennedy probably wasn't responsible for injuring Howe. But for the Wings, having lost a number of playoffs series against Toronto without winning even a game, they needed something to turn the tide and this incident was used as 'inspiration'. They needed to try something and Teeder Kennedy became the target.

Did you say you saw footage of the hit? I'd really be interested in knowing about that.

Wetcoaster said:
It was not hit from behind. Howe was throwing the check not Kennedy. Howe had Kennedy lined up and Teeder saw him. He moved at the last second throwing Howe's hit off and Howe crashed headfirst into the boards fracturing his skull and nearly dying.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononep196605.htm

I have actually seen footage of the hit and discussed it with Howe himself who told me that he was in the process of throwing the hit on Kennedy. Gordie's brother was in the navy with my uncle and lived around the corner from my parents' house when I was growing up - Gordie used to vist his brother during the summers and I met him numerous times.

The legacy of the hit - some permanent neurological damage causing Howe to blink uncontrolaably - hence his nickname "Blinky".
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
Wetcoaster said:
It was not hit from behind. Howe was throwing the check not Kennedy. Howe had Kennedy lined up and Teeder saw him. He moved at the last second throwing Howe's hit off and Howe crashed headfirst into the boards fracturing his skull and nearly dying.

The legacy of the hit - some permanent neurological damage causing Howe to blink uncontrolaably - hence his nickname "Blinky".

Thanks for the correction. I'm not sure where I read the other version. I think it was fairly recently but the source may have been older.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
There is a lot that has been written that needs to be corrected.

Actually, it was Black Jack Stewart (Howe's teammate) who helped cause damage by crashing into Howe after he went towards the boards.

Crosbyfan said:
Thanks for the correction. I'm not sure where I read the other version. I think it was fairly recently but the source may have been older.
 

CH

Registered User
Jul 30, 2003
865
249
Visit site
Tanguay40 said:
Well put. I don't think most people will be able to follow that though, as that was pretty confusing. I don't really think there is an easy way to put it, though.

Essentially, what everyone is arguing here is that 30 or 40 years from now (assuming even a slight increase in players available), the best player then has to be better than Gretzky or Lemieux, because he had a larger pool of players to play against. That isn't necessarily true, though. It could be true, it could not. People are stating that it HAS to be true that Lemieux is better than Howe for that exact reason, though.

Is that what you understood from my posts? That isn't close to what I was trying to argue.

The facts:

Gordie Howe had better longevity then Lemieux.

Lemieux was a more dominant player in his prime - as is shown by the normalized points study Daryl Shilling did.

The argument Ogopog tries to use about comparing to peer groups is relatively useless because it assumes that all peer groups are the same. This logically is NOT TRUE. There is a much larger group from which NHL players are produced today. Many more countries produce NHL players today. Caqnada produces more players today as its population and the number of people in minor hockey has increased. The minor systems and scouting systems are far more developed today then they were in the past. Does this mean that necessarily all players of today are better then players of the past? Obviously it doesn't. Of course ogopogo is arguing against this argument nobody ever made. It is true that the overall group of NHL players is better today then in the past so it was easier to dominate numerically (without adjusting for these effects). Thats why Gordie Howe may have led the NHL by a higher percentage of points in a season DESPITE Mario Lemieux being a more dominant player.

Ogopogo even seems to agree that Lemieux played with a better group of players then Howe did - at least in as much as he played against Greztky when Howe did not play against anyone as good as Gretzky (at least not in his prime - sure in 1980 they were both in the NHL).

So Mario Lemieux was a more dominant player then Gordie Howe in their primes. Mario did it against a better group of players as well. Gordie had better longevity. So you could make an argument Gordie was better, though I think that was wron but it is a plausable argument.

However, ogopogo's argument that Gordie was more dominant then mario in his prime isw flat out wrong. He only believes it because he is a poor statisitican.



The difference between a good statistical analyst and a poor statistical analyst is that a good statistical analyst ... understands this, and a bad one implicitly denies it.

A good statistical analyst, in studying the statistical record of a baseball season, asks three or four essential questions:
1) What is missing from the picture?
2) What is distorted here, and what is accurately portrayed?
3) How can we include what has been left out?
4) How can we correct what has been distorted?

We all know many things and many different types of things that are not reflected in the statistical record. Acknowledging this, a good statistical analyst is sometimes able to reach out and draw areas of the game which were previously undocumented inside the tent, inside the focus of the statistical record. Sabermetrics is sometimes able to invent a way to correct for one or another distortion of the statistical picture.

The bad statistical anaylst , ot the other hand, will assume that what the statistical tells him must be true and complete- and by making that assumption, will forfeit his ability to add anything significant to the record.


Thats a Bill James quote that explains why ogopogo has a bit to learn to do good statistical analysis.
 

berney fkaj

Registered User
Sep 21, 2003
1,670
0
Around
Voted for lemieux, but after reading this post I not sure.. Both very good players, who played a different style in a different era.. Tough call, but I still pick Lemieux
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->