Ogopogo said:
This assumption of yours is wrong. This is why you keep getting nonsensical results.
Who was better- Lemieux or Howe?
- Thread starter JonathanK
- Start date
- Status
This assumption of yours is wrong. This is why you keep getting nonsensical results.
Crosbyfan said:
Gordie was that good. In the late 60s the NHL featured Mikita, Hull, Bathgate, Esposito, Orr etc.
Howe was just that dominant.
CH said:
You have no concept of evolution and its effect on sport, that is why you don't understand comparing across eras.
reckoning said:
Reckoning makes a good point.
Howe played against 5 of the top 6 goalies in the world every single game he played. Lemieux was facing goalies 7 through 30 on a regular basis. How is Howe's peer group weaker?
This is exactly what's wrong with your method.
You completely disreagrd the fact that people were smaller, not as strong, using inferior equipment etc. back then.
In hockey, normalized points can alleviate SOME of the discrepencies but certainly not all. That's why ogopogo's method is the only suitable way to compare players of different eras...
DrMoses said:
I have not even directly addressed the issue of players being smaller, weaker, using inferior equipment at all. So this statement is clearly incorrect.
Do you also think Seybold had a better season in terms of home run hitting in 1902 then McGwire did in 1998?
Last edited:
CH said:
EXACTLY! That's the problem. You havn't addressed that issue and it's a huge one. If you are going to normalize everyone's stats, you still can't account for those things which automatically puts an older player like Howe at a disadvantage...
I have no idea who Seybold is... I havn't researched him etc. Perhaps tohugh, when factoring everything in plus steroids, he may very well have.
DrMoses said:
CH said:
DrMoses said:
Are you seriously making the claim that Howe was at a disadvantage because he played against smaller, weaker players with inferior equipment?
Or are you claiming that Howe was a better player then others who came after him because he was smaller and weaker thedn them?
Neither of those make sense.
I am saying that over time, the NHL talent pool has increased. The number of players in Canada who play hockey today is larger today than ever before. This increases the number of players available in their talent pool. There are also several other countries producing NHL players. This further increases the talent pool and thus improves the peer group of today's NHL players. The minor system and scouting system has become bigger and better established in this time to better funnel the best players into the NHL. Since more players are produced today, it is reasonable to think that more good players are produced today then ever before. It is reasonable to have a top players list include more modern day players then older ones. The fact you cannot handle this fact is hard for me to understand.
That does not mean that necessarily all of the best players of all time will be more modern players. That statement is equally ridiculous as the inability to believe that there are more modern players on a top players list.
I would rate Gordie Howe as the 4th best player of all time. He is clearly behind Gretzky and Orr and I would also rate him behind Lemieux because Mario had better seasons in his prime then Howe did (despite Howe's better longevity) and he did it against a better quality of average player in the NHL.
Now you and ogopogo cannot place your statistics in an adequate context. You are willing to call a 16 home run hitter from 1902 a better single season home run hitter than a 70 home run hitter in 1998. Clearly this is not true, there were many more good home run hitters in 1998 than anybody in 1902. Your failure to see this shows a deep misunderstanding of how sports work. Your failed method does not allow for the possibility that some eras have better players and hence a better peer group then others. Your method overrates players from peer groups with less talent because it is easier for them to lead their peer group by a larger margin that more dominant players in eras with higher overall talent levels (and better peer groups).
CH said:
I am getting tired of your weak reading comprehension so I will only explain this once more.
EVOLUTION is why players are better today than they were 50 years ago. EVERYBODY is bigger, stronger, faster, smarter and better than people 50 years ago. That is how the world works.
With that in mind, it makes no sense at all to say that today's players are better than any players in the history of sport simply because they are today's players. That is your argument.
You are saying that evolution has made athletes better today than in the past. Big deal, that is obvious.
What you cannot comprehend, (and after this post I will give up trying to make you understand) is that how a player dominates his peers is his measure of greatness. If one player stands 30% better than any other player of his era, he is phenomenally dominant. It makes no difference what year it is, in each single season, every player has the same evolutionary advantages or disadvantages.
When players are on a level field, how they dominate is their mark of greatness. The ONLY way to truly compare players is to look at how they did against their own peers during the season in question. Saying that McGwire's 70 is better than Seybold's 16 is completely flawed. McGwire had all the advantages of evolution, including steroids, comparing home run numbers, without adjustments is ridiculous.
Seybold being 30% ahead of #2 in terms of home runs is far more impressive than McGwire being 6% ahead of #2. HOW YOU DOMINATE YOUR PEERS, DURING YOUR SEASON IS YOUR MARK OF GREATNESS. Everyone had exactly the same variables during the 1902 season and Seybold blew them away by 30%. That is a great season.
You have no concept how to account for evolution in your ratings. Just because somebody is playing today that does not necessarily make him the greatest player of all time. He has evolutionary advantages over players from the past.
HOW YOU DOMINATE THE SEASONS YOU PLAY IN IS YOUR MARK OF GREATNESS. When you have the same variables as every other player and you tower over them by 20, 30, 40 or 50% that is a truly great season. Much more so than hitting 70 home runs while #2 hits 66 and #3 hits 56.
If you don't get it, I cannot help you.
Ogopogo said:
I am not saying this. Please stop telling me this is what I am saying and actually read my argument.
Ogopogo said:
I fully understand your method and have told you repeatedxly why it is a poor one. It assumes all peer groups are the same. It does not account for the possibility that some eras might have had more good players then others.
The baseball example is a really clear one. In 1902, most teams didn't even attempt to use the home run as a weapon. It was discouraged in part because failures to hit home runs were useless flyouts. Babe Ruth came along years later and proved this theory wrong.
I contend that Alex Rodriguez hit 42 home runs in 1998 and finished 12th in MLB and was a better single seasons home run hitter then Socks Seybold who led the majors in home runs in 1902.
There we many better home run hitters in 1998 than any in 1902. This is not only because players were bigger and stronger and possibly on steroids, this is because the baseball talent pool produced more home3 run hitters. The skill was more valued, more people worldwide played baseball and the scouting and minor systems were far better developed to funnel the best players into major league baseball.
It is a mathematical fact that Gordie Howe led the NHL in points by a larger percentage then Mario Lemieux ever did, but the interpretation that this meant he was more dominant in his prime then Lemieux is false. He may have been a better player relative to his peers, but on average his peers were not as good as Lemieux's peers. When you normalize his totals, there is no way to deny that Lemieux was not more dominant in his best seasons when compared to Howe. I don't know why you find this fact so hard to accept.
I don't believe the players are better now than they were 50 years ago. Look at 50 years ago: the best players were Howe, Richard, Harvey, and many, many more. Many of the best players today were the best players 10 years ago. Martin St. Louis' Hart Trophy winning season was maybe the most underwhelming in more than 50 years. (I dare anyone to name a less memorable Hart-winning season than St. Louis. Not to say he didn't deserve it, but it's not a performance that will go down with the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Espo, Lafleur, Howe, or even Pronger in 2000, Sakic in 2001 or Theodore in 2002).
I personally believe that sports are cyclical in terms of great athletes produced, not evolutionary. Look at heavyweight boxing. Are you honestly telling me that Klitschko ranks anywhere near the top of the top 20 all-time great heavyweights? Look at baseball. How many of active players would rank in the top five all-time at their position. Clemens, Bonds (even before he was on the juice), maybe in-his-prime Griffey, that's it. Most of baseball's greats played before 1960. Basketball went through its big rush in the late 1970s and 1980s. Those players are now gone. Auto racing has had one great driver in the last 10 years: Schumacher. Everyone else who has won - Hakinnen, Hill, Villeneuve - has been the beneficiary of his equipment. For some reason, sports go through cycles of greatness, where there is a bumper crop of great players over the course of several years, and then dry spells, where there are a lot of very good players, but no all-time greats. (Forsberg would likely be the last HHOF calibre player picked, and that came in 1991).
Are the players bigger now than ever before? Yes. Do they have more at their disposal in terms of training programs, learning, technology, medicine, etc? Yes. But, at the end of the day, are the best hockey players better now than the best players 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago? No.
I personally believe that sports are cyclical in terms of great athletes produced, not evolutionary. Look at heavyweight boxing. Are you honestly telling me that Klitschko ranks anywhere near the top of the top 20 all-time great heavyweights? Look at baseball. How many of active players would rank in the top five all-time at their position. Clemens, Bonds (even before he was on the juice), maybe in-his-prime Griffey, that's it. Most of baseball's greats played before 1960. Basketball went through its big rush in the late 1970s and 1980s. Those players are now gone. Auto racing has had one great driver in the last 10 years: Schumacher. Everyone else who has won - Hakinnen, Hill, Villeneuve - has been the beneficiary of his equipment. For some reason, sports go through cycles of greatness, where there is a bumper crop of great players over the course of several years, and then dry spells, where there are a lot of very good players, but no all-time greats. (Forsberg would likely be the last HHOF calibre player picked, and that came in 1991).
Are the players bigger now than ever before? Yes. Do they have more at their disposal in terms of training programs, learning, technology, medicine, etc? Yes. But, at the end of the day, are the best hockey players better now than the best players 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago? No.
God Bless Canada said:
how do you explain his non-performance this year then, tough guy.
The only player who regularly dominated since Lafleur has been Lemieux. In their own way, so did Hasek and Forsberg at times.
The rest were just opportunists. Some late in blowout games, some in run and gun divisions.
btw G1 of the Challenge Cup was not an all star game and #10 threw hard checks and dominated both ends.
You shoudl watch the game, tough guy to get an idea of what domination is.
Its not Gretzky 37.1
Hull 17.5 on a scale of 7 points for a Hart bla bla bla.
I saw them both play(yes, I'm old). Hands down it's Mario. The only other pure talent in the same class was Bobby Orr, followed by Gretzky.
Gordie Howe was an elite player, but he is in the class below the above three.
Gordie Howe was an elite player, but he is in the class below the above three.
CH said:
The question that MUST be answered in order for us to continue this discussion is this:
How do YOU determine what group of players is the best? How did you conclude that Mario had a better group of peers than Gordie?
CH said:
Don't you get it?
We are saying that because these players like Howe were playing with inferior equipment etc... , that disadvantage they have over the new players must be recognized.
Obviously Mario's point totals will be higher, thanks to the evolution of the game.
You simply choose to ignore that Goride never saw these advantages...
Your method overates players from the newer groups because it fails to recognize many of the disadvantages the older guys faced that helped prevent them from putting up monster numbers...
You guys are acting as if Lemieux was a ***** Lemieux didn't throw bone crushing hits, but he would throw hits. Lemieux's lack of Hart Trophy's is because he played against someone named Wayne Gretzky.
Lemieux>Howe
Lemieux>Orr
Lemieux<Gretzky
Lemieux didn't throw bone crushing hits, but he would throw hits. Lemieux's lack of Hart Trophy's is because he played against someone named Wayne Gretzky.Lemieux>Howe
Lemieux>Orr
Lemieux<Gretzky
You guys still don't get it. I will try this. Its a direct quote from Bill James. He makes a similar point quite eloquantly.
Earlier players dominated their gamecto a greater extent than more recent players - indeed, the extent to which the best players dominated their competitions has probably decreased in every generation. The reason for this is simple: as the game gets better, it gets harder to dominate. My view of the quality of play over time was essentially summed up by Casey Stengal in his 1962 biography, Casey at the Bat:
<I>
But even with the better equipment and the better grounds, you have to have more ability to be an infielder or and outfielder today ... in some ways baseball is better now. But, as far as the players are concerned-if a man was a good hitter with the dead ball, why couldn't he hit with the lively ball? And if he was a good fielder with the little glove, why couldn't he be a good fielder with a trap glove? And pitchers who were good then- why couldn't they adjust to the livelier ball and the harder hitting of today?</I>
It is my belief that if Honus Wagner were playing today, he would be a great player today-perhaps the best player in baseball. He wouldn't dominate the game today the way he dominated the game then, because there are more good players now, and in some ways the game is harder now. The extent to which the best players dominate the game has steadily decreased because the quality of the average player has moved upward.
If you dont make any time-line adjustment, then, using the win shares method or almost any other method, you will wind up with a top 100 list which is dominated by players who played before 1950. Even making a time line adjustment, 52 of my top 100 players played in the major leagues or in the Negro leagues (played at least one game) prior to 1950. Another 14 came up in the 1950's. Only 34 have come to the majors since 1960-that is in the last 40 years. If I didn't introduce a small time-line adjustment, I'd have 75 or 85 players from the first half of the century in the top 100. I just don't believe thats right or logical.
Now a couple of my comments. Major league baseball has existed since 1875. The NHL since 1917. So the timeline of hockey is pushed to a shorter period of time. The same problems exist when looking at hockey and its greatest players.
This is what I have been arguing. I think this is why Gordie Howe may have led the NHL by a higher percentage of points and yet Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime
Earlier players dominated their gamecto a greater extent than more recent players - indeed, the extent to which the best players dominated their competitions has probably decreased in every generation. The reason for this is simple: as the game gets better, it gets harder to dominate. My view of the quality of play over time was essentially summed up by Casey Stengal in his 1962 biography, Casey at the Bat:
<I>
But even with the better equipment and the better grounds, you have to have more ability to be an infielder or and outfielder today ... in some ways baseball is better now. But, as far as the players are concerned-if a man was a good hitter with the dead ball, why couldn't he hit with the lively ball? And if he was a good fielder with the little glove, why couldn't he be a good fielder with a trap glove? And pitchers who were good then- why couldn't they adjust to the livelier ball and the harder hitting of today?</I>
It is my belief that if Honus Wagner were playing today, he would be a great player today-perhaps the best player in baseball. He wouldn't dominate the game today the way he dominated the game then, because there are more good players now, and in some ways the game is harder now. The extent to which the best players dominate the game has steadily decreased because the quality of the average player has moved upward.
If you dont make any time-line adjustment, then, using the win shares method or almost any other method, you will wind up with a top 100 list which is dominated by players who played before 1950. Even making a time line adjustment, 52 of my top 100 players played in the major leagues or in the Negro leagues (played at least one game) prior to 1950. Another 14 came up in the 1950's. Only 34 have come to the majors since 1960-that is in the last 40 years. If I didn't introduce a small time-line adjustment, I'd have 75 or 85 players from the first half of the century in the top 100. I just don't believe thats right or logical.
Now a couple of my comments. Major league baseball has existed since 1875. The NHL since 1917. So the timeline of hockey is pushed to a shorter period of time. The same problems exist when looking at hockey and its greatest players.
This is what I have been arguing. I think this is why Gordie Howe may have led the NHL by a higher percentage of points and yet Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime
mcphee
Registered User
I respect the thought, effort and passion that goes into the many definitions of greatness outlined in this thread. I don't know that the point can be conclusively defined as what makes up the greatest player can't always be exclusively defined.Some teams ask different things of a player, some positions involve immeasurable contributions, defense being a prime example. Further, you end up comparing art vs. contribution. Lemieux did things on the ice,as far as 1 on 1 moves, or scoring from spots that didn't seem possible that just made you shake your head. Howe just wasn't the same type of player. If 'flair' defines greatness to you, then the math and formulas, well outlined by all of you goes out the window. From that point of view, a guy like Perreault rises up the chart and a guy like Clarke descends. Greatness is personal definition, if a guy did something one year that was never equalled and you want to consider that definitive, go ahead. I think valid arguements can made for Howe,Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux as the 1st tier of great players, and I applaud the effort of finding a way to do this.
CH said:
The thing is, I disagree with Bill James.
Wayne Gretzky dominated the NHL like no other player ever has and he played in the last two decades of the century. That makes Bill James' comments incorrect, in regards to hockey when he says that it is much more difficult to dominate now than in the past.
Also, the the way he says 'probably' and 'perhaps' tells me that he is not 100% sure about his theory.
As well, everything that takes place in a baseball game has a statistic to record it. There is virtually nothing that happens on the field that cannot be translated to a number. It is a different animal than hockey, that's for sure. That being said, I do not use raw numbers to rate players. I adjust them to compare across eras and compliment them with eyewitness accounts of players.
In my ratings, I find that a generous amount of modern day players make my top 100 list. Perhaps my way of ranking hockey players is more effective than Bill James method of ranking baseball players? I don't know but, a lot of James' findings are not my findings in my hockey ratings. I think, because Bill James's findings are so completely stat driven he has very different conclusions than I have. Stats are only part of my hockey rankings and I think that is where the difference lies.
In short, I disagree with Bill James' theory on this issue. If that is the platform on which you stand, we will have to agree to disagree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ogopogo said:
So you think that as many as 85 of the top 100 players in baseball having played before 1950 is a correct conclusion? Why would you think that? Isn't is a ridiculous conclusion?
Ogopogo said:
Wayne Gretzky is one player. Only one. Any good statistician would tell you that you cannot do statistics with a sample size of one. In fact you do not have a sample size of one, you have a sample size of thousands of players, but you chose to ignore the thousands of players for the one point that fits you. Thats an awful method.
Ogopogo said:
So you claim to have a top 100 list of players all time in hockey? Why don't you post it and lets discuss it. Lets break it down by decade and see if your claim that a generous number of modern players make your list.
CH said:
I am still awaiting some additional data from the NHL so, my ratings are not complete. I will not post until they are because the debate that ensues is usually intense and I don't want to be in a position defending incomplete numbers.
At first glance, with incomplete data, I have about 37 or 38 players on my top 100 that spent the bulk of their careers after 1970. When you consider that the NHL is 87 years old, the period since 1970 makes up 40% of the league's history. Having 38 of 100 players from that period (Remember some may still be added based on how they perform over the next few years) is about right, wouldn't you say?
Ogopogo said:
If you want to discuss your list and its merits you will have to post it.
Until then I can only guess.
I will assume when you say that 38 % of the list comes from the most recent 40% of the NHL's history, you are being a bit disingenous. If you sort players by the season that was their career best, this number would significantly go down. Likely, you have inflated that number by including guys who were hangers on in the early 70s who were not longer in their primes. For example you probably consider Henri Richard, Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate, Terry Sawchuk and Jacques Plante among those players who were active in the 70s when all were well past their primes in the 70's. Most of that list played their best hockey in the 50's
CH said:
Please don't assume that I am lying or trying to deceive. Howe, Bathgate, Sawchuk and Plante are not players that I consider "modern" era for this purpose.
Players like Gretzky, Kurri, Lemieux, Forsberg, Sakic, Lafleur, Stevens, Jagr, Esposito, Orr, Trottier, Bossy, Bourque, Messier, Yzerman, Coffey, Potvin, Robinson, Chelios, Lidstrom etc. make up the modern era players.
If you think I am trying to BS you, what is the point even having this discussion?
Ogopogo said:
Who are your 38 guys who played since 1970?
For the record, I do not think you are trying to BS me. I think you have already BSed yourself. I think that you honestly believe that in his prime, Gordie Howe was more dominant than Mario Lemieux. I am trying to explain why you are wrong. I think you do not understand how the talent pool improves over time. You do not even accept this very logical obvious premise. It has led you to many other outrageous claims. Probably this top 100 list is full of them, that is why you have no desire to show it to me. Of course I may be wrong...
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: WCQF | G2 | "Encore" | Oilers vs. Kings | 4.24.24 | Rogers Place | 8:00PM | CBC/SN- Latest: walktheboulavard
-
