Who was better- Lemieux or Howe?

[balddog66]

Lemieux has actually turned into a pretty good defensive player...sure in his offensive days he was weak...but he pays attention to defense now and I remember him playing quite a bit in the defensive zone during the World Cup and Olympics...if Pat Quinn and all his assistant coaches think that highly of Lemieux even though they brought defensively specialist along on these teams...he must be doing something right.
Comparing trophies is another bogus arguement just because of the number of tropies Lemieux lost because of injuries..

 

[Ogopogo*]

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...

Calling me a liar effectively ends this discussion. I have told you why I will not post the list right now, accept it or we are done here.

Your theory does not "explain why I am wrong". It is your theory and I disagree with it. Period.

The modern day players on the top 100 are: Gretzky, Kurri, Lemieux, Forsberg, Sakic, Lafleur, Stevens, Jagr, Esposito, Orr, Trottier, Bossy, Bourque, Messier, Yzerman, Coffey, Potvin, Robinson, Chelios, Lidstrom, Clarke, Dionne, Brett Hull, MacInnis, Kariya, Leetch, Selanne, Markus Naslund, Park, Langway, and on the bubble - not sure if they will be in the top 100 or not when I get the additional data - Guy Lapointe, Serge Savard, Bure, Fedorov, Lindros, Mark Howe, LeClair, Francis, Oates and Pronger. Up and comers feature Iginla, St. Louis, Niedermayer and Blake. If they continue to be excellent, they may crack the top 100 one day.

For goalies, Hasek, Roy, Dryden, Brodeur, Esposito, Belfour, Parent, Fuhr, Barrasso and Billy Smith crack the top 25. Again, about 40%

 

[CH]

The modern day players on the top 100 are: Gretzky, Kurri, Lemieux, Forsberg, Sakic, Lafleur, Stevens, Jagr, Esposito, Orr, Trottier, Bossy, Bourque, Messier, Yzerman, Coffey, Potvin, Robinson, Chelios, Lidstrom, Clarke, Dionne, Brett Hull, MacInnis, Kariya, Leetch, Selanne, Markus Naslund, Park, Langway, and on the bubble - not sure if they will be in the top 100 or not when I get the additional data - Guy Lapointe, Serge Savard, Bure, Fedorov, Lindros, Mark Howe, Oates and Pronger. Up and comers feature Iginla, St. Louis, Niedermayer and Blake. If they continue to be excellent, they may crack the top 100 one day.

For goalies, Hasek, Roy, Dryden, Brodeur, Esposito, Belfour, Parent, Fuhr, Barrasso and Billy Smith crack the top 25. Again, about 40%

I'm going to stick to the first list. 30 players in the top 100 who had their primes since 1970. Is that a correct interpretation?.

If we assume this list is limited to NHL players (is it?). Then it is limited to the years 1917-2004. 1970 to 2004 is 34 years of the 87 year period. It makes up 39% of the total time period. So it would mean you are likely on the low side - but not horribly so.

I am assuming that goalies are not ranked on your top 100 players list from the way you write about it.

All of this is speculation because you refuse to tell me who is on your list.

A fruitful conversation can continue if you tell me who is on your list. Maybe it can continue if you outline your methodology.

Merely saying I have a list and I wont show you it but once in a while I will give you tidbits from it fails to go anywhere.

 

[therealdeal]

Lemuiex by a wide margin, he never came close to his peak, and still averaged more than 2 points per game.

Howes main skill was longevity.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I'm going to stick to the first list. 30 players in the top 100 who had their primes since 1970. Is that a correct interpretation?.

If we assume this list is limited to NHL players (is it?). Then it is limited to the years 1917-2004. 1970 to 2004 is 34 years of the 87 year period. It makes up 39% of the total time period. So it would mean you are likely on the low side - but not horribly so.

I am assuming that goalies are not ranked on your top 100 players list from the way you write about it.

All of this is speculation because you refuse to tell me who is on your list.

A fruitful conversation can continue if you tell me who is on your list. Maybe it can continue if you outline your methodology.

Merely saying I have a list and I wont show you it but once in a while I will give you tidbits from it fails to go anywhere.

Actually, several of the "on the bubble" players are in the top 100 right now with incomplete data. Those include Bure, Savard, Lapointe, As well, I missed Robitaille, Cournoyer, Goulet and Ken Hodge when I posted so, the reality is that the number is 37 until I get the additional data. It may go up, it may go down but I suspect it will stay about the same with some new ones moving up and some old ones moving down.

Goalies have their own separate list and I told you the modern era ones that crack the top 25 goalie list.

The bottom line is, you have already begun a debate regarding incomplete data (30 of the top 100 are modern era vs 37) and that is what I am trying to avoid. Unless I have my final conclusions, it is pointless debating.

So, thanks for the discussion. We will pick it up in the future sometime.

 

[CH]

Actually, several of the "on the bubble" players are in the top 100 right now with incomplete data. Those include Bure, Savard, Lapointe, As well, I missed Robitaille, Cournoyer, Goulet and Ken Hodge when I posted so, the reality is that the number is 37 until I get the additional data. It may go up, it may go down but I suspect it will stay about the same with some new ones moving up and some old ones moving down.

You think Ken Hodge is one of the 100 best players of all time? Thats a pretty poor choice. Why would you pick him?

This is the problem with your "list". If it doesn't exist anywhere that anyone can see it, then we cannot discuss it without speculation. Yet you use it as evidence that you do not under-select modern players. With no list we have no evidence.

If you are too ashamed of you list to show anybody it, we could still discuss the methodology that went into it.

And the logic for the exclusion of:
Gilbert Perreault
Ron Francis
Mike Gartner
Peter Stastny
Denis Savard
Doug Gilmour
Bob Gainey
Lanny McDonald
Darryl Sittler
Cam Neely
Kevin Lowe
Mats Sundin
Jeremy Roenick
Mike Modano
Bredan Shanahan
Igor Larionov
Sergei Makarov
Valeri Kharlamov
Slava Fetisov
Rod Gilbert
Randy Carlyle
Doug Wilson
Bill Barber
Steve Shutt
Rick Middleton
Mike Ramsey
Dale Hawerchuk
Bernie Federko
Borje Salming
Dino Ciccarelli
Dave Andreychuk

I am not by any means suggesting all of these players should be on your list, but definitely some of them should be.

What is this stuff you think the NHL needs to send you? You watched the players play (presumably) or at least read about them. You have seen their stats. What more do you need?

 

[Ogopogo*]

You think Ken Hodge is one of the 100 best players of all time? Thats a pretty poor choice. Why would you pick him?

This is the problem with your "list". If it doesn't exist anywhere that anyone can see it, then we cannot discuss it without speculation. Yet you use it as evidence that you do not under-select modern players. With no list we have no evidence.

If you are too ashamed of you list to show anybody it, we could still discuss the methodology that went into it.

And the logic for the exclusion of:
Gilbert Perreault
Ron Francis
Mike Gartner
Peter Stastny
Denis Savard
Doug Gilmour
Bob Gainey
Lanny McDonald
Darryl Sittler
Cam Neely
Kevin Lowe
Mats Sundin
Jeremy Roenick
Mike Modano
Bredan Shanahan
Igor Larionov
Sergei Makarov
Valeri Kharlamov
Slava Fetisov
Rod Gilbert
Randy Carlyle
Doug Wilson
Bill Barber
Steve Shutt
Rick Middleton
Mike Ramsey
Dale Hawerchuk
Bernie Federko
Borje Salming
Dino Ciccarelli
Dave Andreychuk

I am not by any means suggesting all of these players should be on your list, but definitely some of them should be.

What is this stuff you think the NHL needs to send you? You watched the players play (presumably) or at least read about them. You have seen their stats. What more do you need?

Again, the Ken Hodge debate is based on incomplete information. Now that I take a closer look at Hodge's information, he will definitely not be in the top 100 when things are complete. As you can see, debating the list now is very premature. I have no desire to argue points that could change in the near future.

You have put together an impressive list of players of which many fall out in the 100-250 range. There are plenty of good reasons for them to be outside of the top 100 but, like I said, that is for a future discussion. Peter Stastny is the most likely player from that list that may move up when I include the new data.

Ashamed to show it is not the correct term. It is premature and I don't want to have to explain things like Ken Hodge being #92 when more complete data will move him down to, perhaps, #200.

 

[CH]

Again, the Ken Hodge debate is based on incomplete information. Now that I take a closer look at Hodge's information, he will definitely not be in the top 100 when things are complete. As you can see, debating the list now is very premature. I have no desire to argue points that could change in the near future.

You have put together an impressive list of players of which many fall out in the 100-250 range. There are plenty of good reasons for them to be outside of the top 100 but, like I said, that is for a future discussion. Peter Stastny is the most likely player from that list that may move up when I include the new data.

Ashamed to show it is not the correct term. It is premature and I don't want to have to explain things like Ken Hodge being #92 when more complete data will move him down to, perhaps, #200.

What data do you need?

And what kind of list is it when you tell me Ken Hodge is on it and I tell you thats a bad pick and you suggest okay we will move him down to #200 or so. Does this mythical list actually exist?

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Lemuiex by a wide margin, he never came close to his peak, and still averaged more than 2 points per game.

Howes main skill was longevity.

Lemieux reached his peak...

He was as good as he could have ever been when he dropped 199...

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

What data do you need?

And what kind of list is it when you tell me Ken Hodge is on it and I tell you thats a bad pick and you suggest okay we will move him down to #200 or so. Does this mythical list actually exist?

it was posted some time ago. you would be shocked to see where mario was on it. i think he's updating it now. (mario was #9)

 

[God Bless Canada]

I actually saw the original list (posted in April, I believe that was Ogopogo's first posting, and what a way to jump into the HF Board forray). I don't agree with all the man's definitions or standards, but that's the joy of sport and living in a free society. I do extol his hard work, though. And judging by the number of times he has drawn from his list, I'd say he's anything but ashamed of it. I think if you were to look through the archives of the history of hockey section, you'd find it. I don't like to speak for the person, but I'm sure that Ogopogo is currently working on an up-to-date list right now, I'm sure it'll be released soon, and I'm sure it will create as much conjecture as the original.

 

[CH]

it was posted some time ago. you would be shocked to see where mario was on it. i think he's updating it now. (mario was #9)

Thank you very much. I turned to the trusty search engine and found it http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140085&page=1&pp=25

Here are the 100 greatest players of all time:


Total
1 Wayne Gretzky 254
2 Gordie Howe 239
3 Bobby Orr 161
4 Maurice "Rocket" Richard 131
5 Eddie Shore* 128
6 Bobby Hull 121
Jean Believeau 121
8 Ray Bourque 120
9 Mario Lemieux 119
10 Doug Harvey 114
11 Phil Esposito 110
12 Stan Mikita 104
13 Cy Denneny* 101
14 Howie Morenz* 97
15 Jaromir Jagr 90
16 Guy Lafleur 89
17 Ted Lindsay 86
18 Leonard "Red" Kelly* 83
19 Paul Coffey 80
20 Cecil " Babe" Dye* 73
21 Bill Cowley 71
22 Mike Bossy 70
23 Denis Potvin 64
24 Andy Bathgate 63
Mark Messier 63
26 Aurel Joliat* 61
27 Francis "King" Clancy* 60
Harry Cameron* 59
29 Frank Mahovlich 59
30 Bobby Clarke 58
Frank Boucher* 58
32 Pierre Pilote 57
Nicklas Lidstrom 57
34 Chris Chelios 56
Elmer Lach 56
36 Bill Cook* 55
37 Aubrey "Dit" Clapper* 54
38 Nels Stewart* 53
Joe Sakic 53
Bryan Trottier 53
41 Marcel Dionne 52
42 Hector "Toe" Blake 51
Bernie Geoffrion 51
44 Larry Robinson 50
45 Edouard "Newsy" Lalonde* 49
Charlie Conacher 49
Earl Seibert* 49
48 Joe Malone* 47
49 Peter Forsberg 46
Jari Kurri 46
51 Sid Abel 45.5
52 Doug Bentley 45
Harvey "Busher" Jackson 45
54 Milt Schmidt 43
Max Bentley 43
Syl Apps, Sr. 43
Henri Richard 43
58 Luc Robitaille 42
George Boucher* 42
60 Frank Nighbor* 41
61 Brett Hull 39
Ebbie Goodfellow* 39
Sprague Cleghorn* 39
64 Al MacInnis 38
David "Sweeney" Schriner 38
66 Dickie Moore 37
67 Paul Kariya 36
Bryan Hextall, Sr. 36
69 Brian Leetch 35
Ken Reardon* 35
Jacques Laperriere 35
72 Teemu Selanne 34
Clarence "Hap" Day* 34
Yvan Cournoyer 34
75 Albert "Babe" Seibert* 33
Emile "Butch" Bouchard* 33
77 Jack Stewart* 32
Tim Horton 32
79 Markus Naslund 31
Brad Park 31
Reg Noble* 31
82 Gord Drillon 30
Ivan "Ching" Johnson* 30
84 Ted Kennedy 29.5
85 Rod Langway 29
86 Bill Quackenbush* 28
John LeClair 28
Marty Barry 28
89 Bill Gadsby 27
Jack Adams* 27
Harry "Punch" Broadbent* 27
92 Pavel Bure 26
Norm Ullman 26
Michel Goulet 26
Billy Boucher* 26
Ken Hodge 26
Lionel Conacher* 26
Walter "Babe" Pratt* 26
Steve Yzerman 26
Steve Shutt 26
Guy Lapointe 26

That is your list?

It should be obvious that it is a failed first attempt.

Anyone here want to defend a list that places Mario Lemieux 9th best all time?

Or places Steve Yzerman below Jack Adams (the guy who has a coaching trophy named after him because he was a great coach - and a solid player from the early days on the NHL but not a top 100 player)?

Or places Brett Hull and Sprauge Cleghorn at approximately the same level?

Jeez.

So he made this list up one day and is still willing to defend it in long drawn out threads. If anyone suggest something that contradicts his initial assumptions (like maybe you have too many guys from the 1920's and not enough more recent guys) he will argue it ad naseum.

A good statistician will look at this list and ask himself what is distorted and what is missing and how can I best correct it. A bad statistician will assume this list holds all the answers and defend even its most unreasonable conclusions as correct. A bad statistician thus cannot add anything new to the problem. It is a classic case of garbage in garbage out.

Did you know that Dale Hawerchuk was a worse player than John LeClair (who is basically as good as Marty Barry). Ogopogo does. And don't dare tell him he might be wrong because his questionable method says it is true.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

the biggest problem i have with the list is that the weights for the different achievements are pulled completely out of thin air. there are some glaring inconsistencies in the list, so instead of defending the system to death and saying "that's how the numbers work out", maybe figure out why there are weird placements.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Thank you very much. I turned to the trusty search engine and found it http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140085&page=1&pp=25



That is your list?

It should be obvious that it is a failed first attempt.

Anyone here want to defend a list that places Mario Lemieux 9th best all time?

Or places Steve Yzerman below Jack Adams (the guy who has a coaching trophy named after him because he was a great coach - and a solid player from the early days on the NHL but not a top 100 player)?

Or places Brett Hull and Sprauge Cleghorn at approximately the same level?

Jeez.

So he made this list up one day and is still willing to defend it in long drawn out threads. If anyone suggest something that contradicts his initial assumptions (like maybe you have too many guys from the 1920's and not enough more recent guys) he will argue it ad naseum.

A good statistician will look at this list and ask himself what is distorted and what is missing and how can I best correct it. A bad statistician will assume this list holds all the answers and defend even its most unreasonable conclusions as correct. A bad statistician thus cannot add anything new to the problem. It is a classic case of garbage in garbage out.

Did you know that Dale Hawerchuk was a worse player than John LeClair (who is basically as good as Marty Barry). Ogopogo does. And don't dare tell him he might be wrong because his questionable method says it is true.

As I said, I am working on revisions so I will not debate the rankings of the original list. New data is required to refine it and make it more accurate.

I will not take the time to discuss this with you and, if you become a little more personable, I may discuss the new rankings with you when they are complete. But as it stands right now, you add nothing of value to the discussion.

 

[God Bless Canada]

There is no perfect solution. Period. Nobody can give you a sure-fire, fool-proof way to determine the top 100 players in NHL history. You don't have, I don't have, Ogopogo doesn't have it, chooch doesn't have it (wait, chooch doesn't have anything). Nobody here, or in the HHOF, has a perfect way to evaluate the top 100 players in NHL history.

Ogopogo has tried his best to find a solution. It's not perfect, and as I said before, I don't agree with him on everything (I don't hold all-star selections and awards as highly as he does), but I do agree with hard work. And hopefully some of those flaws will be updated in that new list. (Hopefully Yzerman will be elevated to that top 50 status he so richly deserves).

I try to base my opinions on old tapes, research and opinions from those in the know. I try to cover the bases that I can from watching the game studiously and dilligently for the past 20 years.

 

[chooch*]

There is no perfect solution. Period. Nobody can give you a sure-fire, fool-proof way to determine the top 100 players in NHL history. You don't have, I don't have, Ogopogo doesn't have it, chooch doesn't have it (wait, chooch doesn't have anything). Nobody here, or in the HHOF, has a perfect way to evaluate the top 100 players in NHL history.

Ogopogo has tried his best to find a solution. It's not perfect, and as I said before, I don't agree with him on everything (I don't hold all-star selections and awards as highly as he does), but I do agree with hard work. And hopefully some of those flaws will be updated in that new list. (Hopefully Yzerman will be elevated to that top 50 status he so richly deserves).

I try to base my opinions on old tapes, research and opinions from those in the know. I try to cover the bases that I can from watching the game studiously and dilligently for the past 20 years.

Lists are for lazy chimps - theyre a waste of time. (Gretzky 37.1, Hull 11.7...whatever the hell that tells you.blab bla bla from the eyes of those who watched them and voted bla bla bla).

Lets put it this way, Orr couldnt have stopped Lemieux. No one could. Not Bourque. NO ONE. Lemieux is the greatest player ever.

And Robinson said: "you could contain Gretzky, you couldnt contain Lafleur". And Sinden who should know a thing or 2 about Orr, said that Lafleur was the "most goal-dangerous player" he ever saw.

Put that on a list and add 7.

 

[chooch*]

Do you base "domination" entirely on fancy moves? I get the feeling that you think the longer a player holds on to the puck before scoring the better the goal was...

I hate to just join the huge list of people who rag on your posts...but they're generally completely ridiculous...

For the record, Mike Bossy sucked his way to a goal and an assist in the game you watched

That one sentence tells me you have no idea about domination. Youre just relying on empty stats. Bossy sucked I hate to tell you as did Dionne etc- spend $20 and watch the game. Just that you'd never know it from the boxscore - its shows he had the same 1 goal 1 assist as Guy.

As for Game 3 it was similar to the 8-1 game in 81 ; cant win em all but in general Guy dominated from 74-81, as long as Orr but less then Mario would.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

That one sentence tells me you have no idea about domination. Youre just relying on empty stats. Bossy sucked I hate to tell you as did Dionne etc- spend $20 and watch the game. Just that you'd never know it from the boxscore - its shows he had the same 1 goal 1 assist as Guy.

As for Game 3 it was similar to the 8-1 game in 81 ; cant win em all but in general Guy dominated from 74-81, as long as Orr but less then Mario would.

I want to seriously know...

Are you joking with your posts, trying to get the Gretzky supporters riled up?

Or do you actually believe in what you're saying?

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

That one sentence tells me you have no idea about domination. Youre just relying on empty stats. Bossy sucked I hate to tell you as did Dionne etc- spend $20 and watch the game. Just that you'd never know it from the boxscore - its shows he had the same 1 goal 1 assist as Guy.

As for Game 3 it was similar to the 8-1 game in 81 ; cant win em all but in general Guy dominated from 74-81, as long as Orr but less then Mario would.

Who is this Dionne of whom you speak?? I never had the opportunity to watch him play, but my dad has informed me of his greatness.

 

[mcphee]

That one sentence tells me you have no idea about domination. .

Man, am I disappointed in you guys. No one picked up on this line? Am I the most childish [I prefer chid like] poster here ? C'mon, let's have some Chooch/dominatrix jokes.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Man, am I disappointed in you guys. No one picked up on this line? Am I the most childish [I prefer chid like] poster here ? C'mon, let's have some Chooch/dominatrix jokes.

mcphee, you had me at hello.... Since you are the leader of the child-like brigade, you have first honours..

 

[mcphee]

mcphee, you had me at hello.... Since you are the leader of the child-like brigade, you have first honours..

I'm coming up dry, except for the vision of Janet [Jones] Gretzky standing over a prostrate Chooch, admonishing him for his disrespect of her husband. Bad Chooch.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I'm coming up dry, except for the vision of Janet [Jones] Gretzky standing over a prostrate Chooch, admonishing him for his disrespect of her husband. Bad Chooch.

I'm liking the vision, but could we maybe add two hundred or so pounds to Janet to make it a bit more realistic for the choochster??

Edit: Following some soul searching thought, I decided Janet would also need rotten teeth and must have a smoke hanging out of her mouth to make this realistic.. Could we also involve K-10 and a complicated pulley system??

 

[Kafka]

At the mid 20th century, Howe was better. However, at the end of the 20th century, and since the beginning of the 21st one, Lemieux is better, IMO.

 

[Crosbyfan]

At the mid 20th century, Howe was better. However, at the end of the 20th century, and since the beginning of the 21st one, Lemieux is better, IMO.

You left out the period of Mario's childhood.

Who was better then?