Better peak: Howe vs Lemieux?

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Just to clarify something, I'm not arguing that power-play points are less important. All points are equal, of course, and I've already pointed out myself that a player like Mario drew a lot of penalties, which is to his credit.

Rather, I'm using my own subjective impression (which some of you might disagree with -- that's fine) to suggest that dominating scoring by having more power-play opportunities than one's peers is somewhat less impressive than dominating scoring by having the same power-play opportunities as one's peers.

I'm not biased towards, or even arguing for, Gordie Howe, as someone foolishly accused me of being. I generally consider Lemieux to have had the higher peak. I stated that we won't know about the point I raise until we have the numbers available, if we ever do.

For the record, and assuming Wayne and Steve Y were Mario's biggest scoring 'competitors' from 1987 to 1990, here is the number of PP opportunities each player's teams had during those seasons:

1987-88 / 1988-89 / 1989-90
Mario
500 / 491 / 403
Total: 1394

Wayne
402 / 395 / 343
Total: 1140

Steve Y
383 / 352 / 354
Total: 1089

In other words, Mario's teams had 300+ more power plays over the three seasons than Yzerman's. And we saw how, in 1988-89, Yzerman nearly matched Lemieux's greatest season in ES scoring. For me, this raises the possibility that Lemieux's scoring dominance in these three seasons is somewhat less "dominant" (subjectively speaking) than it first appears.

Now, if we run the numbers on Howe c.1951 to 1955, it may turn out that the Red Wings had more PP opportunities than every other team (that's certainly possible), and the point I'm raising will be irrelevant. It would be interesting to find out.

If you want to open this can of worms, would you be open to the possibility that Mario could have been put up a peak season that was higher in points than Wayne's (say 220 to 230 over an 82 game season) if there were even more PPs called or the Pens drew even more PPs themselves?

I disagree that it's as simple as a "less PPs = less points for Mario" scenario. Less PPs means more ES time, less PPs means the Pens were scoring less and relying even more on Mario to score.

And you and others seem to be completely ignoring 92/93 seemingly as it contradicts this ES > PP impression.
 

Rick Kehoe

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
58
16
Except Howe would mop the floor with Lemieux. Physically speaking, of course.

Dude, the guy was out more than he was in! And in the brutal O6 Era... forget it.


Mario Lemieux was four inches taller, and 25 pounds heavier than Gordie Howe was as a player. If we dropped Mario in that weaker O6 era, he would compensate for how the game was called back then, and Howe would be in big trouble. The skating ability, and reach of Mario would be deciding factors in this matchup.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Mario Lemieux was four inches taller, and 25 pounds heavier than Gordie Howe was as a player. If we dropped Mario in that weaker O6 era, he would compensate for how the game was called back then, and Howe would be in big trouble. The skating ability, and reach of Mario would be deciding factors in this matchup.
Except Howe was much, much tougher than Lemieux. And he actually played defense. Relieve him of the typical O6 two-way responsibilities, and he would be even greater offensive force. Poor Mario wouldn't stand a chance in the 50s. Hell, he couldn't tough it out in the 90s.
 

Sadekuuro

Registered User
Aug 23, 2005
6,766
1,172
Cascadia
If you want to open this can of worms, would you be open to the possibility that Mario could have been put up a peak season that was higher in points than Wayne's (say 220 to 230 over an 82 game season) if there were even more PPs called or the Pens drew even more PPs themselves?

Has any other team in history ever had 500 PPOs in a season? It seems like Mario has already benefited from the extreme high end of this range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HangFromRafts

crosbyshow

Registered User
Aug 25, 2017
1,578
2,043
199 points.....then compare the pens roster that year with the oilers roster in 85 86 when Gretzky did 215 points.

The pens power first unit that year was.....

Lemieux
Coffey
Brown
Errey
Taglianetti.....

The most incredible season by a hockey player in history considering the roster around him

199 points in 76 games with those guys...

That was a Lemieux at his peak before his back injuries and cancer at 23 years old
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Has any other team in history ever had 500 PPOs in a season? It seems like Mario has already benefited from the extreme high end of this range.

It doesn't matter. If people want to hypothetically change the dynamics of the league then it opens up all possibilities.

The implication is clear that people want to wonder if Mario isn't Mario in a league with less POs and/or the Pens leading the league in PPOs.

That question has already been answered in 92/93, generally viewed as Mario's 2nd peak season, when the Pens were 14th in PPOs and Mario was pacing at an ESPPG that was only bettered by Wayne, and at a pace that was more dominant than Howe's ever was over his peers %-wise. That he was dealing with health issues during that season should add an exclamation point; one would think ES performance would suffer moreso than PP performance. This answer has consistently been ignored by those asking which infers a particular bias towards a "yes" answer.

What we can take away from this is that maybe Mario has a higher PP to ES ratio than Howe, he certainly does in comparison to Wayne, but how much of that is attributed to Mario being that much more deadly on the PP rather than being weaker at ES?

I am sure there are plenty of examples of regular season PP specialists who saw their numbers yo-yo with changes to the # of PPs called or go down in the playoffs when there are generally less PPs called. This does not apply to a peak Mario.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Now, who did Gretzky play with in 1981-82 season? And compare the power play opportunities.

Exactly. But truth is there is no perfect method for adjusting stats. 199 in 89 or....however many Gretzky scored in whichever of his years. It's hard to say which truly is the best/most impressive. Benefit of the doubt to highest raw total (and certainly to 99 for doing it more often, no question there).

The beauty would have been if they both had their best year head to head, to see who truly was better. I don't think this ever happened. Even with Crosby/Ovi/Malkin who all started at the same time - they literally all 3 managed to peak at separate times. Pretty crazy when you think of it considering how perfectly in line their start/ages are. Beliveau/Howe. Richard/Howe.

Would be fun to see 2 truly great talents peak at the exact same time to see how it compares.
 

86Habs

Registered User
May 4, 2009
2,588
419
Except Howe was much, much tougher than Lemieux. And he actually played defense. Relieve him of the typical O6 two-way responsibilities, and he would be even greater offensive force. Poor Mario wouldn't stand a chance in the 50s. Hell, he couldn't tough it out in the 90s.
Yeah, what a wimp, only coming back from f***ing cancer treatment to lead the league in scoring. Not to mention playing nearly his entire career with chronic back pain.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
Was Gordie Howe really viewed as leagues above Beliveau and Hull when he was actually playing? If Beliveau didn't spend 4 years in the Quebec league and Bobby Hull didnt waste 6 years in the wha, would we really say Howe is leagues above them? I feel Howe is benefitting from alot of revisionism in terms of how he was percieved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
Was Gordie Howe really viewed as leagues above Beliveau and Hull when he was actually playing? If Beliveau didn't spend 4 years in the Quebec league and Bobby Hull didnt waste 6 years in the wha, would we really say Howe is leagues above them? I feel Howe is benefitting from alot of revisionism in terms of how he was percieved.

And prior to Beliveau and Hull, there were a good number of hockey minds that thought Maurice Richard was better.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Was Gordie Howe really viewed as leagues above Beliveau and Hull when he was actually playing? If Beliveau didn't spend 4 years in the Quebec league and Bobby Hull didnt waste 6 years in the wha, would we really say Howe is leagues above them? I feel Howe is benefitting from alot of revisionism in terms of how he was percieved.

It is hard to argue is he not at least on a tier above them (perhaps you have an argument to the contrary). And factoring in that he actually accomplished considerably more and stayed healthy puts his career leagues above them. There is no real evidence to conclude Hull keeps with Howe's mid to late '30s career path; he had started to drop down in his last couple of seasons in the NHL while Howe won an Art Ross at age 35. Nor any evidence that Belliveau would have had prime like seasons before the age of 23.

I don't think Howe was necessarily on another league from Belliveau playoff-wise.

Things that would have closed the gap:

A 2nd dominant season from Hull and, moreso Belliveau; the type of season that gets mentioned among the all-time best non Big Four seasons. Howe has one season that is on another tier from their best and two others that is on the same tier.

More great playoff runs for Hull
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Was Gordie Howe really viewed as leagues above Beliveau and Hull when he was actually playing? If Beliveau didn't spend 4 years in the Quebec league and Bobby Hull didnt waste 6 years in the wha, would we really say Howe is leagues above them? I feel Howe is benefitting from alot of revisionism in terms of how he was percieved.

I certainly didnt think he was a superior player to Beliveau (nor to Richard for that matter) or Hull. What he did possess however was a broader range of skill's, crafts both tangible & intangible. The intangible being that he created a lot of room for himself out there as getting anywhere near him could be injurious to ones health. A reputation & mystique that ya, like oft told fishing tales grow larger with every telling over the years. He was a bit menacing & thats all been blown up out of proportion as far as I'm concerned, and if your easily frightened, intimidated, you really have no business being out there. During that era you likely wouldnt have made it past Jr.B if that was a problem though the odd guy did squeak through. Look, the guy was a phenom, ultimate power forward during his peak prime, a real force of nature. Edgy, nasty at times. Jean Beliveau one of the most elegant players to ever lace them up. Hull, well, sadly I think vastly underrated by many. Comparing them... "who's better"?.... to me, sorry, just not on. Who do I "prefer"? How about Bobby Hull was the Greatest Left Winger ever... . Jean Beliveau "one of" the Greatest Centers & for my $$$, Greatest Captain All Time.... Gordie Howe the Greatest Right Winger ever. Thats how I calls em'. Orr the Greatest Defenceman, Sawchuk the Greatest Goalie.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
It is hard to argue is he not at least on a tier above them (perhaps you have an argument to the contrary). And factoring in that he actually accomplished considerably more and stayed healthy puts his career leagues above them. There is no real evidence to conclude Hull keeps with Howe's mid to late '30s career path; he had started to drop down in his last couple of seasons in the NHL while Howe won an Art Ross at age 35. Nor any evidence that Belliveau would have had prime like seasons before the age of 23.

I don't think Howe was necessarily on another league from Belliveau playoff-wise.

Things that would have closed the gap:

A 2nd dominant season from Hull and, moreso Belliveau; the type of season that gets mentioned among the all-time best non Big Four seasons. Howe has one season that is on another tier from their best and two others that is on the same tier.

More great playoff runs for Hull
Well correct me if i'm not mistaken, but on this board Beliveau and Hull are viewed on Crosby/Jagr/Ovechkin level, while Howe is considered superior to Lemieux. Beliveau had the exact same ppg as Howe from 1953 to 1971. I have a hard time believing Howe's overall career ppg would be significantly better had Beliveau entered the nhl earlier. Based on every offensive measure, a peak Howe is only slightly better than Hull and Beliveau in terms of offense. Whether its raw stats or adjusted. His 4 year dominance in the early 50s is overrated imo. The nhl talent pool got much better from 1955 to 1967.

Arguing that Howe is better than Mario, while Beliveau/Hull being debated over Jagr/Crosby/Ovechkin suggests that people here think Gordie blows Jean and Bobby out of the water.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Well correct me if i'm not mistaken, but on this board Beliveau and Hull are viewed on Crosby/Jagr/Ovechkin level, while Howe is considered superior to Lemieux. Beliveau had the exact same ppg as Howe from 1953 to 1971. I have a hard time believing Howe's overall career ppg would be significantly better had Beliveau entered the nhl earlier. Based on every offensive measure, a peak Howe is only slightly better than Hull and Beliveau in terms of offense. Whether its raw stats or adjusted. His 4 year dominance in the early 50s is overrated imo. The nhl talent pool got much better from 1955 to 1967.

Arguing that Howe is better than Mario, while Beliveau/Hull being debated over Jagr/Crosby/Ovechkin suggests that people here think Gordie blows Jean and Bobby out of the water.

Howe is considered superior to Mario for reasons other than PPG.

It is not wrong to question how strong Howe's peak season (s) was based on the seasons immediately afterwards we can also question Belliveau's peak season based on the seasons immediately following his.

Statistically speaking, I think Howe has one season that clearly stands out from Hull and Belliveau's best, while he has two others that are on par with the two seasons from Hull and Belliveau had that clearly stand out from their best.

Narrative like the "talent pool got much better" is subjective as is wondering if Belliveau does as well if he is not on such a stacked team.

I think there is a clear line between the two players depending on how ones looks at the numbers and of course you cannot overlook Howe's significant longevity advantage (same PPG, 50% more points).
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
Howe is considered superior to Mario for reasons other than PPG.

It is not wrong to question how strong Howe's peak season (s) was based on the seasons immediately afterwards we can also question Belliveau's peak season based on the seasons immediately following his.

Statistically speaking, I think Howe has one season that clearly stands out from Hull and Belliveau's best, while he has two others that are on par with the two seasons from Hull and Belliveau had that clearly stand out from their best.

Narrative like the "talent pool got much better" is subjective as is wondering if Belliveau does as well if he is not on such a stacked team.

I think there is a clear line between the two players depending on how ones looks at the numbers and of course you cannot overlook Howe's significant longevity advantage (same PPG, 50% more points).
Crosby in 2014 won an art ross by a big percentage, that doesnt mean he has the ability to produce more points at his peak than Malkin or Ovechkin. Same thing in comparison to Howe in regards to Beliveau and Hull, they were putting up the exact same point totals in thier primes. Raw stats and adjusted points don't give Howe any significant advantage in terms of ability to put up points. Yes I would say the NHL was a much better league in the the late 50s and early 60's.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Crosby in 2014 won an art ross by a big percentage, that doesnt mean he has the ability to produce more points at his peak than Malkin or Ovechkin. Same thing in comparison to Howe in regards to Beliveau and Hull, they were putting up the exact same point totals in thier primes. Raw stats and adjusted points don't give Howe any significant advantage in terms of ability to put up points. Yes I would say the NHL was a much better league in the the late 50s and early 60's.

When an older version of Richard, the one who Howe was beating handily in the early '50s, puts up a higher PPG in the late '50s than he did in the early '50s, one has to question whether the league got better or if the scoring environment changed. The same for Ted Lindsay whose best season points-wise came at age 32.

IMO, Gordie was on another level in 52/53 than any other player other than the other members of the Big Four; statistically there is no argument. His other best seasons are on par with the best of the non-Big Four seasons. His best playoff run is on par with Belliveau's and Mikita's, a bit below the best of the other Big Four.

So peak-wise, one could argue his 52/53 was a bit of an anomaly given he, unlike the other members of the Big 3, did not have another season at that same level.

What he did have though was a resume of five other seasons that is clearly better than Belliveau's five best and to a lesser degree, Hull's five best. He destroys Hull in the playoffs, for lack of a better term, and destroys both in longevity.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Crosby in 2014 won an art ross by a big percentage, that doesnt mean he has the ability to produce more points at his peak than Malkin or Ovechkin. Same thing in comparison to Howe in regards to Beliveau and Hull, they were putting up the exact same point totals in thier primes. Raw stats and adjusted points don't give Howe any significant advantage in terms of ability to put up points. Yes I would say the NHL was a much better league in the the late 50s and early 60's.

BTW, any explanation how a 34 year old Howe wins the Art Ross vs. a prime Hull in the "much better" early '60s?

How about a 35 year old Howe leading the playoffs in goals and points at age 35?

How about Howe dominating the playoffs in the "much better" late '50s and early '60s (1.35 PPG vs. 1.08 for Belliveau).

You don't think all of these things perhaps confirm his greatness from 51 to 54 and that he was on another tier from the 1950 to 1960's era?
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
When an older version of Richard, the one who Howe was beating handily in the early '50s, puts up a higher PPG in the late '50s than he did in the early '50s, one has to question whether the league got better or if the scoring environment changed. The same for Ted Lindsay whose best season points-wise came at age 32.

IMO, Gordie was on another level in 52/53 than any other player other than the other members of the Big Four; statistically there is no argument. His other best seasons are on par with the best of the non-Big Four seasons. His best playoff run is on par with Belliveau's and Mikita's, a bit below the best of the other Big Four.

So peak-wise, one could argue his 52/53 was a bit of an anomaly given he, unlike the other members of the Big 3, did not have another season at that same level.

What he did have though was a resume of five other seasons that is clearly better than Belliveau's five best and to a lesser degree, Hull's five best. He destroys Hull in the playoffs, for lack of a better term, and destroys both in longevity.
How is he on another level from Bobby Hull in 1966.

Top ppg leaders in 1966

Hull: 1.49
Beliveau/Mikita: 1.15
Rouesseau: 1.11
Howe: 1.07

Not much of a difference, and yeah the overall top 20 scorers in 1966 are quite a bit better than the top 20 scorers in 1953. Beliveau's full season in 1956 of regular season and playoffs matches up perfectly with any combined regular season/playoff Howe ever had. There is no major peak seperation.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
BTW, any explanation how a 34 year old Howe wins the Art Ross vs. a prime Hull in the "much better" early '60s?

How about a 35 year old Howe leading the playoffs in goals and points at age 35?

How about Howe dominating the playoffs in the "much better" late '50s and early '60s (1.35 PPG vs. 1.08 for Belliveau).

You don't think all of these things perhaps confirm his greatness from 51 to 54 and that he was on another tier from the 1950 to 1960's era?
You aren't proving that peak Howe is in a different galaxy offensively, you are just proving he was more consistently elite.

How is the seperation of Howe to Beliveau/Hull any bigger than the gap Crosby has on Malkin/Ovechkin? Its quite the same actually. Crosby did not have the ability to put up offense of a different caliber compared to Malkin and Ovechkin, he's just more consistent. Exact same thing with Howe, it only took a few years for Howe's single season points and goal record to be broken. No one is putting up Mario/Gretzky level offense, just them.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
How is he on another level from Bobby Hull in 1966.

Top ppg leaders in 1966

Hull: 1.49
Beliveau/Mikita: 1.15
Rouesseau: 1.11
Howe: 1.07

Not much of a difference, and yeah the overall top 20 scorers in 1966 are quite a bit better than the top 20 scorers in 1953. Beliveau's full season in 1956 of regular season and playoffs matches up perfectly with any combined regular season/playoff Howe ever had. There is no major peak seperation.

1.36
1.01
0.87
0.84
0.84

Hull is 33% better than the avg. of the next four best PPGs. Howe is 53% better.

Considering Hull missed five games, that % gets even higher when looking at raw points.

Statistically, it's not close. Subjective arguments as to the relative strengths of the league cannot deny the statistical superiority which is all we have to go on.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Here is an interesting exercise.

Hull hits his prime in 59/60. How long does it take for him to truly pass Howe who was age 31 in 59/60 by outpointing him and/or outPPGing.

Here is the answer: In the period from 59/60 to 64/65 (Howe is age 36), Howe had more points and a higher PPG.

How long does it take for Hull to pass Howe in playoff PPG starting in 59/60? 1970!! In ten years of Hull's absolute prime, he could not outscore Howe in his '30s in the playoffs.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
1.36
1.01
0.87
0.84
0.84

Hull is 33% better than the avg. of the next four best PPGs. Howe is 53% better.

Considering Hull missed five games, that % gets even higher when looking at raw points.

Statistically, it's not close. Subjective arguments as to the relative strengths of the league cannot deny the statistical superiority which is all we have to go on.
The gap between 1 and 3 is marginal in both comparisons, its the further you go down, the bigger it is in howe's favour. It also helps that 5 of the top 9 scorers were on his team. I'm also surprised you left out the names of the top 10 scorers, lots of elite players that year.

Another one, Stan Mikita in 1967.

1.39
1.21
1.03

Its a marginal difference at best, and of course we wont mention the names of the top 10-20 scorers, then it would just be too one sided. Of course the #2 guy in this scenario is Bobby Hull near his absolute peak, if he was in his early 30's and past his prime, the gap would be even bigger.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->