Better peak: Howe vs Lemieux?

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
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.

Howe inargubly has one season above Belliveau's, two more that match Belliveau's best, and arguably three more that are better than Belliveau's 2nd best.

There is no comparison to OV, Malkin and Crosby.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
Howe inargubly has one season above Belliveau's, two more that match Belliveau's best, and arguably three more that are better than Belliveau's 2nd best.

There is no comparison to OV, Malkin and Crosby.
So your telling me that if Hull, Howe & Beliveau all peaked at the same time, Howe would be ut scoring them by 10-20 points each year. Beliveau had the exact same ppg as Howe from 1953 to 1971, a sample of 18 years. If he came to the nhl 3 years earlier, the difference in career ppg is marginal at best.

If Howe is truly on a different level, then why was his single season goals and points records beaten so easily?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
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.

Here is what we know about those two seasons and is perhaps the fairest way to judge:

Howe had 95 points and there were a total of seven players above 50 points, two players above 60, and one above 70.

Hull had 97 points (to be fair let's give him an even 100 considering games missed) and there were a total of 19 players above 50 points, nine above 60 points, and five above 70 points.

The eye test does not see a "marginal" difference in their dominance over their peers.

Hull's season is more on par with Howe's 2nd and 3rd best.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
So your telling me that if Hull, Howe & Beliveau all peaked at the same time, Howe would be ut scoring them by 10-20 points each year. Beliveau had the exact same ppg as Howe from 1953 to 1971, a sample of 18 years. If he came to the nhl 3 years earlier, the difference in career ppg is marginal at best.

If Howe is truly on a different level, then why was his single season goals and points records beaten so easily?

If they had their peak season in the same year, Howe beats it by 10-20 points.

As to the second bolded, the same reason we don't put OV, Malkin and Crosby behind 2o to 30 guys who played in the '80s and '90s.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
Here is what we know about those two seasons and is perhaps the fairest way to judge:

Howe had 95 points and there were a total of seven players above 50 points, two players above 60, and one above 70.

Hull had 97 points (to be fair let's give him an even 100 considering games missed) and there were a total of 19 players above 50 points, nine above 60 points, and five above 70 points.

The eye test does not see a "marginal" difference in their dominance over their peers.

Hull's season is more on par with Howe's 2nd and 3rd best.
How do you explain the fact that between 1950 to 1967, the final 18 seasons of the original 6 era. Howe only has 2 out the top 10 seasons in total points and 5 out of the top 20. Before you mention goals per game, the nhl averaged 5.4 goals per game in 1951 and 1957, two of his absolute best years. Yet other players were able to match his point totals with no hesitation. Mario and Gretzky own the absolute top point season of thier era. Mario didn't even peak in the highest part of his era. 1981 to 1986 was higher scoring than 1987 to 1993 by a big margin, yet no one can match Gretzky and Mario in single season point totals.

Yet, from 1950 to 1967, all throughout this era, players are matching or exceeding Howe's single season goals or points records. He has a grand total of 2 season in the top 10 for total points from 1950 to 1967. Doesnt sound like his offense is on a different planet.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
How do you explain the fact that between 1950 to 1967, the final 18 seasons of the original 6 era. Howe only has 2 out the top 10 seasons in total points and 5 out of the top 20. Before you mention goals per game, the nhl averaged 5.4 goals per game in 1951 and 1957, two of his absolute best years. Yet other players were able to match his point totals with no hesitation. Mario and Gretzky own the absolute top point season of thier era. Mario didn't even peak in the highest part of his era. 1981 to 1986 was higher scoring than 1987 to 1993 by a big margin, yet no one can match Gretzky and Mario in single season point totals.

Yet, from 1950 to 1967, all throughout this era, players are matching or exceeding Howe's single season goals or points records. He has a grand total of 2 season in the top 10 for total points from 1950 to 1967. Doesnt sound like his offense is on a different planet.

I wouldn't mention GPG because that is a flawed way to try to compare performances from different seasons. Performance vs. peers is the best, and IMO, the only useful one to use as it reasonably assumes the Top 20 offensive players are of the same quality year to year

There are three obvious statements to be made on this topic:

1. Howe statistically dominated his peers in a way that Belliveau and Hull did not in 52/53.

2. We can never say with 100% certainty of each peak version of all three would do if they happened to play on the other players' peak years.

3. The dynamics of the scoring environment for the elite offensive players changes league change year to year, and without a doubt, era to era, as witnessed by the PPGs of the Top 10-20 scorers.


The latter can be ignored or manipulated in any fashion to fit one's narrative which, IMO, is what you are doing.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
I wouldn't mention GPG because that is a flawed way to try to compare performances from different seasons. Performance vs. peers is the best, and IMO, the only useful one to use as it reasonably assumes the Top 20 offensive players are of the same quality year to year

There are three obvious statements to be made on this topic:

1. Howe statistically dominated his peers in a way that Belliveau and Hull did not in 52/53.

2. We can never say with 100% certainty of each peak version of all three would do if they happened to play on the other players' peak years.

3. The dynamics of the scoring environment for the elite offensive players changes league change year to year, and without a doubt, era to era, as witnessed by the PPGs of the Top 10-20 scorers.


The latter can be ignored or manipulated in any fashion to fit one's narrative which, IMO, is what you are doing.
He did not statistically dominate the #2 and #3 scorer by bigger margins, he dominated the ronty's, prystai's and abels by bigger margins., weaker competition.
Based on your criteria, Sid's 2014 ross would be the best season of the last 20 years, he won his art ross by the biggest margin.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
He did not statistically dominate the #2 and #3 scorer by bigger margins, he dominated the ronty's, prystai's and abels by bigger margins., weaker competition.
Based on your criteria, Sid's 2014 ross would be the best season of the last 20 years, he won his art ross by the biggest margin.

My criteria is to look at the average points and/or PPG of the Top 20 scorers. Howe has a clear advantage when doing this.

Why do you think it was it weaker competition? Shouldn't Rocket Richard have done better against that "weaker competition"? Instead he did better against the stronger competition even though he was older.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
My criteria is to look at the average points and/or PPG of the Top 20 scorers. Howe has a clear advantage when doing this.

Why do you think it was it weaker competition? Shouldn't Rocket Richard have done better against that "weaker competition"? Instead he did better against the stronger competition even though he was older.
In your opinion, the top 10 scorers from 1953 were just as good as the top 10 scorers from 1966? Really, you dont give 1966 the edge?

Richard did better when the habs got better players, beliveau and geoffrion. Lets ignore the fact that Howe consistently had much better linemates than Hull and the better offensive defenseman. I mean a prime red kelly is better than pierre pilote. Lindsay and Abel/Delvecchio are better than Hull's linemates. Only half of his teammates were finishing top 10 in scoring.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
In your opinion, the top 10 scorers from 1953 were just as good as the top 10 scorers from 1966? Really, you dont give 1966 the edge?
I'm jumping in here, but why would you suddenly give 1966 the edge?
Richard did better when the habs got better players, beliveau and geoffrion.
No, he didn't. 4 of his 5 goals "titles" were before Beliveau was a regular, and 3 of 5 before Geoffrion. Richard's peak was in the 1940s, not the 1950s.
Lets ignore the fact that Howe consistently had much better linemates than Hull
No, he didn't. Stan Mikita was a better player than any linemate Howe had in his entire career.
...and the better offensive defenseman. I mean a prime red kelly is better than pierre pilote.
Is he? I dunno about that.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
I'm jumping in here, but why would you suddenly give 1966 the edge?

No, he didn't. 4 of his 5 goals "titles" were before Beliveau was a regular, and 3 of 5 before Geoffrion. Richard's peak was in the 1940s, not the 1950s.

No, he didn't. Stan Mikita was a better player than any linemate Howe had in his entire career.

Is he? I dunno about that.
Because i think the top 10 scorers from 1966 were overall better.

Stan Mikita wasnt Hull's regular linemate. Are you kidding me, Howe consistently had better linemates across his career. I dont care if you are gonna quote me and disagree, Howe had better linemates throughout his career.

The guy above me just said Rocket did better against better competition as he got older, i was replying to him, maybe you should read properly and tell him that. He also lead the league in ppg when he had beliveau and boomer.

Red Kelly isnt better than Pilote, really? So Pierre Pilote is arguably a top 5 defenseman and top 25 all time player. News to me, I never knew most historians held him in that high of a regard.

Some of the top 10 scorers from 1953: Hergesheimer, Ronty, Prystai, Mcfadden, Mackell. You don't find this to be a weaker level of talent?
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Because i think the top 10 scorers from 1966 were overall better.

Stan Mikita wasnt Hull's regular linemate. Are you kidding me, Howe consistently had better linemates across his career. I dont care if you are gonna quote me and disagree, Howe had better linemates throughout his career.

The guy above me just said Rocket did better against better competition as he got older, i was replying to him, maybe you should read properly and tell him that. He also lead the league in ppg when he had beliveau and boomer.

Red Kelly isnt better than Pilote, really? So Pierre Pilote is arguably a top 5 defenseman and top 25 all time player. News to me, I never knew most historians held him in that high of a regard.

Some of the top 10 scorers from 1953: Hergesheimer, Ronty, Prystai, Mcfadden, Mackell. You don't find this to be a weaker level of talent?

A few qualifiers from the O6 era, 70 RS game schedule.

Starting with the arrival of Toe Blake in 1955-56, the Canadiens and Leafs thru 1967 effectively rolled 4 lines that tended to be balanced, especially in the sixties. In terms of scoring and TOI the players on the other teams were advantaged since they were part of a three line rotation with extra shifting and ice time.

The 1955 -56 season also saw the arrival in the NHL of 6 future HHOFers - Glenn Hall, Norm Ullman, John Bucyk,Henri Richard, Dick Duff,Pierre Pilote, plus a solid groupof future regulars:

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

The 1953 season was the lowest scoring 4.79 TG/G during the fifties in the NHL. Three top NHL centers -Lach,Kennedy, Laprade missed between 17 -27 and 59 games. Sid Abel left Detroit to be the player/coach in Chicago, while the Rangers lost Herb Dickenson, 11 games in 4G/4A a promising scorer to a career ending eye injury. 1953 is not a representative NHL season of the O6 era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
It is interesting to note that in the four years prior to Howe's 51 to 54 run there were fourteen PPG seasons (min. 50 games).

In the four years after Howe's 51 to 54 run there were fourteen PPG seasons excluding Howe's three (min. of 50 games).

In Howe's 51 to 54 run, there were three PPG seasons excluding Howe's four (min. of 50 games).

In the 47 to 58 period, Howe owns the best PPG season, and four of the top six (Belliveau owns the other two).

The next four seasons (59 to 62) sees twenty-five PPG seasons including three seasons that eclipse's Howe's best PPG.

The next four seasons sees (63 to 66) sees twenty-two PPG seasons and one season that eclipse's Howe's PPG.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,585
It is interesting to note that in the four years prior to Howe's 51 to 54 run there were fourteen PPG seasons (min. 50 games).

In the four years after Howe's 51 to 54 run there were fourteen PPG seasons excluding Howe's three (min. of 50 games).

In Howe's 51 to 54 run, there were three PPG seasons excluding Howe's four (min. of 50 games).

In the 47 to 58 period, Howe owns the best PPG season, and four of the top six (Belliveau owns the other two).

The next four seasons (59 to 62) sees twenty-five PPG seasons including three seasons that eclipse's Howe's best PPG.

The next four seasons sees (63 to 66) sees twenty-two PPG seasons and one season that eclipse's Howe's PPG.

Let's say the next 3 years in the NHL the top scorers all score 100-110 and a bunch more do ppg (kind of like this season was).

This would isolate Crosby in 2013-2014 (and even Kane in 2015-2016) as insane looking seasons - 104/106 points when no one else even scored 90 almost.

Without taking into context that a bunch of other players scored 104-106+ the years before, and the years right after those.

How is that different than Howe's peak, based on what you're describing?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Actually here is better way to look at the scoring environment - the # of PPG scorers per season (min. of 50 games:

1944 - 17
1945 - 11
1946 - 4
1947 - 6
1948 - 3
1949 - 3
1950 - 2
1951 - 2
1952 - 1
1953 - 2
1954 - 2
1955- 3
1956 - 5
1957 - 4
1958 - 5
1959 - 7
1960 - 8
1961 - 9
1962 - 6
1963 - 6
1964 - 6
1965 - 4
1966 - 6
1967 - 3

There seems to be a clear dip during Howe's peak which reinforces the argument that the scoring levels had dipped during his Art Ross run. Arguments that the league got that much better after 1954 are weakened by the league being seemingly strong before 1950 due to the high # of PPG seasons and the other argument that players like Dickie Moore and Bernie Geoffrion also have to be considered in the same tier with Hull, Belliveau, Richard and Mikita given their peak seasons are right there with them. The other obvious argument is that Howe clearly was better than a prime Richard and Lindsay over those four years, both of whom had better PPGs in the two years after 1954 when one would think were would have been regressing.

I don't see how you can reasonably question Howe's 52/53 season not standing out as the best of his era, and that his other top 2 seasons being comparable to the single peak season of Hull, Mikita and Belliveau.

He is leagues ahead of those three when everything is considered( playoffs,longevity, # of elite Art Ross finishes) but I would not say he was leagues ahead on a per game basis; rather he was a league ahead or clearly superior at his best.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Let's say the next 3 years in the NHL the top scorers all score 100-110 and a bunch more do ppg (kind of like this season was).

This would isolate Crosby in 2013-2014 (and even Kane in 2015-2016) as insane looking seasons - 104/106 points when no one else even scored 90 almost.

Without taking into context that a bunch of other players scored 104-106+ the years before, and the years right after those.

How is that different than Howe's peak, based on what you're describing?

Yeah, my next post takes this into consideration.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
In your opinion, the top 10 scorers from 1953 were just as good as the top 10 scorers from 1966? Really, you dont give 1966 the edge?

Richard did better when the habs got better players, beliveau and geoffrion. Lets ignore the fact that Howe consistently had much better linemates than Hull and the better offensive defenseman. I mean a prime red kelly is better than pierre pilote. Lindsay and Abel/Delvecchio are better than Hull's linemates. Only half of his teammates were finishing top 10 in scoring.

You seemed to ignore it until the stats showed that Howe was better.

It is always questionable when linemates gets mentioned after the fact.

Are you now saying that Belliveau's #'s need context given his linemates/teammates? I don't recall you saying that right from the get go.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
You seemed to ignore it until the stats showed that Howe was better.

It is always questionable when linemates gets mentioned after the fact.

Are you now saying that Belliveau's #'s need context given his linemates/teammates? I don't recall you saying that right from the get go.
Stats show hes more consistent, they dont tell me he has the ability to produce more raw numbers in a given season. Dominance over peers is just one criteria. Ditto with Crosby in comparison to malkin and ovechkin. The consistency of Crosby tells me I should rank him above them, but did he produce seasons where he was scoring at a pace that they couldn't, nope.

Gretzky and Mario left no doubt, no one else from their era could hit over 155, Gordie Howe can only claim 2 top 10 point totals from his own era. There were multiple players putting up his numbers, not just 1 or 2.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Stats show hes more consistent, they dont tell me he has the ability to produce more raw numbers in a given season. Dominance over peers is just one criteria. Ditto with Crosby in comparison to malkin and ovechkin. The consistency of Crosby tells me I should rank him above them, but did he produce seasons where he was scoring at a pace that they couldn't, nope.

Did all three play at the exact same time? Nope. That opens the door to reasonable speculation.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
Did all three play at the exact same time? Nope. That opens the door to reasonable speculation.
Yeah, he left the door open for speculation, something gretzky and mario didnt do. Either you dominate completely and leave no doubt, or you don't .
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Yeah, he left the door open for speculation, something gretzky and mario didnt do. Either you dominate completely and leave no doubt, or you don't .

I was never claiming he was on their level but he certainly makes the best case for being closer to them than Belliveau or Hull.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
I was never claiming he was on their level but he certainly makes the best case for being closer to them than Belliveau or Hull.
Closer to them in terms of ability to produce raw point totals, i'm going to have to disagree. The eye test tells me he's only marginally better as a pure point producer and not even close to Gretzky.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Closer to them in terms of ability to produce raw point totals, i'm going to have to disagree. The eye test tells me he's only marginally better as a pure point producer and not even close to Gretzky.

The eye test sees lots of players from the '80s and '90s putting up a better numbers than anyone today too. How do you explain that?
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
The eye test sees lots of players from the '80s and '90s putting up a better numbers than anyone today too. How do you explain that?
The eye test says those players weren't in the same galaxy as Gretzky and Mario. Does the eye test say that about Gordie Howe in comparison, nope.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
The eye test says those players weren't in the same galaxy as Gretzky and Mario. Does the eye test say that about Gordie Howe in comparison, nope.

That's not what I asked.

The question is are Crosby, OV and Malkin in the same galaxy as everyone who beat them in points and goals in the '80s and '90s?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->