Big 4: 2 Questions

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,488
10,044
I assume you never saw Orr play.

Only highlight reels. Obviously he was amazing and ahead of his time and had arguably the best peak of any player. But Gretzky arguably matches or surpasses him in this regard, best on best, plus has excellent longevity. There is just no way 8 full (sort of) seasons of Orr tops 20 seasons of Gretzky.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
The Gretzky vs. Orr thing is interesting. I can see cases both ways, but for me it sort of comes down to this:

Orr didn't transcend the game, in my opinion. Orr inherited the (Canadian) game, and was just way, way better at it than any other player. Gretzky, however, transcended the established game and played it on a completely different level. Before Gretzky, Gretzky wasn't possible. Gretzky invented Gretzky, and the game was forever changed (some traditionalists might argue it was changed for the worse, but that's a digression...).

To put it another way: Orr was a better passer and shooter, and a WAY better skater than anyone before him or in his time. In terms of established hockey skills -- the skills demonstrated by Hull, Howe, Shore, Morenz, Beliveau, et al. -- Orr represented the peak.

Gretzky, however, in no way, shape, or (esp.) form represented the peak of any established hockey skill or quality. His shot was weak, his skating average, his physical strength non-existent. He just approached the game in a completely different way to any North American player before him, using a completely unique skill-set, to achieve completely unimaginable results to dominate peers far more than any player before or since.

Of course, the Orr supporter can truthfully claim that Orr dominated at both-ends more than any soft, high-scoring forward, and this is true. But at the end of the day, Gretzky's plus/minus (5 on 5 result) in his prime and Orr's are almost exactly equal, so I don't really know that there's any advantage to Orr despite his superior defence. And on top of that, Gretzky laps Orr several times over in MVPs and doubles him in Stanley Cups.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
From your perspective, an argument that a player who has a peak below Howe could break into the Big 4 seems untenable. You've taken the stance that Howe's peak lags behind Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr. So if a player comes along who has a peak that yet lags behind the guy you've identified as having the weakest one, what avenue does he have to make it a Big 5? Seemingly his longevity and playoff career would have to both exceed Howe's by some measure. The second one is not impossible, a few others have done it according to this board. The first one is unmatched, perhaps only one player (Ray Bourque) making a serious challenge. The odds of BOTH happening to a player that didn't match Howe's peak are beyond long.

This is pretty much it.

That Crosby has a track record of being elite from Day 1 of his career (12 seasons) and is only 30 gives him an outside chance of attaining the two criteria that could potentially exceed Howe's. In terms of longevity, there obviously is a difference between simply playing for a long time like Jagr did and playing and still being a Top 5-10 player like Howe did. I would also differentiate longevity and longevity of prime. Howe obviously had varying degrees of eliteness out of his "20 years of Top 5 scoring" from blowing the field away to finishing in 5th and obviously Crosby has multiple seasons that were better than some of those 20 seasons.

For the sake of argument, we'll say that it becomes debatable whether Crosby's best season and Howe's 4th or 5th best would rate higher. If Crosby continues to add elite seasons that would fit into Howe's Top 10 best seasons would there not be some point where we can say Crosby has exceeded Howe in longevity of prime (or whatever you want to call it)? The argument would be "Sure, Howe has the best 3 or 4 seasons but then Crosby has more seasons in the Top 1o to 15 between them".
 
Last edited:

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
3) I feel that once again, raw numbers are making Howe look worse here. In 1955 playoffs he had 50% more points than his nearest non-linemate. This stacks up pretty well against the best that Lemieux, Orr, and Gretzky had to offer. It simply wasn't possible for a player in the two-round era to lead the playoff scoring race by 10-15 points.

It can also be argued that comparing two round totals with four round totals makes Wayne and Mario look worse. Statistically it doesn't make sense to compare 2 rounds to 4 rounds straight up.

I think it's obvious that Wayne, Mario and Orr had playoff runs befitting their regular season performances; ones that were inarguably clearly separate from their immediate peers. I think it's obvious that Howe's best playoff run did not necessarily stand out against his immediate peers, or even can viewed as having the best playoff run of his era. Belliveau in '56, Geofrion in '57, Mikita in '62 all have pretty cases to be arguably better on raw numbers and PPG alone and, moreso when linemates/teammates are factored in. Howe's best was only one point better than Lindsay in '55; the others were clearly separate from the next best on their team. Malkin has the better playoff run if the 50% more points over his nearest non-linemate given it was done over four rounds rather than two. And what about Esposito in '68? He is almost 100% better given the # of games he played.

So what's more reasonable to say?

Howe's playoff best stacks up well against Mario's, Wayne's and Orr's best but so does Belliveau's, Mikita's, Malkin's Esposito's and Geoffrion's?

Or he has one of the best non- Mario, Wayne and Orr playoff runs with multiple other players?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
For the sake of argument, we'll say that it becomes debatable whether Crosby's best season and Howe's 4th or 5th best would rate higher. If Crosby continues to add elite seasons that would fit into Howe's Top 10 best seasons would there not be some point where we can say Crosby has exceeded Howe in longevity of prime (or whatever you want to call it)? The argument would be "Sure, Howe has the best 3 or 4 seasons but then Crosby has more seasons in the Top 1o to 15 between them".

Further to this, here is a rough tiering of their best seasons:

REGULAR SEASONS

Tier (1)

Howe 52/53
Howe 51/52
Howe 50/51

Tier (2)

Howe 53/54
Crosby 13/14
Crosby 06/07

Tier (3)

Howe 56/57
Howe 62/63
Crosby 12/13 (Tier 2 in PPG)

Tier (4)

Howe 55/56
Howe 57/58
Howe 61/62
Howe 64/65
Howe 67/68
Howe 68/69
Crosby 09/10
Crosby 15/16
Crosby 16/17
Crosby 10/11 (Tier 2 in PPG)

Tier (5)

Howe 58/59
Howe 63/64
Howe 65/66
Howe 66/67
Crosby 14/15
Crosby 08/09
Crosby 07/08 (Teir 3 in PPG)

Tier (6)

Howe 60/61
Howe 69/70
Crosby 17/18
Crosby 11/12 (did not play enough games to reasonably move this up)


It's obvious that Howe' peak is better and his longevity dwarfs Crosby's. Crosby holds his own in Tier 2 and 3 despite injuries in three key seasons. He then loses ground in Tier 4 where Howe's amazing durability and longevity takes over.


PLAYOFFS (Cup Runs only)

Tier 1

Howe - 55
Crosby - 09

Tier 2

Howe - 49
Howe - 61
Howe - 63
Howe - 64
Crosby - 08
Crosby - 17

Tier 3

Howe - 54
Howe - 56
Crosby - 16

Tier 4

Howe - 66

Crosby holds his own with Howe as being a standout on his team's Cup runs. Howe has the longevity argument which needs to be tempered with "easier to get to the Cup final in the 06 era" argument. I don't see where Howe has been clearly better than Crosby in their respective Cup runs on a pound for pound basis. Things could get very interesting if Crosby has another Tier 2 Cup run this year.

So the question becomes, if Crosby can continue to wrack up more Tier 2 and 3 regular seasons, ones that put him at or very close to the top of the league, and/or Tier 2 and 3 playoff runs, ones that are considered Conn Smythe worthy, does that open the door to him having a longer prime at a higher level than Howe did?


 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
So if a player comes along who has a peak that yet lags behind the guy you've identified as having the weakest one, what avenue does he have to make it a Big 5? Seemingly his longevity and playoff career would have to both exceed Howe's by some measure. The second one is not impossible, a few others have done it according to this board. The first one is unmatched, perhaps only one player (Ray Bourque) making a serious challenge. The odds of BOTH happening to a player that didn't match Howe's peak are beyond long.

The Hockey News in one of their more recent Great Debates magazines presented Mario Lemieux (commonly seen as the most vulnerable of the big four) vs. Patrick Roy. The latter probably checks the most boxes for players who peaked underneath Howe but offered challenges to the big four in other regards - distinguished by his position, distinguished by his playoffs, distinguished by his longevity.

In terms of longevity, consider that in the official save percentage era, beyond Hasek (11) and Luongo (10), Roy's 15 seasons with a top-10 save percentage more than doubles every other goaltender, and we might be looking at a regular season longevity in the 21-30 team era (again, wholly separate from his playoff performances) as unique as anything from a forward or defenseman since expansion (Gretzky has 16/16 for points/points-per-game in a position with less turnover).

Playoffs, he's already there. And he plays a different position than the big four, so we're not just looking at a player who's a worse version of the same skill set; he's as much the best version of what he does as Lemieux is of what he does.

And he had a significant impact on the way his position was played, which is probably being understated by how casually I am throwing it into this.

But with all of that going for him - the resume we're projecting Crosby could have if he wins more Conn Smythe Trophies or competes against McDavid for enough scoring titles to extend his longevity PLUS the extra benefit of playing the position not yet represented in the big four AND having changed hockey - we know it's not enough. Because Mario Lemieux and Patrick Roy are born on the same day, and anyone who saw one probably saw enough of both to know there is still a gap. So I think if there's ever going to be a consensus fifth member, they would have to be as good at their best as Gordie Howe was at his. Otherwise, all of those different avenues to the big four are ones already travelled by one of Roy, Nighbor, Morenz, Shore, Richard, Harvey, Sawchuk, Plante, Beliveau, Hull, Bourque, Messier, Jagr...

Sidney Crosby is a great player - certainly great enough to join those names. But the whole exploration of if he does X, Y, and Z, he could exceed this company ignores that some of them did X, Y, and Z; others did A, B, and C; others did a combination of A, Q, and Z; and Mark Messier did a finger painting of the Stanley Cup with his opponents' blood. Even if Crosby does a letter or two that one of the big four doesn't, in the big picture, he's probably a half-dozen letters short of them on the other things.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,578
18,344
Las Vegas

give it up already. We get it, you think Crosby is the best thing since sliced bread.

FACTS are he isn't close to Howe, any way you slice it...peak, prime, career, on the moon...

Just cutting Howe's peak of 50-51 to 63-64:

6x Hart
6x Ross
5x Rocket
8x AS-1
goal finishes: 1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-5-6-8
assist finishes: 1-1-1-3-3-3-3-3-4-4-4-4-4-9
point finishes: 1-1-1-1-1-1-2-3-4-4-5-5-5
6x led playoffs in scoring
3 Cups
The Smythe didnt exist, but he has at a minimum 2 (52 and 55, Cup and led playoffs in scoring)

Crosby would have to win the next 4 Harts, Ross and Rockets just to MATCH Howe's prime
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
The Gretzky vs. Orr thing is interesting. I can see cases both ways, but for me it sort of comes down to this:

Orr didn't transcend the game, in my opinion. Orr inherited the (Canadian) game, and was just way, way better at it than any other player. Gretzky, however, transcended the established game and played it on a completely different level. Before Gretzky, Gretzky wasn't possible. Gretzky invented Gretzky, and the game was forever changed (some traditionalists might argue it was changed for the worse, but that's a digression...).

To put it another way: Orr was a better passer and shooter, and a WAY better skater than anyone before him or in his time. In terms of established hockey skills -- the skills demonstrated by Hull, Howe, Shore, Morenz, Beliveau, et al. -- Orr represented the peak.

Gretzky, however, in no way, shape, or (esp.) form represented the peak of any established hockey skill or quality. His shot was weak, his skating average, his physical strength non-existent. He just approached the game in a completely different way to any North American player before him, using a completely unique skill-set, to achieve completely unimaginable results to dominate peers far more than any player before or since.

Of course, the Orr supporter can truthfully claim that Orr dominated at both-ends more than any soft, high-scoring forward, and this is true. But at the end of the day, Gretzky's plus/minus (5 on 5 result) in his prime and Orr's are almost exactly equal, so I don't really know that there's any advantage to Orr despite his superior defence. And on top of that, Gretzky laps Orr several times over in MVPs and doubles him in Stanley Cups.

Some of what you say I agree with, some not so much, for me its Orr as Best Defenceman All Time, Gretzky Greatest Center All Time. I was a teenager and an adult when Orr was playing so its not like I glommed onto, became fixated upon him during my earlier formative years, during childhood. That he was some kind of a Superman who could do no wrong. His game had flaws. He was prone to the odd mental mistake, breakdown and on occasion found himself in No Mans Land in gambling on a high risk move that didnt pan out, caught way out of position as a result, no way to get back in time to prevent the turnover. His temper at times as well, he had a long fuse most of the time but when he did lose it, he really lost it. Now, to many thats endearing, a quality you want in a player, certainly back in the day & that he'd sort out whomever himself however.... there were numerous occasions when it would have been considerably more advantageous to the team had he held his horses, checked his anger. But, hey, he's only human, we all are.

I've got to disagree with you in your suggestions that Orr was a superior passer, shooter & skater than Gretzky. From the perspective of the ideal or proto-typical then yes, Orr was superior in those departments however Gretzky did what worked for Gretzky, so to compare & then state empirically that Orr was superior based on a set of criteria that cannot be applied to Wayne Gretzky muddies the waters. For those who never saw him play, they would be mistakenly led to believe that Gretzky was weak in those areas, wanting, when in fact his skating, stickhandling, passing & skills reflected, were the perfect extension, all of one with his vision. It was precisely his odd skating stride, agility, light on his feet & lightness of being that allowed him to dance around players like a Ghost, like smoke. His passing, that was superior to Orr's, he was Center for Gods sake so he wouldve passed probably on a ratio in comparison to even an offensive Defenceman of what, 100 or more to 50 in any given game? They could both thread the smallest of needles but because Gretzky was a Center his portfolio considerably larger. As for shooting, I'd call that a draw, advantage Gretzky on the Deke & Backhand. As a Center, called upon much more to use it so of course he would be more adroit, practiced.

Before Gretzky, there were in fact outliers who were similar though not as complete, not quite the same Artist as was Wayne Gretzky. The game was changing dramatically through the late 60's, through the 70's & 80's. He like Orr at the minor hockey level encouraged to re-think their respective positions, to cast off the shackles of the prescribed dogma yet both had one skate in the past. Appreciated the history of the game, made a study of the games greatest players, made a study of their opponents one on one, collectively. Temporal visualization before game, in-game. You think it it's done. Nothing haphazard about what they were doing. Kept their heads in a sea of seemingly random acts & confusion. They themselves the calms within a storm. Grab the game by the neck & shake it. Non-hostile take over. Orr however did at times engage in extreme hostilities so yes, certainly from that perspective much more in the mold of the proto-typical rough & tumble that was not only expected but demanded of players back in the day. Big Bad Bruins built that way. His generation, those that proceeded it much more of "we". The Code. Strictly adhered to & enforced. Through the 70's & beyond it's been whittled away, big heap of shavings on the ground & the game has IMHO suffered as a result but I digress....

But... leads into your final comment, that people considered Gretzky "soft".... and yes indeed they did, that he might last 10 games in the NHL or whatever before being carried off on a Gurney. Skating was supposedly "suspect". Too light. No grit.... absolute rubbish of course. To have the confidence to pull off what he was pulling off took a tonne of grit, guts, bravery though he wouldnt have looked at it that way. Never even considered that it did. That he was one move away from being laid out because in his mind he was already 2 moves ahead of his opponents man to man, collectively. Bobby Orr, same thing. He wasnt huge, he wasnt a bruiser. Clean player. The best always are. Even Maurice Richard. He was clean however in the face of constant provocation during the earlier in which he played, well, guys gotta do what he's gotta do & if the Bell rung you answered it. The 50's, 40's & 30's, 1920's as seen through the prisms of the late 60's, 70's, 80's & today, different. They did things different back then and ya, I would be concerned for Wayne Gretzkys health & well being if he were to be sent back in time whole, as is or was. Head Hunters. Bounty's put on him & no holds barred. Orr on the other hand, no worries whatsoever in that department but honestly who cares as its entirely hypothetical, what actually happened, real history for more interesting.

Bottom line, I dont really care who anyone thinks is the Greatest Player of All Time. If someone thinks Bobby Hull is the Greatest, Howe, Orr, Gretzky.... I dont criticize, argue about it. Instead I appreciate & respect that persons opinion & share in their enthusiasm for whichever player it is they themselves feel is the "Greatest Ever" because you know what? A case can be made for them, be it Bobby Hull at #1 or whomever over an Orr or a Gretzky. There have been just so many Greats. So instead, I rank them by position. Best Center, Best Right Winger, Left, Best Defenceman, Best Goalie. Simply wont empirically state that Orr or Gretzky is the Greatest Player of All Time as to my mind their not; Greatest Defenceman, Greatest Center yes.....

Always got a kick out of the Gretzky detractors, even back in the day before he ever stepped foot on the ice with the Nats in Toronto, let alone the WHA, NHL. Clearly a Prodigy who if he did continue to play was about to turn the game on its head. Even to this day...

"Gretzky had it easy".... www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-butterfly-effect/ ....

... when in fact no, not so much, he was just that good, that brilliant that like Orr he made the difficult look easy. What your watching, what we saw of Orr & Gretzky wasnt so much the physical play of these players as a mind in action, the wheels turning, the intangibles, the subtleties, nuances, the patience. Calm. Whats more, both would have no problem taking apart todays players & goalies. None. Zero.
 
Last edited:

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
Bizarre that anyone would put Crosby's 09/10 season on a tier with his 15/16 season.
Crosby finishing third in hart voting was a travesty. The very least he should have been second. I wonder how many points Crosby and ovechkin would have scored that season if they had a twin brother on their line
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,176
926
Crosby finishing third in hart voting was a travesty. The very least he should have been second. I wonder how many points Crosby and ovechkin would have scored that season if they had a twin brother on their line

Henrik Sedin was a dominant even strength scorer that year, even as his twin missed 1/4 of the season.

ES point leaders from the 1996-97 season onwards:

PlayerYearES Points
McDavid201884
H Sedin201083
Jagr199982
Leclair199781
Lemieux199779
Jagr200178
Selanne199776
Ovechkin200875
Malkin201275
Ovechkin201073
Forsberg200373
Bure200072
Thornton200672
Crosby201072
Stamkos201272
Jagr200671
McDavid201871
Malkin200970
Kane201669
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Until McDavid showed up, it was the best ES point scoring performance in a 20 year span. It was higher than a slew of superstarts in a higher scoring 1997 season, 10 more than Ovechkin ever scored, and 11 more than Crosby ever scored. It's higher than the 3rd best ES point total of Mario Lemieux's career.

Henrik Sedin was pretty good in 2010.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Crosby finishing third in hart voting was a travesty. The very least he should have been second. I wonder how many points Crosby and ovechkin would have scored that season if they had a twin brother on their line

The funny thing is, MJ got it backwards. He thinks Crosby's 09/10 is a lot better than 15/16 because of goals.

As for your point, regardless of Hart voting, it was a very solid season, one that could arguably be moved up a tier but is where it is as it did not win him an Art, Hart or Lindsay.
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
Henrik Sedin was a dominant even strength scorer that year, even as his twin missed 1/4 of the season.

ES point leaders from the 1996-97 season onwards:

PlayerYearES Points
McDavid201884
H Sedin201083
Jagr199982
Leclair199781
Lemieux199779
Jagr200178
Selanne199776
Ovechkin200875
Malkin201275
Ovechkin201073
Forsberg200373
Bure200072
Thornton200672
Crosby201072
Stamkos201272
Jagr200671
McDavid201871
Malkin200970
Kane201669
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Until McDavid showed up, it was the best ES point scoring performance in a 20 year span. It was higher than a slew of superstarts in a higher scoring 1997 season, 10 more than Ovechkin ever scored, and 11 more than Crosby ever scored. It's higher than the 3rd best ES point total of Mario Lemieux's career.

Henrik Sedin was pretty good in 2010.
Didn't Henrik only score 18 points in 18 games without his brother? Obv good but still. I watched Crosby drag a team where malkin missed 15 games and wasn't dominant. And drag an old guerin and dupuis
Crosby had all the hart criteria that year.

Points
Goals
Highest % of points for his team
Biggest point Gap between teammates
Hell he was even 8/10 in the shootout.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Some of what you say I agree with, some not so much, for me its Orr as Best Defenceman All Time, Gretzky Greatest Center All Time. I was a teenager and an adult when Orr was playing so its not like I glommed onto, became fixated upon him during my earlier formative years, during childhood. That he was some kind of a Superman who could do no wrong. His game had flaws. He was prone to the odd mental mistake, breakdown and on occasion found himself in No Mans Land in gambling on a high risk move that didnt pan out, caught way out of position as a result, no way to get back in time to prevent the turnover. His temper at times as well, he had a long fuse most of the time but when he did lose it, he really lost it. Now, to many thats endearing, a quality you want in a player, certainly back in the day & that he'd sort out whomever himself however.... there were numerous occasions when it would have been considerably more advantageous to the team had he held his horses, checked his anger. But, hey, he's only human, we all are.

I've got to disagree with you in your suggestions that Orr was a superior passer, shooter & skater than Gretzky. From the perspective of the ideal or proto-typical then yes, Orr was superior in those departments however Gretzky did what worked for Gretzky, so to compare & then state empirically that Orr was superior based on a set of criteria that cannot be applied to Wayne Gretzky muddies the waters. For those who never saw him play, they would be mistakenly led to believe that Gretzky was weak in those areas, wanting, when in fact his skating, stickhandling, passing & skills reflected, were the perfect extension, all of one with his vision. It was precisely his odd skating stride, agility, light on his feet & lightness of being that allowed him to dance around players like a Ghost, like smoke. His passing, that was superior to Orr's, he was Center for Gods sake so he wouldve passed probably on a ratio in comparison to even an offensive Defenceman of what, 100 or more to 50 in any given game? They could both thread the smallest of needles but because Gretzky was a Center his portfolio considerably larger. As for shooting, I'd call that a draw, advantage Gretzky on the Deke & Backhand. As a Center, called upon much more to use it so of course he would be more adroit, practiced.

Before Gretzky, there were in fact outliers who were similar though not as complete, not quite the same Artist as was Wayne Gretzky. The game was changing dramatically through the late 60's, through the 70's & 80's. He like Orr at the minor hockey level encouraged to re-think their respective positions, to cast off the shackles of the prescribed dogma yet both had one skate in the past. Appreciated the history of the game, made a study of the games greatest players, made a study of their opponents one on one, collectively. Temporal visualization before game, in-game. You think it it's done. Nothing haphazard about what they were doing. Kept their heads in a sea of seemingly random acts & confusion. They themselves the calms within a storm. Grab the game by the neck & shake it. Non-hostile take over. Orr however did at times engage in extreme hostilities so yes, certainly from that perspective much more in the mold of the proto-typical rough & tumble that was not only expected but demanded of players back in the day. Big Bad Bruins built that way. His generation, those that proceeded it much more of "we". The Code. Strictly adhered to & enforced. Through the 70's & beyond it's been whittled away, big heap of shavings on the ground & the game has IMHO suffered as a result but I digress....

But... leads into your final comment, that people considered Gretzky "soft".... and yes indeed they did, that he might last 10 games in the NHL or whatever before being carried off on a Gurney. Skating was supposedly "suspect". Too light. No grit.... absolute rubbish of course. To have the confidence to pull off what he was pulling off took a tonne of grit, guts, bravery though he wouldnt have looked at it that way. Never even considered that it did. That he was one move away from being laid out because in his mind he was already 2 moves ahead of his opponents man to man, collectively. Bobby Orr, same thing. He wasnt huge, he wasnt a bruiser. Clean player. The best always are. Even Maurice Richard. He was clean however in the face of constant provocation during the earlier in which he played, well, guys gotta do what he's gotta do & if the Bell rung you answered it. The 50's, 40's & 30's, 1920's as seen through the prisms of the late 60's, 70's, 80's & today, different. They did things different back then and ya, I would be concerned for Wayne Gretzkys health & well being if he were to be sent back in time whole, as is or was. Head Hunters. Bounty's put on him & no holds barred. Orr on the other hand, no worries whatsoever in that department but honestly who cares as its entirely hypothetical, what actually happened, real history for more interesting.

Bottom line, I dont really care who anyone thinks is the Greatest Player of All Time. If someone thinks Bobby Hull is the Greatest, Howe, Orr, Gretzky.... I dont criticize, argue about it. Instead I appreciate & respect that persons opinion & share in their enthusiasm for whichever player it is they themselves feel is the "Greatest Ever" because you know what? A case can be made for them, be it Bobby Hull at #1 or whomever over an Orr or a Gretzky. There have been just so many Greats. So instead, I rank them by position. Best Center, Best Right Winger, Left, Best Defenceman, Best Goalie. Simply wont empirically state that Orr or Gretzky is the Greatest Player of All Time as to my mind their not; Greatest Defenceman, Greatest Center yes.....

Always got a kick out of the Gretzky detractors, even back in the day before he ever stepped foot on the ice with the Nats in Toronto, let alone the WHA, NHL. Clearly a Prodigy who if he did continue to play was about to turn the game on its head. Even to this day...

"Gretzky had it easy".... www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-butterfly-effect/ ....

... when in fact no, not so much, he was just that good, that brilliant that like Orr he made the difficult look easy. What your watching, what we saw of Orr & Gretzky wasnt so much the physical play of these players as a mind in action, the wheels turning, the intangibles, the subtleties, nuances, the patience. Calm. Whats more, both would have no problem taking apart todays players & goalies. None. Zero.

The only thing I can comment on here is the gap between yourself and The Panthers take on Gretzky's shot.

Panther describes it as weak, you have it comparable to Orr's.

From what I recall, Gretzky's shot was definitely not weak. Like everything else he did with the puck, he had total control of his shot. Rarely high or wide. Pinpoint. And not weak.

That said, not as good as Orr's shot. One of the few shooters I've seen who could shoot low and hard. Much more of an advantage against the stand-up keepers of his day. But he could also bring it high and hard.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Crosby finishing third in hart voting was a travesty. The very least he should have been second. I wonder how many points Crosby and ovechkin would have scored that season if they had a twin brother on their line

Well, Sedin was a +35, Crosby a +15. And he outscored Crosby. Hardly a travesty that he finished ahead of Sid.

How about Orr finishing 3rd for the Hart in a season where he wins the scoring title and is +80.
 
Last edited:

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
Well, Sedin was a+35, Crosby a +15. And he outscored Crosby. Hardly a travesty that he finished ahead of Sid.

How about Orr finishing 3rd for the Hart in a season where he wins the scoring title and is +80.
Yeah there are some iffy hart picks. Look no further than 88-89. I don't care the circumstances. If you scorer 199 points you are the MVP of the league.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Some of what you say I agree with, some not so much, for me its Orr as Best Defenceman All Time, Gretzky Greatest Center All Time. I was a teenager and an adult when Orr was playing so its not like I glommed onto, became fixated upon him during my earlier formative years, during childhood. That he was some kind of a Superman who could do no wrong. His game had flaws. He was prone to the odd mental mistake, breakdown and on occasion found himself in No Mans Land in gambling on a high risk move that didnt pan out, caught way out of position as a result, no way to get back in time to prevent the turnover. His temper at times as well, he had a long fuse most of the time but when he did lose it, he really lost it. Now, to many thats endearing, a quality you want in a player, certainly back in the day & that he'd sort out whomever himself however.... there were numerous occasions when it would have been considerably more advantageous to the team had he held his horses, checked his anger. But, hey, he's only human, we all are.

I've got to disagree with you in your suggestions that Orr was a superior passer, shooter & skater than Gretzky. From the perspective of the ideal or proto-typical then yes, Orr was superior in those departments however Gretzky did what worked for Gretzky, so to compare & then state empirically that Orr was superior based on a set of criteria that cannot be applied to Wayne Gretzky muddies the waters. For those who never saw him play, they would be mistakenly led to believe that Gretzky was weak in those areas, wanting, when in fact his skating, stickhandling, passing & skills reflected, were the perfect extension, all of one with his vision. It was precisely his odd skating stride, agility, light on his feet & lightness of being that allowed him to dance around players like a Ghost, like smoke. His passing, that was superior to Orr's, he was Center for Gods sake so he wouldve passed probably on a ratio in comparison to even an offensive Defenceman of what, 100 or more to 50 in any given game? They could both thread the smallest of needles but because Gretzky was a Center his portfolio considerably larger. As for shooting, I'd call that a draw, advantage Gretzky on the Deke & Backhand. As a Center, called upon much more to use it so of course he would be more adroit, practiced.

Before Gretzky, there were in fact outliers who were similar though not as complete, not quite the same Artist as was Wayne Gretzky. The game was changing dramatically through the late 60's, through the 70's & 80's. He like Orr at the minor hockey level encouraged to re-think their respective positions, to cast off the shackles of the prescribed dogma yet both had one skate in the past. Appreciated the history of the game, made a study of the games greatest players, made a study of their opponents one on one, collectively. Temporal visualization before game, in-game. You think it it's done. Nothing haphazard about what they were doing. Kept their heads in a sea of seemingly random acts & confusion. They themselves the calms within a storm. Grab the game by the neck & shake it. Non-hostile take over. Orr however did at times engage in extreme hostilities so yes, certainly from that perspective much more in the mold of the proto-typical rough & tumble that was not only expected but demanded of players back in the day. Big Bad Bruins built that way. His generation, those that proceeded it much more of "we". The Code. Strictly adhered to & enforced. Through the 70's & beyond it's been whittled away, big heap of shavings on the ground & the game has IMHO suffered as a result but I digress....

But... leads into your final comment, that people considered Gretzky "soft".... and yes indeed they did, that he might last 10 games in the NHL or whatever before being carried off on a Gurney. Skating was supposedly "suspect". Too light. No grit.... absolute rubbish of course. To have the confidence to pull off what he was pulling off took a tonne of grit, guts, bravery though he wouldnt have looked at it that way. Never even considered that it did. That he was one move away from being laid out because in his mind he was already 2 moves ahead of his opponents man to man, collectively. Bobby Orr, same thing. He wasnt huge, he wasnt a bruiser. Clean player. The best always are. Even Maurice Richard. He was clean however in the face of constant provocation during the earlier in which he played, well, guys gotta do what he's gotta do & if the Bell rung you answered it. The 50's, 40's & 30's, 1920's as seen through the prisms of the late 60's, 70's, 80's & today, different. They did things different back then and ya, I would be concerned for Wayne Gretzkys health & well being if he were to be sent back in time whole, as is or was. Head Hunters. Bounty's put on him & no holds barred. Orr on the other hand, no worries whatsoever in that department but honestly who cares as its entirely hypothetical, what actually happened, real history for more interesting.

Bottom line, I dont really care who anyone thinks is the Greatest Player of All Time. If someone thinks Bobby Hull is the Greatest, Howe, Orr, Gretzky.... I dont criticize, argue about it. Instead I appreciate & respect that persons opinion & share in their enthusiasm for whichever player it is they themselves feel is the "Greatest Ever" because you know what? A case can be made for them, be it Bobby Hull at #1 or whomever over an Orr or a Gretzky. There have been just so many Greats. So instead, I rank them by position. Best Center, Best Right Winger, Left, Best Defenceman, Best Goalie. Simply wont empirically state that Orr or Gretzky is the Greatest Player of All Time as to my mind their not; Greatest Defenceman, Greatest Center yes.....

Always got a kick out of the Gretzky detractors, even back in the day before he ever stepped foot on the ice with the Nats in Toronto, let alone the WHA, NHL. Clearly a Prodigy who if he did continue to play was about to turn the game on its head. Even to this day...

"Gretzky had it easy".... www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-butterfly-effect/ ....

... when in fact no, not so much, he was just that good, that brilliant that like Orr he made the difficult look easy. What your watching, what we saw of Orr & Gretzky wasnt so much the physical play of these players as a mind in action, the wheels turning, the intangibles, the subtleties, nuances, the patience. Calm. Whats more, both would have no problem taking apart todays players & goalies. None. Zero.
Awesome post, Killion. Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say that Orr was a "better" passer or shooter than Gretzky. I was trying to say that Orr was better in the sense of taking all the pre-existing hockey attributes that were already recognized as hockey attributes and being the best at them (and esp. at skating).

That is, I wasn't comparing Orr to Gretzky -- I was comparing him to all the players who preceded him and who played with him. (Of course, his slapshot wasn't as lethal as Bobby Hull's, but that's because he was a defenceman.) I was trying to say that in the "evolution" of hockey players from 1800s to the late-1960s, Orr represented the physical peak of that evolution.

Gretzky, by contrast, did not. The scale on which he was great was completely outside the box of what had previously made hockey players great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
This is pretty much it.

That Crosby has a track record of being elite from Day 1 of his career (12 seasons) and is only 30 gives him an outside chance of attaining the two criteria that could potentially exceed Howe's. In terms of longevity, there obviously is a difference between simply playing for a long time like Jagr did and playing and still being a Top 5-10 player like Howe did. I would also differentiate longevity and longevity of prime. Howe obviously had varying degrees of eliteness out of his "20 years of Top 5 scoring" from blowing the field away to finishing in 5th and obviously Crosby has multiple seasons that were better than some of those 20 seasons.

For the sake of argument, we'll say that it becomes debatable whether Crosby's best season and Howe's 4th or 5th best would rate higher. If Crosby continues to add elite seasons that would fit into Howe's Top 10 best seasons would there not be some point where we can say Crosby has exceeded Howe in longevity of prime (or whatever you want to call it)? The argument would be "Sure, Howe has the best 3 or 4 seasons but then Crosby has more seasons in the Top 1o to 15 between them".

Crosby ending up with more seasons than Howe in a top 10 of their combined seasons is practically impossible at this point. He'd need to return to peak form for multiple seasons in order to come up with 6 years that eclipse Howe's 5th-best season. Owning at least an 8-7 advantage if we expand to 15 seasons is only slightly less daunting. Crosby would need to produce several more seasons stronger than a season in which Howe won the Hart Trophy. Unless he does a Barry Bonds, this is not happening.

It can also be argued that comparing two round totals with four round totals makes Wayne and Mario look worse. Statistically it doesn't make sense to compare 2 rounds to 4 rounds straight up.

I think it's obvious that Wayne, Mario and Orr had playoff runs befitting their regular season performances; ones that were inarguably clearly separate from their immediate peers. I think it's obvious that Howe's best playoff run did not necessarily stand out against his immediate peers, or even can viewed as having the best playoff run of his era. Belliveau in '56, Geofrion in '57, Mikita in '62 all have pretty cases to be arguably better on raw numbers and PPG alone and, moreso when linemates/teammates are factored in. Howe's best was only one point better than Lindsay in '55; the others were clearly separate from the next best on their team. Malkin has the better playoff run if the 50% more points over his nearest non-linemate given it was done over four rounds rather than two. And what about Esposito in '68? He is almost 100% better given the # of games he played.

So what's more reasonable to say?

Howe's playoff best stacks up well against Mario's, Wayne's and Orr's best but so does Belliveau's, Mikita's, Malkin's Esposito's and Geoffrion's?

Or he has one of the best non- Mario, Wayne and Orr playoff runs with multiple other players?

Howe's best playoff did not have the advantage of torching a weak defensive opponent, nor did he rack up points in losing efforts. 1955 Leafs had a GAA of less than 2.00, Detroit dispatched them in the minimum number of games, Howe with 8 points in 4 games. Howe then had 11 points in the 4 wins over a very strong Montreal team (1 point in the 3 losses).

All the others you list either got one series or more against bad defensive teams, failed to win the Stanley Cup, or in some cases both. So indeed, I have no problem saying Howe's 1955 playoffs stacks up well against Wayne, Mario, Orr.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Crosby ending up with more seasons than Howe in a top 10 of their combined seasons is practically impossible at this point. He'd need to return to peak form for multiple seasons in order to come up with 6 years that eclipse Howe's 5th-best season. Owning at least an 8-7 advantage if we expand to 15 seasons is only slightly less daunting. Crosby would need to produce several more seasons stronger than a season in which Howe won the Hart Trophy. Unless he does a Barry Bonds, this is not happening.

As a reminder, I am not arguing that there is a chance that he does this, whether its good or very minimal, I am arguing that Crosby has shown by age 30, a longevity to his prime, a prime that sees him challenging for the best player in the league, that is arguably only bettered by Wayne and Howe. And that this could be viewed as the most legitimate claim a player could have to possibly unseat a member of the Big Four, actually only Mario, moreso than having a superior playoff resume.

To the first bolded part, he just had a regular season last year that could have been a Top 10 - 15 if he didn't miss 6 games at the start of the season and it is not unreasonable to put his two partial seasons into appropriate context; ones that would challenge for best season by a non-Big 4 player, and ones that arguably get close to Howe's 3rd or even 2nd best season (as do others). Unless he returns to his regular season peak, he will never have a regular season that challenges Howe's three best but it's very debatable that his prime so far more than matches Howe's prime outside of that on a pound for pound basis.

The second bolded part, I would suggest we leave Hart Trophy wins and nominations out of the discussion to a certain extent. Howe's 53/54 season would drop down considerably based on his 4th place in Hart voting and Crosby's '16 Smythe would have to be moved up to join, IMO, superior playoff runs.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Howe's best playoff did not have the advantage of torching a weak defensive opponent, nor did he rack up points in losing efforts. 1955 Leafs had a GAA of less than 2.00, Detroit dispatched them in the minimum number of games, Howe with 8 points in 4 games. Howe then had 11 points in the 4 wins over a very strong Montreal team (1 point in the 3 losses).

All the others you list either got one series or more against bad defensive teams, failed to win the Stanley Cup, or in some cases both. So indeed, I have no problem saying Howe's 1955 playoffs stacks up well against Wayne, Mario, Orr.

Now you are getting into hypothetical scenarios of "Put Howe on the 2009 Pens instead of Crosby" or "put the Pens up against the 1954/55 Leafs and Habs". I can easily counter with "Put Howe's linemates on Crosby's line". And listing a GAA is lacking in context on two fronts: it in no way reflects how that team played defensively in the actual playoffs and a raw GAA from one era should not be compared with a raw GAA from another straight up; they should be measured against their direct peers.

Here are the facts

The Pens, the #8 seed, played the #9, #4, #11, and #3 seeds in 2009 out of a 30 team league. The Wings, #1 seed, played the #2 and #3 seeds. The Wings were the defending champs, the Pens had to play the defending champs. In theory, the #2 seed in '55 would have been seeded in the #6 to #10 range, the #3 seed in ' 55 would have been seeded in the #11 to #15 range. An argument that the '55 Habs were more elite than the #6 team in '09 needs to be tempered with the fact the '55 Leafs may not have been a playoff team in '09, let alone close to a #11 seed.

From a seeding standpoint, it should be a wash in terms of the strength of teams they played; if anything it could be argued the Pens had to play two #1 seeds (including the era's best team) and two #3 seeds vs. the Wings playing a #2 and a #3.

As for actual defensive performance, the '55 Leafs had the highest GA in the playoffs, and the Habs had the 2nd best. The '09 Flyers had the 5th worst GA after round 1, the equivalent of being 2nd worst in '55, the '09 Caps had the 7th best GA after Round 2, the equivalent of being 2nd best in '55, the '09 Hurricanes had the 6th worst GA after Round 3, the equivalent of being 3rd best in '55, and the '09 Wings had the best GA after Round 4, the equivalent of being the best in '55.

Based on that, it seems to be a wash in terms of the relative defensive strengths based on actual playoff performances.

I can appreciate the narrative around Howe's '55 performance but from a strictly statistical standpoint, they are very close and cannot see why one would be on a tier above the other besides the expectation that Howe should have the unquestioned best playoff run his era given his regular season resume. It clearly takes some spin to try to establish this while for the other Big 3, it is clear as day that they were above their peers.

The narrative around Crosby's '09 performance is he, along with Malkin, carried the Pens to the Cup as a duo in a manner that is among the best of the last 30 years against the team that is viewed as the best of the post lockout era. I think you would be challenged to find a team that had two players, from different lines, that provided as much of their team's offense as they did.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,585
Crosby ending up with more seasons than Howe in a top 10 of their combined seasons is practically impossible at this point. He'd need to return to peak form for multiple seasons in order to come up with 6 years that eclipse Howe's 5th-best season. Owning at least an 8-7 advantage if we expand to 15 seasons is only slightly less daunting. Crosby would need to produce several more seasons stronger than a season in which Howe won the Hart Trophy. Unless he does a Barry Bonds, this is not happening.

Considering how consistent Crosby has been since day 1 - if there's one player in the NHL who I would say is most likely to do a Barry Bonds, it's him. Consistency doesn't always go hand in hand with longevity of course - but without consistency longevity is almost meaningless.

So I wouldn't put it past Crosby to have a Barry Bonds like second half.

As to the rest - even if Crosby ended up up 8-7 on Howe in terms of top 15 seasons between the 2 - it wouldn't move the needle enough in the Crosby vs Howe all time ranking if Howe has the top 3-4 seasons of those 15. It would have to be like 9-6 or even 10-5 to counter Howe having the top 3-4 seasons imo. Peak counts for a lot.
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,176
926
Well, Sedin was a +35, Crosby a +15. And he outscored Crosby. Hardly a travesty that he finished ahead of Sid.

How about Orr finishing 3rd for the Hart in a season where he wins the scoring title and is +80.

Yeah, that was terrible.

The problem with some great seasons is that other people might have the nerve to have great seasons too.

Like Bobby Clarke. 116 points and +79 are smaller numbers, but there is value in being on the ice for 19 minuses, and being a stellar penalty killer on a team who's success is predicated on a style that surrenders powerplays than everyone else. Clarke was seen as key to Philadelphia's first Cup over Boston the year before, when they also became the first expansion team to win a playoff series against an original the previous year.

Or Gretzky who transformed the Kings, both on and off the ice, from a team that won 2 playoff games in 5 years into contenders. He scored without playing huge minutes with members of the Nicholls-Robitaille-Taylor line, and a coach who frequently solved his lineup dilemmas by shoving the most recent New Haven callups on Gretzky's line, be it Kudelski, McDonough, or Walker. He was no Bobby Clarke, but he also played a large role in improving a horrid PK unit. And if it makes you feel better Gretzky's won a scoring race by more points than Lemieux did here while still finishing second in Hart voting.

Considering how consistent Crosby has been since day 1 - if there's one player in the NHL who I would say is most likely to do a Barry Bonds, it's him. Consistency doesn't always go hand in hand with longevity of course - but without consistency longevity is almost meaningless.

So I wouldn't put it past Crosby to have a Barry Bonds like second half.

As to the rest - even if Crosby ended up up 8-7 on Howe in terms of top 15 seasons between the 2 - it wouldn't move the needle enough in the Crosby vs Howe all time ranking if Howe has the top 3-4 seasons of those 15. It would have to be like 9-6 or even 10-5 to counter Howe having the top 3-4 seasons imo. Peak counts for a lot.

Barry Bonds had a late career peak that may have been assisted by the cream and/or the clear. The late career peak blew away his early peak.

That would be what is needed, as Crosby doesn't really have a first peak that matches up to Howe. What he's done up to now isn't good enough. If you made an ES point chart for Howe similar to the one above for Crosby, Howe's best would be the best. Period. While he was consistent, Howe's best wouldn't be behind the best of a Henrik Sedin, and certainly not by such a wide margin.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,585
Barry Bonds had a late career peak that may have been assisted by the cream and/or the clear. The late career peak blew away his early peak.

That would be what is needed, as Crosby doesn't really have a first peak that matches up to Howe. What he's done up to now isn't good enough. If you made an ES point chart for Howe similar to the one above for Crosby, Howe's best would be the best. Period. While he was consistent, Howe's best wouldn't be behind the best of a Henrik Sedin, and certainly not by such a wide margin.

Are you saying Crosby was behind Henrid Sedin by "such a wide margin" or did you formulate your sentence wrong? Because the year Henrik won the ross wasn't Crosby 3 points behind, while also winning the Rocket. So i'm not sure if you meant it that way or not, but if so i don't get it....?

Also - I get that it's not very attractive for someone like Sidney Crosby (who many want to call a top 5 player of all time) to lose scoring titles to guys like Sedin or Benn (are either even a top 200 player of all time?). But i'd argue a few things to counter the importance of that:

1. Outside of Gretzky and Mario - no one in the history of the NHL managed to dominate the field with as much ease or as often offensively. Not Howe, not Crosby, nor anyone in between.

2. Howe lost scoring records to many players in his prime too. And not just Beliveau, Hull and Mikita. Many other "lesser" players - players comparable to Benn/Sedin topped him. How is that different than Crosby?

3. There are "more" Sedin/Benn type players in the NHL today than there were in the 50s and 60s. ie a high caliber player like Crosby is more susceptible to be competing against a lesser player's "career year" on a yearly basis. (Sedin, Benn, Kane stand out as recent examples). This is true simply by sheer volume of more star players in a 30 team league than there were in a 6 team league.

4. Henrik Sedin's 2010 season is usually regarded as a "very strong" season. Just because a "lesser player" had a "very strong" season doesn't mean it has to make someone like Crosby look all that bad. I never hear anyone saying "Yzerman is horrible - he's Bernie Nichols level of career player" just because Bernie Nichols paced him with 150 points in 89. No - Bernie Nichols just had a very very strong carer year. Why can't it be the same here with Crosby and Sedin in 2010
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Are you saying Crosby was behind Henrid Sedin by "such a wide margin" or did you formulate your sentence wrong? Because the year Henrik won the ross wasn't Crosby 3 points behind, while also winning the Rocket. So i'm not sure if you meant it that way or not, but if so i don't get it....?

Also - I get that it's not very attractive for someone like Sidney Crosby (who many want to call a top 5 player of all time) to lose scoring titles to guys like Sedin or Benn (are either even a top 200 player of all time?). But i'd argue a few things to counter the importance of that:

1. Outside of Gretzky and Mario - no one in the history of the NHL managed to dominate the field with as much ease or as often offensively. Not Howe, not Crosby, nor anyone in between.

2. Howe lost scoring records to many players in his prime too. And not just Beliveau, Hull and Mikita. Many other "lesser" players - players comparable to Benn/Sedin topped him. How is that different than Crosby?

3. There are "more" Sedin/Benn type players in the NHL today than there were in the 50s and 60s. ie a high caliber player like Crosby is more susceptible to be competing against a lesser player's "career year" on a yearly basis. (Sedin, Benn, Kane stand out as recent examples). This is true simply by sheer volume of more star players in a 30 team league than there were in a 6 team league.

4. Henrik Sedin's 2010 season is usually regarded as a "very strong" season. Just because a "lesser player" had a "very strong" season doesn't mean it has to make someone like Crosby look all that bad. I never hear anyone saying "Yzerman is horrible - he's Bernie Nichols level of career player" just because Bernie Nichols paced him with 150 points in 89. No - Bernie Nichols just had a very very strong carer year. Why can't it be the same here with Crosby and Sedin in 2010

Disagree. In a 31 team league you have at least 31 players put into "Team Star" roles. Does not mean you have at least 31 league star players.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->