Big 4: 2 Questions

[K Fleur]

you tell that to bob holly

That speaks to a lack of understanding of how truly great Gordie Howe was. I blame the NHL, and or hockey media for that more than anything. Too much of a focus on Howe's nicknames(Mr. Hockey, Elbows, Howe Hat Trick etc.) and him playing forever, not enough on how dominant he was. How Howe is portrayed makes him almost out to be some kind of caricature of "old time hockey". Easily the most disrespected of the big four.

To me there is a small but clear edge for Howe over Orr at #2 all time.

 

[The Panther]

if i may present a sophie's choice, what would you guys rather believe: that mario undisputedly belongs in the same tier as orr, gretzky, and howe, or that crosby could be in the big four, thus bumping his boss?

I can't seriously believe knowledgeable posters are considering Crosby to approach the big four now or anytime in the future. Frankly, that's absurd. For me, Mario Lemieux is a clear #4 of that group, but still well ahead of any other player in history. And Crosby is way, way below Mario Lemieux. It's laughable to even make that comparison. I don't see Crosby finishing in the top-10 players all-time. I think that ship has sailed.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That speaks to a lack of understanding of how truly great Gordie Howe was. I blame the NHL, and or hockey media for that more than anything. Too much of a focus on Howe's nicknames(Mr. Hockey, Elbows, Howe Hat Trick etc.) and him playing forever, not enough on how dominant he was. How Howe is portrayed makes him almost out to be some kind of caricature of "old time hockey". Easily the most disrespected of the big four.

To me there is a small but clear edge for Howe over Orr at #2 all time.

i mean upthread he did in fact suggest that crosby has a shot at the top four.

but re: howe and lack of understanding, i'm going to repost something from i wrote about howe in another thread--

when i was a kid, i used to think howe was just some guy who played for five million years. for context, you need to understand a few things:

- that this was a time long before the internet so i can't just google his stats and see that he murdered the competition by almost 20 points a year between '51 and '54 in a very low scoring environment. hell, i can't even find out that he won all those art rosses and hart trophies. i literally think he's just an average player who happened to play into his 50s. (to be fair, i'm just eight years old and you get one sound byte per player in the scholastic kid's book on hockey: bobby orr's skating, bobby clarke's toughness, the rocket's red glare; howe's was how incredibly long he played.)

- that this is right when gretzky is overtaking him as the all-time scoring leader. and gretzky's 28 years old. so how good can this guy who played until he was 51 really be? (again, i'm just a kid with no access to the information so i don't know that he wasn't in the NHL between '72 and '79; i just know what i hear on HNIC so i think he retired then immediately changed his mind and came back to play with his sons; i don't know what the WHA is, or that there are two different record books.)

- that i'm just an 8, 9, 10, 11 year old kid who thinks everyone's stupid except me. it takes someone that young to think that it would never have occurred to anyone that the accumulated career stats of this guy who was just okay but played for 30-odd years aren't as impressive as stars who only played 10-15 years. it also takes someone with that much naïveté to never have it occur to him that there might be some crucial information or context that he's missing.

so anyway, jump forward a few years. i'm in fifth grade (we're in 1992 now) and we had a project in social studies about great canadians. you know, go to the public library, take out some books, give a report in front of the class about your great canadian. i don't remember who mine was, i want to say mackenzie king, but one kid got gordie howe. that was my omg gordie howe has a legit argument as the greatest ever moment.

 

[daver]

That there isn't a #5 is exactly why we get excited every time we think the Hockey Gods are about to give us one - and then comes the crushing disappointment that he's always broken or always moody or always outscored by his teammates when they win the Stanley Cup three times seriously how are you always being outscored by your teammates when you win you were supposed to be our #5 why does Phil Kessel outscore you in a four-round playoff Jaromir Jagr would never get outscored by Phil Kessel but you will are you kidding me.

I see we have added the "outscored by Phil Kessel" metric to the always credible "outscored by Jamie Benn" metric. I guess these have replaced the "outscored by Metro Prystai" metric and the "outscored by Dickie Moore" metric.

 

[daver]

IMO, Crosby, at best, could make it Big 5 by staying at the very top of the league for a period longer than Howe did (50/51 to 63/64) or with an overwhelmingly strong playoff resume. Looking at Howe post 63/64, IMO, Crosby doesn't necessarily need Top 5 scoring finishes to hang with Howe from a longevity perspective as there needs to be some consideration that a Top 5 finish in a 31 team league is considerably different than a Top 5 finish in a six team or 12 team league.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's very hard, I think, for us moderns to try to evaluate defensive players like Shore and Harvey from the distant past. It's easier with high-scoring players (at least, I suppose it is) because stats can be analyzed in quite a bit of depth. But how do we know how good Eddie Shore was? At some point, we have to trust the awards-record.

Perhaps if the awards record was our only resource for determining how they were held relative to each other, but there is as much evidence that Morenz was held in greater esteem - including accounts from players such as King Clancy and the media where in 1950 he was polled by The Canadian Press as being the best player of the first half of the 20th century. More than that, I don't think he can be defined by his awards record considering he had great seasons that predated the assignment of 1/2 Team All-Star selections.

 

[bobholly39]

you tell that to bob holly

I didn't say Crosby will break into the big 4. I just said it's possible. Doesn't mean it's a strong possibility - because it's not.

If someone from the future came here from the future to tell you an active player will be seen as a top 4 player all time 20 years from now - isn't Crosby the most likely one? That's all I'm saying

Malkin could too. He could win the Ross this year and the next 5 too.

Crosby is in the tier below the big 4 with a bunch of other players. If anyone has a chance it's him since he's the only active player still in that tier.

I think Crosbys most realistic ceiling is a very strong case for #5 all time.

 

[bobholly39]

I can't seriously believe knowledgeable posters are considering Crosby to approach the big four now or anytime in the future. Frankly, that's absurd. For me, Mario Lemieux is a clear #4 of that group, but still well ahead of any other player in history. And Crosby is way, way below Mario Lemieux. It's laughable to even make that comparison. I don't see Crosby finishing in the top-10 players all-time. I think that ship has sailed.

It's a bit tricky to rank Crosby all time since he's active and with almost half his career left.

But based on previous discussions on this section around Crosby it seems that a large number of posters (majority even I would say) *already* consider him a top 10 player all time as of today.

 

[Thenameless]

Crosby is in the tier below the big 4 with a bunch of other players. If anyone has a chance it's him since he's the only active player still in that tier.

I think Crosbys most realistic ceiling is a very strong case for #5 all time.

Possibly #5 with a strong finish. But he'll never get close to the Big 4. I rate more heavily on peak performance/ability, and he just isn't as good as those 4 - not even close.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If someone from the future came here from the future to tell you an active player will be seen as a top 4 player all time 20 years from now - isn't Crosby the most likely one? That's all I'm saying

I think we've all seen enough of Sidney Crosby to know he's not as good as Mario Lemieux. I'm pretty sure McDavid isn't going to be as good as Mario Lemieux either, but he would be my guess just because of the time factor.

But just as we've seen more Morenzes come along than Shores, at a certain point, we're going to be littering our top-20 with all-offense-and-nothing-else players from the last 50 years (Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, McDavid, Jagr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Lafleur, Esposito) while ignoring that we get exceptional goaltenders and exceptional defensemen and exceptional forwards with full toolboxes far less often than we do these all-offense-and-nothing-else players.

So unless we're talking Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, we're talking about 7 guys who are about as good as each other who fulfill the same role but are largely distinguished by varying levels of health and longevity. I don't know why one of those guys should be #5 over literally every goaltender in history and every defenseman or complete player that are not Orr and Howe, because the all-offense-and-nothing-else forward has been a-dime-a-dozen since expansion and the 7 contenders in this time frame are a clear step down from the highest potential within their role.

 

[bobholly39]

I think we've all seen enough of Sidney Crosby to know he's not as good as Mario Lemieux. I'm pretty sure McDavid isn't going to be as good as Mario Lemieux either, but he would be my guess just because of the time factor.

But just as we've seen more Morenzes come along than Shores, at a certain point, we're going to be littering our top-20 with all-offense-and-nothing-else players from the last 50 years (Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, McDavid, Jagr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Lafleur, Esposito) while ignoring that we get exceptional goaltenders and exceptional defensemen and exceptional forwards with full toolboxes far less often than we do these all-offense-and-nothing-else players.

So unless we're talking Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, we're talking about 7 guys who are about as good as each other who fulfill the same role but are largely distinguished by varying levels of health and longevity. I don't know why one of those guys should be #5 over literally every goaltender in history and every defenseman or complete player that are not Orr and Howe, because the all-offense-and-nothing-else forward has been a-dime-a-dozen since expansion and the 7 contenders in this time frame are a clear step down from the highest potential within their role.

I understand what you're saying but i also think it's fine as is.

When you're a kid growing up and if you're very talented at hockey - most of the time you score goals? You don't play defense because it's slower/less rewarding. You can play goalie - but typically the better/faster skaters and the one with good stick handling go for offense. And if you're really good at offense - often they put you at center.

I'm certainly making a few assumptions as i never did play hockey growing up but i think what i'm saying makes sense. I think it's a result of society.

If you were to rank the top 100 players from 1980 and on - there's going to be a dis-proportionally high number of centers there.

If playing defense was more fun/rewarding/attractive - Sidney Crosby and Connor McDavid may have played defense as kids. Heck Lemieux and Gretzky too. It's not like you're born with an ability to play one position over another.

So yeah - it's not all that surprising that most of the top prospects and players are offensively minded players, and more often than not, centers. If at the end of their careers there's a legitimate case to argue that Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, McDavid, Jagr, Gretzky and Lemieux are better than every single goalie who ever played and also better than every single pre-1950 player that ever played - I think it would be just as wrong to try to exclude them just to "spread the wealth" around and ensure there are goalies at the top, and players from every era.

Finally as to your first sentence. I agree - 20 years in the future McDavid or Crosby are good answers. But that's all I was saying earlier in this thread. I wasn't saying Crosby has a good chance at the big 4. I'm just saying that out of every player alive today he's the only one with a chance (unless we talk about McDavid whose barely 3 seasons in). But yes - 99.9% odds Crosby doesn't break up the big 4.

 

[Thenameless]

I don't know why one of those guys should be #5 over literally every goaltender in history and every defenseman or complete player that are not Orr and Howe, because the all-offense-and-nothing-else forward has been a-dime-a-dozen since expansion and the 7 contenders in this time frame are a clear step down from the highest potential within their role.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but I think the trend will continue. I think most hockey fans, experts, etc as a whole tend to think of the "best" or "most skilled" players as the "all-offense types". If you grouped the best all-around guys like Bergeron, Kopitar, and Toews (early career) against the pure offense types like Crosby, Malkin, and McDavid, the latter group would be considered more skilled. And because of modern metrics and contract situations, players with offensive ability will tend to play a more offensive game in order to keep their value high. The part where I disagree is the bolded. The crème-de-la-crème of offense only players are still a rare breed and are highly sought after. Even a "not quite all-time elite talent" like Tavares wll have teams scrambling for his services this off-season. Of course, I hope the Habs get lucky and are somehow able to land him, LOL.

In short, it kind of makes sense that an all-time top 10 or 20 would be littered with offensive types. When we were kids picking teams for hockey, we always picked the best offensive guys first. The crappy ones were forced to play defense and goalie - not the best way of looking at things I know.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I understand what you're saying but i also think it's fine as is.

When you're a kid growing up and if you're very talented at hockey - most of the time you score goals? You don't play defense because it's slower/less rewarding. You can play goalie - but typically the better/faster skaters and the one with good stick handling go for offense. And if you're really good at offense - often they put you at center.

I'm certainly making a few assumptions as i never did play hockey growing up but i think what i'm saying makes sense. I think it's a result of society.

If you were to rank the top 100 players from 1980 and on - there's going to be a dis-proportionally high number of centers there.

If playing defense was more fun/rewarding/attractive - Sidney Crosby and Connor McDavid may have played defense as kids. Heck Lemieux and Gretzky too. It's not like you're born with an ability to play one position over another.

So yeah - it's not all that surprising that most of the top prospects and players are offensively minded players, and more often than not, centers. If at the end of their careers there's a legitimate case to argue that Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, McDavid, Jagr, Gretzky and Lemieux are better than every single goalie who ever played and also better than every single pre-1950 player that ever played - I think it would be just as wrong to try to exclude them just to "spread the wealth" around and ensure there are goalies at the top, and players from every era.

Finally as to your first sentence. I agree - 20 years in the future McDavid or Crosby are good answers. But that's all I was saying earlier in this thread. I wasn't saying Crosby has a good chance at the big 4. I'm just saying that out of every player alive today he's the only one with a chance (unless we talk about McDavid whose barely 3 seasons in). But yes - 99.9% odds Crosby doesn't break up the big 4.

Total nonsense. A low one digit minority of game time is spent scoring goals.Most of the game is spent playing without the puck. Biggest complaint about youth hockey is that players rarely touch the puck.

Practices are another issue, youngsters focus mainly on skating skills. Not always done properly.Too often the skill is taught and practiced without the puck. Ideally at practice every youngster should spend at least 15 minutes doing drills with a puck on his stick.

 

[JackSlater]

1. No player has a good argument for displacing any of Gretzky, Orr, Howe or Lemieux.

2. It's very hard to pinpoint when each player reached that rarefied air, but I do think that it tends to happen pretty early in a career. For Gretzky it's probably by his fourth year when he repeats his unprecedented domination of the field in scoring. Orr is probably 1970 when he probably has more on ice impact than any player ever has and completely alters what people think is possible for a defenceman. Lemieux is more difficult due to his injuries, but I'l say 1993 at the latest when he dominates the league despite tremendous obstacles, but I could see it being earlier with his two dominant cup runs. Howe is really hard to say. You could argue that it's 1954 after dominating scoring for four years or 1955 after the completion of Detroit's dynasty run, but I'm not so sure. At that point Howe is like a somewhat superior version of Guy Lafleur, which may be enough for the "Mount Rushmore" but might not. Longevity is a factor for Howe despite his great peak, and I don't know when it really demonstrates itself. Perhaps after the 1963 season when Howe won his sixth Art Ross and sixth Hart (12 years after first winning the former) and took Detroit to the finals yet again.

As for Crosby and the big four, it just isn't going to happen. His competition is Beliveau, Hull, Jagr and company. The only way that Crosby joins the big four is with a Barry Bonds-esque career arc, and that simply isn't natural. For a variety of reasons.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Perhaps if the awards record was our only resource for determining how they were held relative to each other, but there is as much evidence that Morenz was held in greater esteem - including accounts from players such as King Clancy and the media where in 1950 he was polled by The Canadian Press as being the best player of the first half of the 20th century. More than that, I don't think he can be defined by his awards record considering he had great seasons that predated the assignment of 1/2 Team All-Star selections.

Considering Eddie Shore was one of the most hated people in hockey history and Morenz was like a martyr, dying from a hockey related injury, I'd say that poll was a bit bias.

As for Morenz predating the all-star selections, so did Shore.

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Not going to say I'm the biggest expert here. But it seems like Orr could be argued against based on longevity. Players like Roy, Beliveau, Jagr lap him in that department. Do you win more titles with 9 Orr years or 18 Beliveau years?

 

[daver]

Here is a question: Is there anyone else besides the Big Four who you would pick for a playoff run. Richard? Roy? Belliveau?

Not saying this is a legitimate argument but just curious what people's thoughts are.

 

[bobholly39]

Not going to say I'm the biggest expert here. But it seems like Orr could be argued against based on longevity. Players like Roy, Beliveau, Jagr lap him in that department. Do you win more titles with 9 Orr years or 18 Beliveau years?

Lemieux, Orr and Gretzky are the 3 "best" players in hockey history. And I think it's by a significant gap.

Pick 9 random "strong" teams in NHL history who didn't win the cup. Now assign all 9 Orr years to 1 of those teams. How many of them win the cup?
Pick 18 random "strong" teams in NHL history who didn't win the cup. Now assign all 18 Beliveau years to 1 of those teams. How many of them win the cup?

In a vacuum - i'd argue Orr's teams win more cups. He's just more of a game changer.

 

[bobholly39]

Here is a question: Is there anyone else besides the Big Four who you would pick for a playoff run. Richard? Roy? Belliveau?

Not saying this is a legitimate argument but just curious what people's thoughts are.

The Big 4 had by far the greatest peaks in hockey history (Howe less so).

Patrick Roy can be argued as the greatest playoff performer of all time but would you honestly pass up the chance to have peak Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr on your team for Roy? I can't imagine picking anyone above those 3 at their best.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The Big 4 had by far the greatest peaks in hockey history (Howe less so).

Patrick Roy can be argued as the greatest playoff performer of all time but would you honestly pass up the chance to have peak Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr on your team for Roy? I can't imagine picking anyone above those 3 at their best.

Depends. Any really good goaltender playing out of their mind is going to offer as good or nearly as good of a chance as Patrick Roy in a single playoff, whereas other skaters' ceilings won't reach that of the big four. It's the nature of the position where you start out perfect and every subsequent action holds your position or takes you further from that perfect 0 GA start.

I'd still say it's the most essential individual position on a team of 20 - and certainly the great equalizer in hockey - but I wouldn't make a goaltender my top pick for a single playoff. Where Patrick Roy draws separation within the position is the frequency with which he played at that highest level, so if given my pick of a single player for 5, 10, or 15 playoff runs, it is then where I would take him, knowing that an individual performance from him in a good percentage of those runs will be maybe the best opportunity at multiple Stanley Cups.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Here is a question: Is there anyone else besides the Big Four who you would pick for a playoff run. Richard? Roy? Belliveau?

Not saying this is a legitimate argument but just curious what people's thoughts are.

could make a good argument for any of those three as the top pick after orr and gretzky. but goalies are a special case, of course.

 

[bobholly39]

Depends. Any really good goaltender playing out of their mind is going to offer as good or nearly as good of a chance as Patrick Roy in a single playoff, whereas other skaters' ceilings won't reach that of the big four. It's the nature of the position where you start out perfect and every subsequent action holds your position or takes you further from that perfect 0 GA start.

I'd still say it's the most essential individual position on a team of 20 - and certainly the great equalizer in hockey - but I wouldn't make a goaltender my top pick for a single playoff. Where Patrick Roy draws separation within the position is the frequency with which he played at that highest level, so if given my pick of a single player for 5, 10, or 15 playoff runs, it is then where I would take him, knowing that an individual performance from him in a good percentage of those runs will be maybe the best opportunity at multiple Stanley Cups.

I mean your argument pretty much boils down to a goalie being the most important position, and when a goalie has a shutout (even a 3rd rate goalie) there's nothing more impactful to victory then that. Which I agree with. But it doesn't change that if i'm going into the Stanley cup finals, I wouldn't pass up on Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux for Roy. There's something to be said about the level of peak they had. At their best they're quite beyond Roy and anyone else.

 

[blogofmike]

Lemieux, Orr and Gretzky are the 3 "best" players in hockey history. And I think it's by a significant gap.

Pick 9 random "strong" teams in NHL history who didn't win the cup. Now assign all 9 Orr years to 1 of those teams. How many of them win the cup?
Pick 18 random "strong" teams in NHL history who didn't win the cup. Now assign all 18 Beliveau years to 1 of those teams. How many of them win the cup?

In a vacuum - i'd argue Orr's teams win more cups. He's just more of a game changer.

I put Orr over Beliveau without thinking about it, but this actually makes me question that. Why use a playoff-centric argument? You could get different results in a new vote, but Beliveau was 9 spots ahead of Orr in the best playoff performers thread for a reason.

This scenario is more of a Beliveau > Orr argument given the consistency Le Gros Bill displayed in the playoffs, and the fact that Boston was often a favourite that underperformed. And no, that's not all based on 1971.

You get a dozen very good runs from Jean Beliveau (where he probably did swing things in a close series) while Orr's 8 full years were all over the map once April came.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I put Orr over Beliveau without thinking about it, but this actually makes me question that. Why use a playoff-centric argument? You could get different results in a new vote, but Beliveau was 9 spots ahead of Orr in the best playoff performers thread for a reason.

This scenario is more of a Beliveau > Orr argument given the consistency Le Gros Bill displayed in the playoffs, and the fact that Boston was often a favourite that underperformed. And no, that's not all based on 1971.

You get a dozen very good runs from Jean Beliveau (where he probably did swing things in a close series) while Orr's 8 full years were all over the map once April came.

In 8 full seasons Orr won 2 Conn Smythe trophies. So, 25% of the time he played in the playoffs he was the MVP.

As a defenseman, he had 92 points in 74 games. And he was +60.

Not quite all over the map.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lemieux, Orr and Gretzky are the 3 "best" players in hockey history. And I think it's by a significant gap.

Pick 9 random "strong" teams in NHL history who didn't win the cup. Now assign all 9 Orr years to 1 of those teams. How many of them win the cup?
Pick 18 random "strong" teams in NHL history who didn't win the cup. Now assign all 18 Beliveau years to 1 of those teams. How many of them win the cup?

In a vacuum - i'd argue Orr's teams win more cups. He's just more of a game changer.

As someone else stated earlier, you don't seem to understand how great Howe was. His scoring titles in the early 50s were by margins bested only by Gretzky.