Big 4: 2 Questions

[JackSlater]

Crosby's last two rounds are against two of the Top four teams in a 30 team league. Howe's two rounds are against two of the top four teams in a six team league. That simply is not a fair comparison.

Crosby's 31 points is the 2nd best of era, Howe's is the best of that 13 season period by one point. I don't see how you can say that it was anything other than very close, the same with their overall playoff resumes.

I'm pretty confident that the fourth overall team in a six team league of all the best Canadians is stronger than the fourth best team in recent times when league talent has been divided among 30 teams, and even then it isn't as if the strongest teams always make it to the conference finals anyway. Crosby has had good playoff runs, no question. He is a viable contender for best overall playoff performer in this era (just like he is for overall player in the same time frame) but that isn't enough to overtake Howe in the playoffs, for the reasons already given.

For roughly the tenth time, Crosby shouldn't be compared to Howe anyway. It makes him look bad. He should be compared to players that he has a chance of overtaking.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm pretty confident that the fourth overall team in a six team league of all the best Canadians is stronger than the fourth best team in recent times when league talent has been divided among 30 teams, and even then it isn't as if the strongest teams always make it to the conference finals anyway. Crosby has had good playoff runs, no question. He is a viable contender for best overall playoff performer in this era (just like he is for overall player in the same time frame) but that isn't enough to overtake Howe in the playoffs, for the reasons already given.

For roughly the tenth time, Crosby shouldn't be compared to Howe anyway. It makes him look bad. He should be compared to players that he has a chance of overtaking.

this.

people that discount the league when it was "only 6 teams" ignore the fact that each of those six teams were basically all star teams and had multiple HOF'ers each.

Imagine the league today if the talent was compressed to only 6 teams. You're talking about 4th lines with the likes of Pastrnak, Toews, Laine and 3rd pairings with guys like Chara, Weber, Subban.

Look at say, 1960...there were 6 teams and 5 of them started a HOF goalie (Hall, Bower, Plante, Sawchuk, Worsley)

 

[JackSlater]

this.

people that discount the league when it was "only 6 teams" ignore the fact that each of those six teams were basically all star teams and had multiple HOF'ers each.

Imagine the league today if the talent was compressed to only 6 teams. You're talking about 4th lines with the likes of Pastrnak, Toews, Laine and 3rd pairings with guys like Chara, Weber, Subban.

Look at say, 1960...there were 6 teams and 5 of them started a HOF goalie (Hall, Bower, Plante, Sawchuk, Worsley)

I'm not going to say that the O6 era was as loaded as things would be today in a six team league, but yeah those playoff teams were strong. I would comfortably take the playoff teams in that era over the final four playoff teams in pretty much any year in this decade.

 

[daver]

I'm pretty confident that the fourth overall team in a six team league of all the best Canadians is stronger than the fourth best team in recent times when league talent has been divided among 30 teams, and even then it isn't as if the strongest teams always make it to the conference finals anyway. Crosby has had good playoff runs, no question. He is a viable contender for best overall playoff performer in this era (just like he is for overall player in the same time frame) but that isn't enough to overtake Howe in the playoffs, for the reasons already given.

Are we just talking about their first 13 years here? I think Crosby has the clear edge in playoff resumes.

As to your first point, it seems unfair to introduce something that cannot be proven statistically. If that's going to keep you from having an objective discussion about their respective statistical achievements, then there is no reason to continue on.

 

[daver]

this.

people that discount the league when it was "only 6 teams" ignore the fact that each of those six teams were basically all star teams and had multiple HOF'ers each.

Imagine the league today if the talent was compressed to only 6 teams. You're talking about 4th lines with the likes of Pastrnak, Toews, Laine and 3rd pairings with guys like Chara, Weber, Subban.

Look at say, 1960...there were 6 teams and 5 of them started a HOF goalie (Hall, Bower, Plante, Sawchuk, Worsley)

How was I discounting anything? I was simply applying common sense to try to compare a 2 Round playoff run to a 4 round playoff run.

 

[daver]

For roughly the tenth time, Crosby shouldn't be compared to Howe anyway. It makes him look bad. He should be compared to players that he has a chance of overtaking.

If you don't like the topic of the thread, I suggest you not read it. Crosby is young enough, arguably was close enough to Howe in his peak (depending on how you view his peak), and has similar if not more playoff success than Howe after 13 seasons, that it is not 100% inconceivable he could get into the Big 4 conversation. At a minimum, a longer, and better extension of his prime than Howe and an extension of his playoff resume is needed to even broach the subject.

If we can comfortably say that Crosby was better than Howe and Wayne were at the same age or after the same amount of seasons, should that not have some leverage? It's what puts Howe ahead of Orr and even Wayne, in some people's eyes. It also puts him ahead of Mario despite the majority feeling Mario had the higher peak.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No, I didn't imply that. Howe certainly put in strong performances in the playoffs in the 7 years he went to the finals in his first 10 seasons.

I was just stating that Crosby's performances (in the playoffs in the 4 years he has gone to the finals) appear to be somewhat stronger.

Obviously it's more difficult to get to the finals in Crosby's era, so I don't think we can hold it against him that he's only gone to 4 versus 7 for Howe in their first 13 seasons.

I think it's a slight advantage to Crosby in these 13 seasons, for playoffs.

Fair enough, though I disagree that Crosby's runs to the final were "somewhat stronger" than Howe's age 30 and under finals runs (again with the caveat that Howe has one where he was a secondary player early in his career). I think it's pretty close either way. Where I think Howe has the overall advantage is in the non-Cup years. Crosby has a string of weak to middling performances in between his Cups. Other than Boston in 53, Howe and the Red Wings don't really have any other "what the hell happened?" losses.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fair enough, though I disagree that Crosby's runs to the final were "somewhat stronger" than Howe's age 30 and under finals runs (again with the caveat that Howe has one where he was a secondary player early in his career). I think it's pretty close either way. Where I think Howe has the overall advantage is in the non-Cup years. Crosby has a string of weak to middling performances in between his Cups. Other than Boston in 53, Howe and the Red Wings don't really have any other "what the hell happened?" losses.

Also Boston 1957, 3rd place team upset the first place Wings in the semis.

This also addresses the difficulty question - two series or four series.

1953 and 1957 Bruins were structured to play the Red Wings and the Canadiens. Rather successful. 4 series playoff. Rarely possible to structure a team for a specific opposing team.

Simply longer never means harder.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Question for those of you who remember the 1950s:

Howe was clearly the NHL's best scorer when he was in his early 20s.

But when Beliveau (just 3 years younger than Howe) entered the NHL, he seemed to have surpassed Howe as the league's best scorer for many years. In the 7 years from '54-'55 to '60-'61, Beliveau outscored Howe by a significant margin overall, and individually in 5 of the 7 seasons. Howe was aged 26 to 33 during these years (and Beliveau 23 to 30), so both should have been in the primes of their careers.

I realize that Beliveau had great linemates (and other teammates) during these years. But was Beliveau generally considered as good as Howe during this period - or better?

And this is why I will never consider Howe to be a "better player" than Lemieux. No player in history is going to beat a healthy 26-31 year old Lemieux. Especially not 5 times in 7 years sans Gretzky. Heck a 26-31 year old Gretzky had found a peer in Lemieux .

Lemieux would dominate believeau quite easily.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

When is the last time Crosby was considered the best player in the world?

Um going into 17-18 there was a damn good case he was the best player. It was a toss up between him and McDavid.

 

[Staniowski]

And this is why I will never consider Howe to be a "better player" than Lemieux. No player in history is going to beat a healthy 26-31 year old Lemieux. Especially not 5 times in 7 years sans Gretzky. Heck a 26-31 year old Gretzky had found a peer in Lemieux .

Lemieux would dominate believeau quite easily.

Idk, maybe. But Beliveau was a great, great player. Howe and Beliveau played in the NHL together for almost 20 years, and for about half of those years Howe outscored Beliveau, and for about half, vice versa.

 

[K Fleur]

Fair enough, though I disagree that Crosby's runs to the final were "somewhat stronger" than Howe's age 30 and under finals runs (again with the caveat that Howe has one where he was a secondary player early in his career). I think it's pretty close either way. Where I think Howe has the overall advantage is in the non-Cup years. Crosby has a string of weak to middling performances in between his Cups. Other than Boston in 53, Howe and the Red Wings don't really have any other "what the hell happened?" losses.

Within a four team playoff where every team is strong wouldn’t that mean that a “what the hell happened” loss is much less likely to occur just based on the environment?

 

[JackSlater]

Are we just talking about their first 13 years here? I think Crosby has the clear edge in playoff resumes.

As to your first point, it seems unfair to introduce something that cannot be proven statistically. If that's going to keep you from having an objective discussion about their respective statistical achievements, then there is no reason to continue on.

This is a comparison of players who played a half century apart. Nothing is going to be proven using statistics. Claims can be made but that's it. As for your claim about objectivity, I did get a good laugh. It's very obvious who in this thread has a horse in the race and who doesn't. Since you seem to regard context, at least when it doesn't favour Crosby, an un-objective it should be clear who that is.

If you don't like the topic of the thread, I suggest you not read it. Crosby is young enough, arguably was close enough to Howe in his peak (depending on how you view his peak), and has similar if not more playoff success than Howe after 13 seasons, that it is not 100% inconceivable he could get into the Big 4 conversation. At a minimum, a longer, and better extension of his prime than Howe and an extension of his playoff resume is needed to even broach the subject.

If we can comfortably say that Crosby was better than Howe and Wayne were at the same age or after the same amount of seasons, should that not have some leverage? It's what puts Howe ahead of Orr and even Wayne, in some people's eyes. It also puts him ahead of Mario despite the majority feeling Mario had the higher peak.

I understand what the topic is, and since it isn't "elevate Crosby to a level at which he doesn't belong" I will continue stating that the comparison is a bad one for Crosby. Crosby is behind Howe at the age of 30. Howe also has arguably the greatest post-30 career ever. The comparison is never going to favour Crosby. Crosby should be compared with people he can actually pass, not Howe/Lemieux/Gretzky/Orr. The question in the OP was easily answered numerous times already - no player has a good case.

 

[Canadiens1958]

And this is why I will never consider Howe to be a "better player" than Lemieux. No player in history is going to beat a healthy 26-31 year old Lemieux. Especially not 5 times in 7 years sans Gretzky. Heck a 26-31 year old Gretzky had found a peer in Lemieux .

Lemieux would dominate believeau quite easily.

Spelling aside, whose team would win the greater number of games or championships? Lemieux's or Beliveau's?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Spelling aside, whose team would win the greater number of games or championships? Lemieux's or Beliveau's?

To be fair, it's hard to say.Béliveau had the tremendous advantage of spending almost his entire career playing with Henri Richard backing him at center.

Imagine Mario Lemieux with Henri Richard as the #2 center.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

To be fair, it's hard to say.Béliveau had the tremendous advantage of spending almost his entire career playing with Henri Richard backing him at center.

Imagine Mario Lemieux with Henri Richard as the #2 center.

funny enough, given the debate that sprang up in this thread, you can say the same thing about Crosby with Malkin.

to your question, he didnt have a Richard at 2C, but Beliveau didnt have a winger like Jagr

 

[BenchBrawl]

funny enough, given the debate that sprang up in this thread, you can say the same thing about Crosby with Malkin.

to your question, he didnt have a Richard at 2C, but Beliveau didnt have a winger like Jagr

While Jagr was a great ES player, so he has that in common with Henri, he's not the all-around player that Henri was.For a high PP-scoring center like Lemieux and Beliveau, it is much better to be backed by an all around ES center than a unidimensional scoring winger IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

To be fair, it's hard to say.Béliveau had the tremendous advantage of spending almost his entire career playing with Henri Richard backing him at center.

Imagine Mario Lemieux with Henri Richard as the #2 center.

Fair point. Mario Lemieux had Ron Francis and Bryan Trottier. Arguably the Penguins do not win the SC in 1991 and 1992 without Francis.

Beliveau and Henri Richard,let's not forget Ralph Backstrom who joined the team in 1958.

But what happened post 1992? Was the center workload and responsibility shared like it was on the Canadiens or was there a shift favouring Mario Lemieux?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Within a four team playoff where every team is strong wouldn’t that mean that a “what the hell happened” loss is much less likely to occur just based on the environment?

Potentially, but the 1st place team (Detroit had a long string of 1st place finishes) losing to the 3rd or 4th place team would and did qualify as a "whoops" in some years. Detroit never blew a 3-1 series lead or endured a sweep where they scored only 2 goals. Not a perfect run like the Habs in the second half of the decade, but 4 Cups out of 6 is tough to criticize.

Also Boston 1957, 3rd place team upset the first place Wings in the semis.

This also addresses the difficulty question - two series or four series.

1953 and 1957 Bruins were structured to play the Red Wings and the Canadiens. Rather successful. 4 series playoff. Rarely possible to structure a team for a specific opposing team.

Simply longer never means harder.

The 57 Bruins were only 8 points behind Detroit though. I can't comment on the sentiment going into the series; was this considered a big upset at the time? As opposed to 53 where the gap was much larger.

Should point out 51 as well. Montreal was actually way behind Detroit that year, upsetting them in the first round. Still, Montreal went to 10 straight finals starting with this one and had the Rocket in his prime.

 

[K Fleur]

Potentially, but the 1st place team (Detroit had a long string of 1st place finishes) losing to the 3rd or 4th place team would and did qualify as a "whoops" in some years.

My point is that “what the hell happened” upsets at least seem to be more likely to occur in a 30 team league with 4 round playoff than in a 6 team league with a 2 round playoff. Someone could statistically let me know if I’m wrong, just going off my gut.

I mean hell just off the top of my head... Since the 05 lockout we have seen 4 Presidents’ trophy teams lose in the first round, another 3 lost in the 2nd round. From 2010-2014 we sawtwo teams come back from 0-3 deficits to win their series when that had happened twice ever in the history of the NHL previously.

Detroit never blew a 3-1 series lead or endured a sweep where they scored only 2 goals. Not a perfect run like the Habs in the second half of the decade, but 4 Cups out of 6 is tough to criticize.

Obviously these are not good series in Crosby’s resume. It would seem now they are starting to look more like the answers to fun trivia questions as opposed to a real representation of his playoff legacy. Anecdotes.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Potentially, but the 1st place team (Detroit had a long string of 1st place finishes) losing to the 3rd or 4th place team would and did qualify as a "whoops" in some years. Detroit never blew a 3-1 series lead or endured a sweep where they scored only 2 goals. Not a perfect run like the Habs in the second half of the decade, but 4 Cups out of 6 is tough to criticize.



The 57 Bruins were only 8 points behind Detroit though. I can't comment on the sentiment going into the series; was this considered a big upset at the time? As opposed to 53 where the gap was much larger.

Should point out 51 as well. Montreal was actually way behind Detroit that year, upsetting them in the first round. Still, Montreal went to 10 straight finals starting with this one and had the Rocket in his prime.

After 1953 it had an again aspect to it especially since Boston had a midseason AHL call-up - Don Simmons as their goalie.

1951 is interesting.Maurice Richard scored OT goals in games 1 & 2 in Detroit against a rookie Terry Sawchuk.

Key point is that a team could not hide a weakness during the playoffs in the O6 era.

 

[daver]

Fair enough, though I disagree that Crosby's runs to the final were "somewhat stronger" than Howe's age 30 and under finals runs (again with the caveat that Howe has one where he was a secondary player early in his career). I think it's pretty close either way. Where I think Howe has the overall advantage is in the non-Cup years. Crosby has a string of weak to middling performances in between his Cups. Other than Boston in 53, Howe and the Red Wings don't really have any other "what the hell happened?" losses.

Where is the caveat that Crosby has multiple more Art Rosses and Harts if not for unlucky injuries? Either let the numbers speak for themselves or we apply reasonable context to everyone.

If Crosby had completed just the two seasons where he had significant leads (2011 and 2013) would we not be talking about him being pretty much assured #5 at this point by age 30? And would that not make a "What could he do to possibly join the Big 4?" conversation not that unpalatable?

Instead, we get a list of raw point finishes with no context and a condescending attitude of "don't even bother making a comparison".

 

[Canadiens1958]

My point is that “what the hell happened” upsets at least seem to be more likely to occur in a 30 team league with 4 round playoff than in a 6 team league with a 2 round playoff. Someone could statistically let me know if I’m wrong, just going off my gut.

I mean hell just off the top of my head... Since the 05 lockout we have seen 4 Presidents’ trophy teams lose in the first round, another 3 lost in the 2nd round. From 2010-2014 we sawtwo teams come back from 0-3 deficits to win their series when that had happened twice ever in the history of the NHL previously.



Obviously these are not good series in Crosby’s resume. It would seem now they are starting to look more like the answers to fun trivia questions as opposed to a real representation of his playoff legacy. Anecdotes.

Well, between 1956 and 1967 six of the twelve first place finishers in the O6 NHL lost in the semi-finals or the first round.

Granted you had a 1-3, 2-4 format for the first round, during the O6 era so finishing first was not rewarded the way it is lately.

 

[K Fleur]

Well, between 1956 and 1967 six of the twelve first place finishers in the O6 NHL lost in the semi-finals or the first round.

Granted you had a 1-3, 2-4 format for the first round, during the O6 era so finishing first was not rewarded the way it is lately.

Should any of these be considered as “what the hell happened losses? Or more the product of a strong league?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And this is why I will never consider Howe to be a "better player" than Lemieux. No player in history is going to beat a healthy 26-31 year old Lemieux. Especially not 5 times in 7 years sans Gretzky. Heck a 26-31 year old Gretzky had found a peer in Lemieux .

Lemieux would dominate believeau quite easily.

Beat him at what?

Scoring points? Winning games? Beat him up?