First 14 Seasons: Crosby vs. Howe

[daver]

So this time Daver ignores the differences between the "long shift game" and "short shift game" when trying to compare Howe and Crosby.

How would say affect their respective performances in comparison to their direct peers? Both have similar PPG dominance, why would shift length change this?

 

[Canadiens1958]

You wouldn't consider 1951 to be "demonstrably better than his peers"? Howe scored a then-record 86 points, far more than runner-up Maurice Richard's 66. Or 1952, when he tied his own record with 86 points, and the closest non-teammate was Elmer Lach with 65? Or even 1954, when he scored 81 points, far more than Maurice Richard's 67?

That's four straight seasons where Howe:

• established the single-season record for points twice, tied it another time (it's true that he had the advantage of playing a longer schedule than previous generations, but the early fifties were very low-scoring overall)
• nobody (other than his linemate) scored more than 67 points in any one season (that's the equivalent of Howe scoring 127, 115, 115, and 109 points, when nobody else scores more than 90 in any of those seasons)
• he was regarded as a strong two-way player (and his closest peer, Maurice Richard, wasn't)
• he had almost twice as many Hart votes as the next two closest players combined during that span (and in the fifties, there wasn't the nearly-automatic "Art Ross = Hart trophy" like we have nowadays)

Now, it's true that some players soon approached and surpassed Howe's scoring total. That's because the NHL becoming higher-scoring pretty quickly after Howe's peak. When Howe scored a then-record 95 points in 1953, there were only about 4.80 goals per game. When Moore scored a then-record 96 points six years later, scoring had jumped to about 5.80 goals per game. So Moore needed to play in a league that was 20% higher scoring to barely surpass Howe. (The adjusted stats on hockey-reference.com are flawed, but they show Howe has having four seasons better than Moore's).

Still Moore scored 96 points playing head-to- head offensively and defensively in 20% of his games against ...... Gordie Howe.

Crosby never faced such a challenge. Let Crosby figure out Patrice Bergeron before elevating him to Howe levels.

 

[VanIslander]

Crosby never faced such a challenge. Let Crosby figure out Patrice Bergeron before elevating him to Howe levels.

Indeed, Crosby's team has never won a playoff game against Boston.

Of course, beating Carolina, Tampa and Ottawa on the way to the finals is not exactly epic competition.

Today's NHL is a relatively diluted, weak era.

Imagine Crosby's Penguins having to play against 1990's star teams: Wings with Yzerman, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Shanahan, Bowman... Avs with Sakic, Forsberg, Blake, Roy.... Stars with Modano, Nieuwendyk, Hull, Lehtinen, Zubov, Belfour...

 

[Canadiens1958]

How would say affect their respective performances in comparison to their direct peers? Both have similar PPG dominance, why would shift length change this?

For one, the short shift game created zone starts. Previously players had to have the ability to start and play in all three zones.

Certain players see their point totals padded with the benefit of offensive zone starts. PPG does not reflect this.

 

[wetcoast]

During Howe's first 14 seasons:

Toronto dynasty (1947, 1948, 1949, 1951);

Montreal dynasty (1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960);

Howe "only" won four cups during that span.

EDIT: Twice during his first 14 seasons he led the playoffs in scoring in a losing effort and twice more against a Leafs dynasty in the 1960's.

Are we really going to count 49-50 as a SC Howe won though?

He played in a single game and his only contribution that can be found was an effort to after Teeder that ended in drastic fashion for Gordie.

Flashback: Mid-game accident left Gordie Howe close to death

We don't have a complete and totally accurate picture for Gordie Howe but there is strong evidence to suggest that he was playing Jagr type plus MPG in the late 60's which sheds light on 2 things.

One, which we already know, in that Gordie was an incredible physical speciman who had great strength and was a great athlete to play as long as he did.

The other was that part of his ability to finish top 5 in scoring so often was that he was given more ice time than some other stars both 5 on 5 and on the PP.

Take 1968-69 for instance.

Howe was on the ice for 134 GF Detroit scored 221 goals so he was on the ice for 61% of the goals the Wings scored. He was also on the ice for 35 of the teams 40 PPG

His center Delvecchio was on the ice for 123 GF Detroit and he was also on the ice for 28 of those 40 PPG

2 other stars of that season also had lower ratios, the most telling is Jean Beliveau who was on the ice for 102 of Montreal's 271 GF ((38%) and 28 of Montreal's 43 PPG

For Mikita it was 126 of Chicago's 280 GF and 39-56 for the PP.

Of course there is a difference in the makeup of each teams rosters but I would bet dollars to donuts that if we had Howe's TOI it would reveal that he played more than even the average elite player which in part goes to his scoring totals.

Of course the game speed of play in the NHL in that time period is also quite different and more receptive to any player playing longer MPG than post lockout.

There is no doubt that Howe belongs in the big 4 but we also have to acknowledge that simply comparing counting stats and placements between the 50's and post lockout are like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[VanIslander]

Howe's 1949 playoff leading 8 goals, 11 points in a losing cause against the dynasty Leafs - whose top scorer Kennedy had 2 goals, 6 assists - makes up for the games he lost in the 1950 playoffs, doesn't it?

 

[wetcoast]

Indeed, Crosby's team has never won a playoff game against Boston.

Of course, beating Carolina, Tampa and Ottawa on the way to the finals is not exactly epic competition.

Today's NHL is a relatively diluted, weak era.

Imagine Crosby's Penguins having to play against 1990's star teams: Wings with Yzerman, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Shanahan, Bowman... Avs with Sakic, Forsberg, Blake, Roy.... Stars with Modano, Nieuwendyk, Hull, Lehtinen, Zubov, Belfour...

Note the players in bold that were brought in and not developed by those teams.

Let's face it teams also had a lot more flexibility to trade for or acquire players before the salary cap.

And why just point to the teams that Pittsburgh played in the playoffs as some sort of measuring stick Crosby has stood out enormously against his peers in the playoffs during his first 14 years.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Gordie Howe not so much

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

And yes back to the today's NHL is diluted?

Really I guess it's diluted with all of those international and american stars that were just plain weak players in the 06 era right?

Once again an apples to oranges difference in the 2 eras that can't be dismissed by a simple throw comment that today's NHL is weak with very little to support that claim if any.

 

[wetcoast]

Howe's 1949 playoff leading 8 goals, 11 points in a losing cause against the dynasty Leafs - whose top scorer Kennedy had 2 goals, 6 assists - makes up for the games he lost in the 1950 playoffs, doesn't it?

I'm not saying that Howe's wasn't an elite playoff performer, he most certainly was.

But can one really count the 50 SC as one that Howe won?

I mean technically he did play the first game of the playoffs but the Red wings for all intensive purposes won the SC without him.

Zero chance that the Pens win any of their 3 SC with Crosby being injured in the first game of the playoffs.

We can at least agree on that right?

That fact doesn't diminish Howe as a player it just goes to point out that the NHL in 1950 was vastly different than in the post lockout era.

 

[daver]

For one, the short shift game created zone starts. Previously players had to have the ability to start and play in all three zones.

Certain players see their point totals padded with the benefit of offensive zone starts. PPG does not reflect this.

So does this apply to Crosby? If not, why bring it up?

 

[daver]

Howe's 1949 playoff leading 8 goals, 11 points in a losing cause against the dynasty Leafs - whose top scorer Kennedy had 2 goals, 6 assists - makes up for the games he lost in the 1950 playoffs, doesn't it?

So who had the better playoff resume through their first 14 seasons? Crosby or Howe?

 

[wetcoast]

If the positional case is going to be used to prop up Crosby defensively against Howe, it's worth noting that a winger in Howe's time had a lot more responsibility defensively than does a winger today.

Perhaps when comparing forward positions, defensive responsibility was more spread around in the 50s among forwards but the reality is that all forwards have increased responsibilities defensively across the board compared to the 50s.

Play in the 50s is less structured and more "sloppy" for lack of a better term than it is today.

Actually I think the term more "organic" and less influenced by outside factors of the ice like coaches, film sessions ect would be a better way to describe it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So does this apply to Crosby? If not, why bring it up?

Yes. All PPs start in the defensive zone during Crosby's career. Not so previously.

 

[wetcoast]

For one, the short shift game created zone starts. Previously players had to have the ability to start and play in all three zones.

Certain players see their point totals padded with the benefit of offensive zone starts. PPG does not reflect this.

This would be a much better post if we were talking about Malkin here instead of Crosby who is a 200 foot player.

 

[MadLuke]

Crosby was on a team that won the Stanley Cup going through such all-time great studded conference final opponents: Carolina, Tampa and Ottawa. Seriously.

Not sure that much of a relevant benchmark, if any team in any of the 3 others round is good that make up for it. It is true that it was not easy to win for a non Canadian team.

But during Howe 14 first season, the RedWings finished #1 in the league 8 time, 2 time #2 and won a cup without him being involved.

EDIT: Twice during his first 14 seasons he led the playoffs in scoring in a losing effort and twice more against a Leafs dynasty in the 1960's.

I think you skipped over 58-59, he led the playoff once in a loosing cause in 48-49 in that time frame.

 

[daver]

Yes. All PPs start in the defensive zone during Crosby's career. Not so previously.

Why can't you give a straight answer? I am guessing it's when you know your point has no relevance. Correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why can't you give a straight answer? I am guessing it's when you know your point has no relevance. Correct me if I am mistaken.

You are mistaken.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes. All PPs start in the defensive zone during Crosby's career. Not so previously.

I don't think that looking at the PP is going to help any argument that Crosby had it easier, in fact the evidence points in the other direction.

Not that the PP was as relevant in the NHL during Howe's 14 years but he most likely was on the ice for a higher % both at ES and on the PP of the time to score points than Crosby was.

That reflects the difference in the 2 eras somewhat more than anything else.

 

[Hobnobs]

I'm not saying that Howe's wasn't an elite playoff performer, he most certainly was.

But can one really count the 50 SC as one that Howe won?

I mean technically he did play the first game of the playoffs but the Red wings for all intensive purposes won the SC without him.

Zero chance that the Pens win any of their 3 SC with Crosby being injured in the first game of the playoffs.

We can at least agree on that right?

That fact doesn't diminish Howe as a player it just goes to point out that the NHL in 1950 was vastly different than in the post lockout era.

It should be noted though that when Wings won that cup without Howe it was against the Rangers who had a cinderella run to the finals against all odds. The season before and after that they were out of the playoffs again. Wings were almost eliminated in the first round by the leafs.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I mean, what in the hell does Crosby have, as a hockey player over Howe? Vision and play making ability? Sure, I can get behind that. As great as Sid's work ethic and dedication to hockey is, Howe was certainly his equal there. Howe was durable despite playing a ridiculously heavy game. He was an elite goal scorer at his peak (to be fair so was Sid, just not as long). While Crosby gets the #1 D and checking C most nights, as Howe did surely, Howe struck fear in opponents in a more rounded way than Sid does IMO.

Howe was just such a beast. He's the 2nd most individually dominant, all around player in history (Orr is my #1).

 

[wetcoast]

It should be noted though that when Wings won that cup without Howe it was against the Rangers who had a cinderella run to the finals against all odds. The season before and after that they were out of the playoffs again. Wings were almost eliminated in the first round by the leafs.

I was going to bring up the fact that the NYR were a rather weak SC finalist but I think that would have been a bit of a cheap shot.

They did get by the Leafs who were the defending SC champs at the time though as you note.

 

[Hobnobs]

I was going to bring up the fact that the NYR were a rather weak SC finalist but I think that would have been a bit of a cheap shot.

They did get by the Leafs who were the defending SC champs at the time though as you note.

Yea but Wings were lucky that leafs and Broda fell apart in game 6 and that Lumley played lights out. With Howe gone Wings lacked fire power and were out scored by the leafs even though Wings won the series.

 

[MadLuke]

I was going to bring up the fact that the NYR were a rather weak SC finalist but I think that would have been a bit of a cheap shot.

They did get by the Leafs who were the defending SC champs at the time though as you note.

Considering Howe did not play a game against them, why would it be a cheap shot ? It sound like some confirmation bias into which every fact tend to be turned has a negative against Howe.

Howe having nothing to do with that Stanley Cup cannot get more negative than that. It is arguably a plus if the Wings would have went and won against Toronto and Montreal without Howe it would play more against him than them winning against the Rangers no ?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I mean, what in the hell does Crosby have, as a hockey player over Howe? Vision and play making ability?

I don't like this thread. But if you're looking for an attribute here, earnestly, which I think you are...Crosby is a better skater than Howe was as well. Howe still comfortably wins the thread, of course, but even adjusting for equipment Crosby has better feet. Howe wasn't anything particularly noteworthy in the skating department for his time in my opinion...no clumsy oaf or anything, surely, but he wasn't one of the technical best or fastest to my eye...

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't like this thread. But if you're looking for an attribute here, earnestly, which I think you are...Crosby is a better skater than Howe was as well. Howe still comfortably wins the thread, of course, but even adjusting for equipment Crosby has better feet. Howe wasn't anything particularly noteworthy in the skating department for his time in my opinion...no clumsy oaf or anything, surely, but he wasn't one of the technical best or fastest to my eye...

Howe was a very efficient skater. No wasted movement or show skating. Excellent on ice geometry.

 

[MadLuke]

Yes. All PPs start in the defensive zone during Crosby's career. Not so previously.

And rules about the red line, numbers of game in a year, how goaltenders played the pucks, a lot of change, considering how much how they fared against their peers is used to compare the 2 and that the power play difference was the same for both group of peers it is really not obvious why it would matter.

The PP lasted the complete 2 minutes for some of Howe career, Crosby played all is career in a goal stop the powerplay league, what would we do with that information ? I think it is not trivial at all what it is the point and require some explanation.