Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

[streitz]

6 scoring titles and he played till he was 52, being top 5 in scoring a million times.


Really wish I could see some game footage of him in his prime in the 50's or even the 60's.

 

[Daximus]

6 scoring titles and he played till he was 52, being top 5 in scoring a million times.


Really wish I could see some game footage of him in his prime in the 50's or even the 60's.

By my count he finished top 3 in goals 14 times more than any other player by quite a bit.

 

[daver]

-You know, I enjoy reading posts like this. I really do. As for overrated being Crosby and Malkin, here are the post salary cap playoff win totals. You can add another 6 on to Pittsburgh

-I like separation. Its not just the fact Crosby and Malkin are the only 2 players in this entire era to average more then 1 point per game in the playoffs. Its not because they have won 3 Cups or more playoff rounds then anyone in this era by a landslide. Its the fact they are so far ahead of every other team on this list that is shaped like a mountain, it is enjoyable to look at. They have literally double dipped or more every team in the entire NHL except 6 teams.


-I will get a lot of joy if Sidney Crosby plays more playoff games then any other player NHL history. Ill also get a lot of joy when Crosby finishes #2 all time in playoff points.

-This thread was interesting to say the least.

Why on earth did you bump this thread to strictly talk about Crosby and Malkin?

 

[daver]

This always seems to hit a nerve with some but is it not inconceivable that Howe's peak offensive performance is not as untouchable as it is made out to be?

Statistically, he did have one season (52/53) that stands out from everyone else in hockey history save for Wayne, Mario and Orr. He had a four season stretch of greatness which is better than everyone else's save for Wayne and Orr.

But, since he did not repeat his 52/53 season again, in terms of % PPG dominance over the next 5 - 10 top scorers, and his other top Art Ross finishes are on par with the best seasons of others such as Jagr, Hull, Yzerman, Mikita and Belliveau, and his best playoff run was not necessarily the best of his era, is his peak, his absolute best he could play, that much higher than others? That perhaps his 52/53 was an anomaly and his other three seasons in his '51 to 54 stretch is representative of his peak?

For the record, I have him clearly on another level from everyone else and his consistency in both the RS and POs cements his peak i.e. even if someone matched his peak season, or four season peak, Howe's longevity of prime would set him apart.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Howe's consistency over the course of a ridiculously long career is astounding, from the age of 21 all the way up to 48 yrs old he never scored less than 23 goals, or had less than his 52 points. 41 years old ('68-69) he has his first 100 point season, 76-44-57-103, mid 40's in the WHA he gets a few more 100+ seasons and comes close two more times. Not bad for an old man. Overrated? I can't say because unfortunately I missed out on seeing him, besides his stats which are quite good, he's pretty much cited as an influence by most of the players I grew up watching and I'd like to think that matters from a different perspective.The unfortunate thing is that in 20 years Gretzky and Lemieux will get the same treatment players like Howe and Orr are getting now, their achievements and what they meant to the sport will be diminished and questioned.

 

[MXD]

I'm pretty positive there is only two "ways" to overrate Gordie Howe :

- Considering him "above" the other three members of the Big 4 (making it a Super Big 1 and a Big 3)
- Considering him the best of the Big 4 without using any qualifier (and I just can't see it vs. Gretzky).

 

[Cursed Lemon]

So, uh...

Anyone notice OP's username?

 

[solidmotion]

This always seems to hit a nerve with some but is it not inconceivable that Howe's peak offensive performance is not as untouchable as it is made out to be?

i think for a number of reasons—absurd longevity and consistency etc—that howe is a clear #4 and not overrated whatsoever. but i think as well that evaluating his peak is more difficult than his big fans have made it out to be.

he clearly dominated his peers over a 4 year period. but i don't think it's clear that his peers were that strong at that time. the only other really elite offensive talents at the time were lindsay and richard, and howe is clearly a level above them. but was the scoring environment so different between the early 50s and late 50s that you can't compare howe against the beliveau/bathgate/moore/etc cohort? i think howe still comes out ahead but it's much closer and i think possibly a more honest representation of his skills.

idk it sounds dumb but i think howe really benefits from the luck of being the only elite forward born between 1926 and 1930.

 

[daver]

i think for a number of reasons—absurd longevity and consistency etc—that howe is a clear #4 and not overrated whatsoever. but i think as well that evaluating his peak is more difficult than his big fans have made it out to be.

he clearly dominated his peers over a 4 year period. but i don't think it's clear that his peers were that strong at that time. the only other really elite offensive talents at the time were lindsay and richard, and howe is clearly a level above them. but was the scoring environment so different between the early 50s and late 50s that you can't compare howe against the beliveau/bathgate/moore/etc cohort? i think howe still comes out ahead but it's much closer and i think possibly a more honest representation of his skills.

idk it sounds dumb but i think howe really benefits from the luck of being the only elite forward born between 1926 and 1930.

Don't want to get into speculation. Mainly wanted to point out that Howe's has one season that stands apart from his other Art Ross winning seasons, and that shouldn't necessarily be conflated over four years. Yes, that season is statistically the 3rd best peak season for a forward, but he did not hit that level again, like Wayne, Orr and Mario did over multiple seasons.

I agree that perhaps a clear level above his peers is more representative of his offense, which is a clear level below Wayne and Mario offensively, at least statistically. It is tough to compare the two eras as scoring levels were so much higher that one has to wonder if it was easier for Wayne and Mario to separate themselves like they did.

I like to look at playoff performances as being a better way to compare players from different eras, especially when looking at the '80s and early '90s.

 

[Chili]

Curious...were/are 18 hour train rides overrated?

 

[Fantomas]

Use hockey-reference and look for the times Howe's name appears year-by-year in the key offensive categories: 1950-51 NHL Leaders | Hockey-Reference.com

You will realize that he was the game's best on many occasions and that he was among the very best for at least a couple of decades.

Raw stats are very misleading for players in Howe's era. It was difficult to hit 100 points because seasons were shorter and because scoring was lower than what we saw later post-expansion in the 1970s-onward. It helps to look at where Howe is positioned relative to his peers.

I think 'goals created' is a good stat and you will see Howe excel there. And, even though some people hate it, offensive point shares will give you a good general idea of Howe's offensive prowess relative to the rest of the league as well.

Howe's peak is cleary early-to-mid 1950s. He was still great after this, but never quite as dominant. Not only does he lead the league in all of these offensive categories, you will see that he completely obliterates everyone else. Just as Gretzky and Lemieux and Orr did. Raw stats won't tell you this.

So no, he is not overrated at all. The upper tier of all-time hockey greats is (in no particular order) Orr-Gretzky-Howe-Lemieux.

 

[WaveRaven]

Thing is folks Gordie was all around hockey player not just offrensive. 99 was not and I mean not even close defensively. Same with 66 all Offence.

This idea that he played in the 50's they weren't very good. That show a lack of understanding about hockey of that time. The AHL was as good as the NHL is today. 700 of today's players in an original six league would be in the minors. About 100 players made it then .... today 800.

To me all around hockey players trump one dimensional ones.
4
9
99
66

 

[BobbyAwe]

I do agree with you to an extent. Back then in the 1950's and 1960's, there weren't any elite hockey players from BC, the Maritimes and the United States, let alone foreign europeans. 85% of the overall talent pool back then was simply Ontario and Quebec. The overall talent pool of registered hockey players was minuscule. If Gordie Howe was playing today I have doubts he would be considered a notch above Crosby, Ovechkin and Mcdavid.

Canucks4 you make an interesting point about not even all of Canada being really part of the talent pool back then. Canada is about twice the population it was back then, and there's as many non-Canadiens in the game as Canadiens recently, so that would mean the talent pool is about 4 times greater than in Howe's prime - BUT that is also assuming the amount of scouting and number of developmental leagues in Canada and the U.S. (in particular) has remained the same? I am thinking that not only is Canada twice the population, but the OPPORTUNITIES for kids in all areas to be scouted and developed is much greater? So the talent pool today may be EIGHT times (or so) what it was in the 50's?

I am convinced that the size of the talent pool in each era, is the only accurate way to compare players of different eras. Now is there a way to accurately judge the amount of talent the league was able to draft in each era? The population of countries involved may not paint the whole picture as you have alluded to?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Canucks4 you make an interesting point about not even all of Canada being really part of the talent pool back then. Canada is about twice the population it was back then, and there's as many non-Canadiens in the game as Canadiens recently, so that would mean the talent pool is about 4 times greater than in Howe's prime - BUT that is also assuming the amount of scouting and number of developmental leagues in Canada and the U.S. (in particular) has remained the same? I am thinking that not only is Canada twice the population, but the OPPORTUNITIES for kids in all areas to be scouted and developed is much greater? So the talent pool today may be EIGHT times (or so) what it was in the 50's?

I am convinced that the size of the talent pool in each era, is the only accurate way to compare players of different eras. Now is there a way to accurately judge the amount of talent the league was able to draft in each era? The population of countries involved may not paint the whole picture as you have alluded to?

Canadian Population, first two official census data, 2014 last official estimate:

1951 - 14,009,129
1961 - 18,239,000
2014 - 35,540,419

Number of youngsters playing hockey was greater post WWII into the 1970s, but:

1.) little or no registration of levels until bantam and in the schools.

2.) depending on the winter, outdoor season lasted 80 - 100 days.

3.) today the numbers are lower but the youngsters are all registered except for hold-out schools and with arenas, elite players play year round.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Please, for the love of God stop this thread. It really has run its course.



That is Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux saying Gordie was the greatest ever.

Of course they're not going to claim it's one of THEM. No one would want to appear that egotistical. If Gordie had been part of that conversation he would have denied he was the greatest too.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

the argument about population growth is always met with the counterargument that those kids who played hockey back in the 50s generally played a lot more hockey in a day, week, month, year, adolescence than your average canadian kid in the 90s or 2000s.

to what degree that tilts the competitive balance of 1950s vs 1990s talent pools is debatable. but time on ice (ie, quality vs quantity) is a factor i don’t think the talent pool argument takes into consideration often enough.

and with urbanization, bureaucratization of minor hockey, waning government subsidies for youth programs and privatization of sports complexes, cost of equipment and ice time, popularity of other (cheaper) sports, and climate change, this disparity will only increase.

 

[BobbyAwe]

I agree that Howe is clearly overrated. The players of his era in general are quite lacking. They lacked the physical abilities, skills and competition of stronger generations.

I'll tell you about a real top four player of all time - Joe Malone. Unlike players of Howe's era, Malone had the physical ability to play a whole 60 minutes per game. Players in subsequent generations lack such endurance. Howe didn't have to face players skilled in areas like hook checking, since obviously subsequent players lacked these skills. Howe's competition was also lacking. Howe dominated a league with six teams. Malone dominated in a world when the talent level was so deep that there were multiple top level leagues, no way Howe did that. Competition was so fierce in Malone's time that some top leagues actually used six skaters per team on the ice at a time. I'd like to see what Howe would do with six skaters attempting to stop him. Not as well as Malone I bet, based on my rock solid evidence. Statistically there is no comparison. Howe never scored goals at a 2.2 goals per game pace like Malone did in the NHL. Howe even played after they put in offensively advantageous rules like the forward pass and he STILL couldn't come close to scoring like Malone. No contest.

In any event, disagreeing with the facts I laid out above is just silly. Howe has no case against Malone. Don't even get me started on the players of subsequent generations. Their competition just wasn't strong enough.

I hope you are being sarcastic, because if so, you make a great point. (if you're serious though, I don't know what to tell you

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Well, as far as LQ goes, you’d have to consider what percentage of far Western and far Eastern Canadians make up the Canadian contingent of the NHL today. Plus, you have to take into consideration that populations have shifted since the 50’s and 60’s. Although the Maritime provinces have shrunk in percentage of population, the Western provinces have grown significantly.

I think 8x better is a large exaggeration. Not to mention the league is 5x larger now too.

Dismissing Howe’s era as bush league underestimates it greatly IMO.

OTOH, I think we can largely write off most of Howe’s post 1970 longevity as just being the right guy in the right place at the right time.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Canadian Population, first two official census data, 2014 last official estimate:

1951 - 14,009,129
1961 - 18,239,000
2014 - 35,540,419

Number of youngsters playing hockey was greater post WWII into the 1970s, but:

1.) little or no registration of levels until bantam and in the schools.

2.) depending on the winter, outdoor season lasted 80 - 100 days.

3.) today the numbers are lower but the youngsters are all registered except for hold-out schools and with arenas, elite players play year round.

I love ya, C1958, but sometimes I can't tell if you're arguing with me or agreeing?

 

[BobbyAwe]

Well, as far as LQ goes, you’d have to consider what percentage of far Western and far Eastern Canadians make up the Canadian contingent of the NHL today. Plus, you have to take into consideration that populations have shifted since the 50’s and 60’s. Although the Maritime provinces have shrunk in percentage of population, the Western provinces have grown significantly.

I think 8x better is a large exaggeration. Not to mention the league is 5x larger now too.

Dismissing Howe’s era as bush league underestimates it greatly IMO.

OTOH, I think we can largely write off most of Howe’s post 1970 longevity as just being the right guy in the right place at the right time.

I would never say that Howe's era was "bush"...well, not until the league suddenly went from 6 teams to 12, and then to 18 in just a few years after that. That expansion came after Howe's prime, but just to see the effect of it on players that were in their prime in the 70's and into the 80's, it's no fluke that Howe had his biggest point season immediately AFTER the expansion, at 40 years old.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I love ya, C1958, but sometimes I can't tell if you're arguing with me or agreeing?

Just explaining.

 

[Overrated]

the argument about population growth is always met with the counterargument that those kids who played hockey back in the 50s generally played a lot more hockey in a day, week, month, year, adolescence than your average canadian kid in the 90s or 2000s.

to what degree that tilts the competitive balance of 1950s vs 1990s talent pools is debatable. but time on ice (ie, quality vs quantity) is a factor i don’t think the talent pool argument takes into consideration often enough.

and with urbanization, bureaucratization of minor hockey, waning government subsidies for youth programs and privatization of sports complexes, cost of equipment and ice time, popularity of other (cheaper) sports, and climate change, this disparity will only increase.

Howe's childhood was in the 30s. He was competing against an extremely small pool of players. Your claim about kids spending more time playing back then is debatable. There has been a small decline in the Canadian participation in the last few decades if I am not mistaken.

There was a meteoric rise in all sport participation in the post war era. Sports weren't taken seriously back during the days of the great depression and WW2. I am not saying players have been steadily getting better and better. It's more that there was a sharp increase in skill until about the 80s which was steadily countered by the expansion though the expansion was definitely slower than the growth of the sport. The NHL became a truly international league in the 90s lifting the level of play even further to a similar level it is at now. Winning a Stanley Cup in this post 1990 era is a completely different achievement to winning it back when you had a tiny just Canadian league with 6 teams and dynasties which kept getting into the finals 10 years in a row:

People like Maurice Richards or Jean Beliveau are even more overrated and probably shouldn't even be in the top30.

 

[Big Phil]

People like Maurice Richards or Jean Beliveau are even more overrated and probably shouldn't even be in the top30.

Oh?

Usually that main board sort of thinking is just that....................on the main board. But the thing with these players is that not only do we have all the information at our fingertips about them but there is plenty of footage to watch them as well. Can you really tell me these weren't great players?

By this logic we may as well erase a lot of sports history. Jim Brown wouldn't get a yard of rushing against a modern NFL team by the way you are thinking. Or Babe Ruth would just strike out at everything his way. That just simply isn't true. Even Wilt Chamberlain, who was 7'2" may have played in an NBA where the average height was lower but it wasn't THAT much lower and even today a team might have just one guy who is 7'0" or more and you still can't find one who could play ball the way Wilt could.

Why would hockey be any different? The greats are great regardless of era.

 

[Overrated]

Oh?

Usually that main board sort of thinking is just that....................on the main board. But the thing with these players is that not only do we have all the information at our fingertips about them but there is plenty of footage to watch them as well. Can you really tell me these weren't great players?

By this logic we may as well erase a lot of sports history. Jim Brown wouldn't get a yard of rushing against a modern NFL team by the way you are thinking. Or Babe Ruth would just strike out at everything his way. That just simply isn't true. Even Wilt Chamberlain, who was 7'2" may have played in an NBA where the average height was lower but it wasn't THAT much lower and even today a team might have just one guy who is 7'0" or more and you still can't find one who could play ball the way Wilt could.

Why would hockey be any different? The greats are great regardless of era.

There is a big difference.

Wilt put up IMPOSSIBLE numbers that nobody ever will be able to replicate. Babe Ruth has a similar story. That is why they will always be immortalized in the sport. Funny enough Wilt is routinely underrated.

Maurice Richards and Jean Beliveau didn't do any of that despite playing in a weak local league at the inception of the sport of hockey. Maurice grew up in the 20s when nobody took sports seriously. Top players nowadays compete against the finest of talents from all over the world. Their competition is likely 100x larger in number. Hockey is the only sport where people consider random guys born in 1920s better than the superstars of today just because they won ten Stanley Cups while in a stacked team in a league of 6 teams which is not at all comparable to winning the cup today.

 

[Vegeta]

Howe is a part of the Big 4, without question. I will say that I find him "overrated" in the sense that many people put him above #4 in terms of skill.

Lemieux, Greztky and Orr are all more impactful players than him when it comes to what happens on the ice.

However when you consider what he had done for the game overall, I'd argue his influence is challenged only by Gretzky. Dude was an absolutely amazing ambassador for the sport, and by every account, one of the most fan friendly athletes to every grace the Earth. We call him Mr Hockey for a reason.