Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

[Michael Farkas]

NHL trophies are worth less now. The media clearly don't know nearly as much about the game and can't cover all the teams. Less understanding, less exposure...this is evident in their respective contemporary writings. Plus, Gordie Howe didn't have loser expansion teams to score six point games against. If you go back and watch those games, which I've done, 1950's offers a lot stiffer competition than the 70's and 80's from the center line on back...that's just about the best the game has to offer.

If you wanted to make the claim that the game in the 1910's and 20's shouldn't be held in as high regard because of level of competition concerns...ok, I can buy that to a degree. There's plenty of film available going back to the 1940's in both football and hockey where you can get a good feel for when the game started to modernize. I'm not convinced the OP has even attempted that exercise, nor am I convinced it would do him/her much good at this point given their original extremist stance.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But what 850 additional players did you want Gordie Howe to compete against in 1953 to legitimate his 95-61 scoring race victory over a non-teammate? Surely you must have a name or two in mind? And if not, I suppose you can present us with similar gaps that scoring leaders have had over the next best Canadian scorer to show us that a 1.24 to 0.94 statistical gap over 4 years is not top-4 material?

To save you time, Jagr's statistical gap over Sakic from 1998-2001 is smaller than Howe's statistical gap from 1951-1954 and Jagr was worse at every other aspect of hockey than Gordie Howe too.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

NHL trophies are now worth more than before. It is like bringing up the fact Tretiak won 3 Olympic golds and not adding it was when the NHL did not take part.

That's not a good analogy. Tretiak's Olympic gold medals are rightfully discounted (not dismissed entirely, but discounted) because we know some of the best players in the world weren't participating in the Olympics. Who were the best players in the 1950s not in the NHL, and what evidence is there that they would have challenged Howe (or the other stars of that era)?

Winning a Hart trophy in the 50s when the NHL was a Canadian league with 150 players means a lot less than winning it now when the NHL is a World Wide league with a 1000 players.

By this logic, a Hart, Art Ross, etc. from 1968 should be worth twice as much as a trophy from 1967, because the league doubled in size (288 players played at least one NHL regular season game in 1968, compared to 155 the year before). But nobody holds that opinion (the world's best players were already in the league in 1967, and accepting lesser players to fill out the roster of six expansion teams doesn't magically increase the league quality). What's important isn't the number of roster spots - it's the size of the talent pool relative to the number of roster spots.

You made a valid point that Howe didn't compete against Europeans. But as I've shown in previous threads (I believe from January 2016), his regular season offense is still better than Jagr, even if exclude all non-Canadians from Jagr's career. So your point sounds plausible, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Passchendaele]

Most overrated player of all-time by casual fans is Wendel Clark, no question.

By the hockey media, it's probably Scott Niedermayer or Jonathan Toews.

On HFBoards specifically, and mostly sticking to retired/historical players, I'd probably go with Pavel Bure (note: I mean over the whole forum, not referring to HoH board regulars/veterans). I also think there's a bit of an exaggeration these days in terms of how "unstoppable" Eric Lindros was.

I swear, whenever I read a Bure thread, I bump into a mile-long post with analyses, clips, quotes from people and newspaper articles.

Haven't noticed if they're all from the same person, but this is almost disturbing.

 

[shazariahl]

IMO longevity is highly underrated on hfboards and in hockey in general. In other sports that's not an issue.

For this reason I think Gordie Howe is under appreciated and guys like Orr, Lemieux, and Bossy are overrated. The total value of Howe's career is immense.

I agree with you. I used to rank Howe a lot lower, and wasn't even certain he belonged in the top 4, but I read a lot of the ATD and player rankings on this site. People made a lot of strong arguments for him, and I spent hours at a time reading through them. In time, I moved Howe from borderline top 4 to solidly top 4, and now debate whether he should be #2 behind Gretzky or #3 behind Gretzky and Orr. It gets harder and harder to justify putting Orr above him, given Howe's accomplishments in his career and his incredible longevity.

I've really come to realize that I'd rather have a player that is there every game, night after night, year after year, for basically 2 decades of great play (as both Gretzky and Howe provided) than someone who is hampered eternally by injuries and thus just accomplishes way less. If it was some 3rd stringer, it would be different. But we're talking about roughly equal levels of talent. The difference is Howe played more NHL games than Orr and Lemieux combined, and then played 400+ WHA games on top of that. His individual accomplishments stack up very well against both Lemieux and Orr.

It's also pretty hard to argue that the 70's were a more competitive decade than the 50's were overall, so not sure the OP has really looked into the differences in the game between different eras.

 

[Passchendaele]

At the time of his first retirement, Howe had 1809 career points.. 48% more points than 2nd placeholder Jean Beliveau.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I agree with you. I used to rank Howe a lot lower, and wasn't even certain he belonged in the top 4, but I read a lot of the ATD and player rankings on this site. People made a lot of strong arguments for him, and I spent hours at a time reading through them. In time, I moved Howe from borderline top 4 to solidly top 4, and now debate whether he should be #2 behind Gretzky or #3 behind Gretzky and Orr. It gets harder and harder to justify putting Orr above him, given Howe's accomplishments in his career and his incredible longevity.

I've really come to realize that I'd rather have a player that is there every game, night after night, year after year, for basically 2 decades of great play (as both Gretzky and Howe provided) than someone who is hampered eternally by injuries and thus just accomplishes way less. If it was some 3rd stringer, it would be different. But we're talking about roughly equal levels of talent. The difference is Howe played more NHL games than Orr and Lemieux combined, and then played 400+ WHA games on top of that. His individual accomplishments stack up very well against both Lemieux and Orr.

It's also pretty hard to argue that the 70's were a more competitive decade than the 50's were overall, so not sure the OP has really looked into the differences in the game between different eras.

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.

 

[crobro]

20 straight seasons of top 5 in NHL Scoring makes him the greatest

 

[Overrated]

I don't think we could ever agree if you keep saying things like NHL trophies mean less today than in the 50s. You guys are blinded by delusion if you don't agree the game was less competitive. Though if I made the same argument about Bobrov you'd start repeating the exact same things I have said about Howe.

One thing I was wrong about though was the fact the 0.30 gap is indeed quite large though it is just not been possible to achieve that since the 90s given the amount of great players in the NHL by then.

That's not a good analogy. Tretiak's Olympic gold medals are rightfully discounted (not dismissed entirely, but discounted) because we know some of the best players in the world weren't participating in the Olympics. Who were the best players in the 1950s not in the NHL, and what evidence is there that they would have challenged Howe (or the other stars of that era)?

The main reason is simply that there weren't really many stars back then as the game was still at its early stages of development. Bobrov probably could challenge him given the fact he scored 94 goals in 59 international games. And to be honest winning a World Championship in the 80s was more difficult than to win the Stanley Cup in the 50s.

By this logic, a Hart, Art Ross, etc. from 1968 should be worth twice as much as a trophy from 1967, because the league doubled in size (288 players played at least one NHL regular season game in 1968, compared to 155 the year before). But nobody holds that opinion (the world's best players were already in the league in 1967, and accepting lesser players to fill out the roster of six expansion teams doesn't magically increase the league quality). What's important isn't the number of roster spots - it's the size of the talent pool relative to the number of roster spots.

No that is not my logic. Why are you purposefully misinterpreting what I am trying to say? Competitiveness largely has to do with the amount of total players competing in the game. Of course 1968 was almost the same in competitiveness as 1967 and putting up bigger numbers became easier if anything. Today there are more than a million registered players. You have to be better than the vast majority of them to become a pro. Back when Howe was a child in the 30s practically nobody played the game. If you were committed back then you did not need any talent to be in the NHL, most people in the 30s were struggling to survive, playing hockey back then was akin to playing video games now, a waste of time. Now parents are preparing their children for a pro career since they are 4 and there are millions of them.

You made a valid point that Howe didn't compete against Europeans. But as I've shown in previous threads (I believe from January 2016), his regular season offense is still better than Jagr, even if exclude all non-Canadians from Jagr's career. So your point sounds plausible, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Jagr was scoring 120-149 points while the best ever were still playing, when goalies had larger equipment than before, when the league became way more difficult even compared to the 80s. Jagr is objectively better than Howe.

 

[bobholly39]

20 straight seasons of top 5 in NHL Scoring makes him the greatest

It really, really, really doesn't.

Peak/prime >>> Consistency/longevity. Gretzky trumps him in height of peak/prime. Top 5 for longer doesn't make the gap up.

 

[bobholly39]

Players i find heavily overrated around HF are:

Fedorov
Forsberg
Pronger
Lindros (especially when people say he could have been a top 4-5 player all time with no injuries)

 

[Eisen]

I am in my mid 20s. It does not matter though to be honest. Even Jagr said that the game has gotten a lot harder since the 90s and the 90s were extremely competitive! All the top Eastern Bloc talents came in, not to mention Swedish/Finnish/American all got quite good by then.

Jagr said the excact opposite.

 

[daver]

I don't think we could ever agree if you keep saying things like NHL trophies mean less today than in the 50s. You guys are blinded by delusion if you don't agree the game was less competitive. Though if I made the same argument about Bobrov you'd start repeating the exact same things I have said about Howe.

Nobody is stating this. This a strawman. And if you want to have any kind of discussion or be taken seriously, calling people who disagree with you "deluded" is a great way to stop a discussion.

Perhaps to back up your claim, you provide some examples of player who were dominant in a less competitive league i.e. less players, who then struggled when the league expanded or drew more Europeans. For example, why didn't the best players before the 1967 expansion show a clear decrease in their production when the league doubled in size?

 

[The Panther]

I'm actually of the opinion that hockey "competitiveness" was probably the highest in the 1950s and early 1960s that it ever has been (though I think a case can be made for the mid-/late-1990s as well, despite expansion teams).

I say this because there were only 6 teams, and about 90-100 NHL players in total, all playing for established teams. In his peak years, Howe had to play each team 14 times per season. In those days, there were no surprises. Every team and player knew every team and player intimately. And since there were only 90 jobs and no players' union, every single player (incl. Howe) played day to day in constant fear of being 'sent down', which likely meant banishment from the NHL forever, at the whim of owners with no scruples, acting with impunity. It was a rough and tough League, in which the powers-that-be did nothing whatsoever to protect stars like Howe or Rocket Richard from endless physical and verbal abuse, violence, and head-shots. It was a lower-scoring League than today, too, in which goals were very hard to come by. In the seven years 1950-1957, Gordie Howe outscored the next-highest-scoring player (some bum named Maurice Richard) by 30%.

Howe's high-level of play, during not only his peak years but the entire stretch from age 21 to 41, is simply phenomenal. In spring 1969, just as he turned 41 years old, Howe finished third in NHL scoring, basically matching Bobby Hull, who was 11 years younger, in scoring (while Hull's team scored 41 more goals than Howe's team).

Think about this for a moment:

In 1970-71, with the Wings heading into the toilet and Howe finally no longer able to dominate players half his age, he abruptly retired. (Then came back into the WHA and still scored 100+ points into his late 40s.)

Any attempt to limit Gordie Howe's achievement by arguing that all he did was play for a long time is wildly and embarrassingly misinformed.

 

[quoipourquoi]

One thing I was wrong about though was the fact the 0.30 gap is indeed quite large though it is just not been possible to achieve that since the 90s given the amount of great players in the NHL by then.

Sure it is. You just have to be one of the greatest players ever, and you can sustain a 0.30 gap for 4 years. Take Sidney Crosby from 2011-2014. 1.47 against Malkin's 1.20 and Canadian Stamkos' 1.14. Can't really give him full credit because he missed so much time in that window and the gaps between him, Malkin, and Canadian Getzlaf in his only full season were 1.30/1.20/1.13, but still, it's doable. Gordie Howe did it. He just didn't have a European player like Malkin between him and Rocket Richard for you to treat it like the Crosby/Stamkos gap.

But if your main issue is that Maurice Richard isn't equal competition to a Joe Sakic or a Steven Stamkos, then we can start there. Could you ballpark what kind of talent-level you see Rocket Richard to be?

Peak/prime >>> Consistency/longevity

Players i find heavily overrated around HF are:

Fedorov
Forsberg
Pronger
Lindros (especially when people say he could have been a top 4-5 player all time with no injuries)

How do you reconcile this? I mean, unless you think they didn't have high peaks/primes.

 

[Overrated]

Jagr said the excact opposite.

Nope!

Jagr at 0:48 "I think I am better than I was 15 years ago but everybody else is a lot lot better."

 

[bobholly39]

How do you reconcile this? I mean, unless you think they didn't have high peaks/primes.

The poster said 20 top 5 scoring in a row makes Howe #1.

I was saying no - being top 5 20 years in a row isn't nearly as significant as Gretzky's insane prime/peak, which was a much higher level of hockey than simply a "top 5 scorer". So in this instance, Gretzky's peak/prime >>> being a top 5 scorer 20 years in a row.

Gretzky's peak/prime are helped by the fact that they are also long. 7-11 years. If he had peaked 1-2 years, or a prime of 3-4 years, maybe it's not enough to be that much more important.

Also for Howe - I don't mind ranking him highly but the top 5 20 years in a row is NOT enough. If he didn't have the very very strong peak - i'd be arguing to rank him outside the top 4. His peak contributes immensely (and compliments his consistency/longevity) very nicely.

In comparison, the 4 names I listed:

I guess a recurring theme you'll notice for the first 3 is defensive play, which i tend to not find as much merit in. I was never very wow'd by Pronger.
Fedorov - for as much as people love gushing about him - had the one stellar year, and mostly seemed to have an underwhelming career for someone of his talent. People kept talking about his insane talent but he didn't have strong scoring finishes or place strongly in award votings outside of 94. Not saying he's not a great player, but he still does remain overrated.
Forsberg/Lindros - I like and rate them both highly. But sometimes they get overrated a lot. I've seen quite a few posters suggest they are worthy of top 5 player all time if not for injuries. I wouldn't have them anywhere near that level (Lindros maybe had the talent, but still think he doesn't make it that far even with better health).

 

[Overrated]

But if your main issue is that Maurice Richard isn't equal competition to a Joe Sakic or a Steven Stamkos, then we can start there. Could you ballpark what kind of talent-level you see Rocket Richard to be?

I don't know much about players like Richard but yes, my main argument is that the league was quite weak back then. Absolutely incomparable to the 90s:

 

[Overrated]

By the way, does anyone have historical numbers of registered players in Canada? I could not find anything from before the 2000s. That would illustrate quite clearly how soft the competition was back then.

 

[NewUser293223]

A breath of fresh air!

(MOD EDIT - WATCH THE ATTACKS)

You may disagree, but that is about it. Stick around dude, this board needs you despite not realizing it.

In my opinion though, Jagr was goofing around saying that. Jagr is always goofing around. Not a good evidence.

 

[Voight]

I always felt that Ryan Suter was overrated, just based on what I saw.I mean I'd take him on my team, but not on a #1 salary.

Really? For one, he should have won the Norris in 2013 (sorry PK). Then, his record goes like this

2,4,5,8,8,9,11,15.

I'd say that warrants a#1 salary, and this season he's on track for another top 5 finish.

Most overrated player of all-time by casual fans is Wendel Clark, no question.

On HFBoards specifically, and mostly sticking to retired/historical players, I'd probably go with Pavel Bure (note: I mean over the whole forum, not referring to HoH board regulars/veterans). I also think there's a bit of an exaggeration these days in terms of how "unstoppable" Eric Lindros was.

I never thought of Clark as overrated -- you don't really hear much about him now or even when he played.

Agree about Lindros tho. He is probably the most overrated player on these boards, with everyone guaranteeing he'd be the 5th best ever had he been healthy (when theres arguments that go against that idea)

 

[NewUser293223]

Let's attack the argument, not the poster. I'm not having a repeat of the last time I closed a Gordie Howe is overrated thread. We need to be more welcoming.

Why attack the argument? That's still primitive and rude as far as I can see.

Have a look, make sure you understand and than explain your own stance. Attacking the argument pretty much equals attacking the poster, only in disguise.

 

[Overrated]

A breath of fresh air!

(MOD EDIT - WATCH THE ATTACKS)

You may disagree, but that is about it. Stick around dude, this board needs you despite not realizing it.

In my opinion though, Jagr was goofing around saying that. Jagr is always goofing around. Not a good evidence.

He was only joking about himself, saying that he is better than he was 15 years ago, but not about the league getting stronger. He in fact keeps repeating that all the time in pretty much all interviews.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I said points, not goals. This is a hypothetical scenario, so I can't prove this of course. However hockey in the 80s was way more developed. He did 200+ in 84 when youth hockey development was already quite evolved and the NHL had all sorts of great players so making 50% more against a way weaker competition from the 50s does not seem that huge of a stretch.

I mean am I the only person on this forum who actually thinks players (of any sport) today are better than 70 years ago? How can it be not obvious? I even saw a post on this forum saying if Howe played in the 80s he'd be getting 180+ seasons, essentially saying the opposite. This is beyond delusional.

Howe did play in the 80s. In the NHL. When he was 51. Played 81 games. Had 15 goals, 26 points and was a +9 for a weak team.

 

[NewUser293223]

He was only joking about himself, saying that he is better than he was 15 years ago, but not about the league getting stronger. He in fact keeps repeating that all the time in pretty much all interviews.

Okay then, yeah. But keep in mind that he is getting slower and older, thus at least a portion of that impression may be just that, subjective. On the other hand, I partly agree.