Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Overrated

Registered User
Jan 16, 2018
1,200
493
I didn't misrepresent your point, you didn't explain it clearly. Now that you've clarified, I'll discuss what you meant to say.

Your paragraph doesn't contain any proof, just a series of unsubstantiated theories. For example, you've said things like "practically nobody" played hockey in the 1930s, those who did considered it a "waste of time". Those are theories, not proof. Go do some research to prove those statements, and once you have actual evidence (rather than blanket statements), we can re-visit your position.
This is common sense. Back in the 30s there was close to no money in the game. Today top players make over 10 million a year. Of course the game wasn't taken as seriously as in the modern era. Come on!


See post #47. Let me know which of those categories Jagr is ahead of Howe in. You can even "re-calculate" Jagr's results removing all non-Canadians from the league in order to make this more comparable.
Played in a world wide league, peaked a lot higher with 149 points in a season and achieved this:
b97c8e99955402b5bc941b41928abc9f.png

Yep way more impressive than anything in #47. No need to recalculate anything since Jagr was statistically superior.
 

Overrated

Registered User
Jan 16, 2018
1,200
493
But why? Wouldn't it be out of place that only one Canadian player from the first half of hockey history ranks among the top-20 players when we can presume that quite a few Canadians from the second-half of hockey history would?
No it wouldn't. Hockey is bigger now than in the 50s and by a huge margin. Players are also better. I can also use the same statement but with the second half of the 19th century. Then I hope it would sound ridiculous to you too.
 

Overrated

Registered User
Jan 16, 2018
1,200
493
Water still freezes into ice in eastern Europe. Olympic facilities and other rinks are still standing and could run learn to skate and learn to play programs with community equipment for youngsters. Plenty of unemployed to oversee such programs. Happened in Canada when I was growing up and still does.

So you admit the doping at Sochi by Russia. Just a question of redirecting the same funds to youth sports and the support system.

Why doesn't Ovi run a foundation like Subban?
If the Russian government was smart and instead of putting 50 billion into the Olympics it actually built rinks and hired coaches and let children play for free there would be a substantial growth in hockey. Tbh hockey wasn't all that huge even under socialism. There is a reason the top3 teams in the Soviet league were all from Moscow.

In the USA where people can afford hockey is a large growth still in process, 300% in the last 27 years.
Membership Statistics
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,985
This is common sense. Back in the 30s there was close to no money in the game. Today top players make over 10 million a year. Of course the game wasn't taken as seriously as in the modern era. Come on!

Have you ever considered that families might not be able to support their children playing hockey these days because of how expensive it is?

Anyway, given your unwillingness to provide evidence to support your positions, it's obvious that you're not interested in having a serious discussion on this topic. Good luck with whatever you're trying to do here.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I've never heard anyone take the position that hockey was at its "early stages of development" in the 1950s. What leads you to that conclusion? I'd argue that the game was past its early stages of development sometime between the mid 1920s (when the NHL merged with its rival leagues, consolidating all of the game's talent into a single league) and 1930 (modern off-side rules were implemented partway through the season - one could argue that was the last fundamental rule change in NHL history).

I respect Bobrov's historical significance but I'm not convinced that he would have fared well against NHL talent. The highlight of his international career was probably the 1956 Winter Olympics (gold medal, scored 9 goals in 7 games). But he was outscored by Canadian players like James Logan, Paul Knox and tournament MVP Jack McKenzie. If you've never heard of those players, I've made my point - Bobrov appeared to have been on par with with Canada's best amateur players - not the stars who played in the NHL. (This isn't true of, say, Tretiak, since he played very well against the NHL's top talent in various tournaments).



I didn't misrepresent your point, you didn't explain it clearly. Now that you've clarified, I'll discuss what you meant to say.

Your paragraph doesn't contain any proof, just a series of unsubstantiated theories. For example, you've said things like "practically nobody" played hockey in the 1930s, those who did considered it a "waste of time". Those are theories, not proof. Go do some research to prove those statements, and once you have actual evidence (rather than blanket statements), we can re-visit your position.



See post #47. Let me know which of those categories Jagr is ahead of Howe in. You can even "re-calculate" Jagr's results removing all non-Canadians from the league in order to make this more comparable.

You captured the post WWII hockey structure and triage process perfectly. Why gamble on Vsevolod when Jack, demonstratably a younger better player who turned down various NHL overtures to concentrate on a career is part of a large deep pool.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
If the Russian government was smart and instead of putting 50 billion into the Olympics it actually built rinks and hired coaches and let children play for free there would be a substantial growth in hockey. Tbh , water, a hose and a few hours of labour creates a rink. hockey wasn't all that huge even under socialism. There is a reason the top3 teams in the Soviet league were all from Moscow.

In the USA where people can afford hockey is a large growth still in process, 300% in the last 27 years.
Membership Statistics

So it is now a question of intelligence as opposed to ideologies.

Actually the USA and Canada is and always has been more socialist than the Soviet Union. Unions and labour rights, social programs started well before the revolution.

USA, the NHL does a lot of philantropic work in the inner city neighbourhoods.

The rinks indoor and outdoor have always existed. Roughly 600 linear feet of used plywood, empty space, access to water and a hose, some volunteers creates a rink. Happens in Canada regularly. Build one and the youngsters and equipment will come.

Membership statistics reflect the ability to get organizations to join as members not the actual number of younsters playing.
 

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,860
2,233
So it is now a question of intelligence as opposed to ideologies.

Actually the USA and Canada is and always has been more socialist than the Soviet Union. Unions and labour rights, social programs started well before the revolution.

USA, the NHL does a lot of philantropic work in the inner city neighbourhoods.

The rinks indoor and outdoor have always existed. Roughly 600 linear feet of used plywood, empty space, access to water and a hose, some volunteers creates a rink. Happens in Canada regularly. Build one and the youngsters and equipment will come.

Membership statistics reflect the ability to get organizations to join as members not the actual number of younsters playing.

I dont think you ahve much experince of the world if you think the USA has had a lot of socialism... Canada is different but just a reminder. Social liberalism is not socialism. Starting a union isnt automatically socialism. There is a basis in socialism in them but its not socialism. And by USSR do you mean pre or post-1922?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
This is common sense. Back in the 30s there was close to no money in the game. Today top players make over 10 million a year. Of course the game wasn't taken as seriously as in the modern era. Come on!

Reflects life in general in Canada. 1930s a 2-story house, 55 years old cost $2,000. Today same house, same lot, older, with regular maintainance is worth around $1.5 million.Reflected throughout.

Original NHL salary cap for roughly a 15 man NHL roster with expenses ran about $80,000 in the early thirties.

Proportional growth reflected throughout. Things taken seriously.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I dont think you ahve much experince of the world if you think the USA has had a lot of socialism... Canada is different but just a reminder. Social liberalism is not socialism. Starting a union isnt automatically socialism. There is a basis in socialism in them but its not socialism. And by USSR do you mean pre or post-1922?

Just a question of where and how social efforts were defined and directed. Limits to what programs from a global menu may be funded.

Some countries chose free medical care others took different options based on priorities and demands.2 USSR existed?

Pre 1922 USSR existed? Doesn't really matter. Social requirements in a mainly agricultural country are different from an industrial country. Likewise the capacity to help.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,131
Regina, SK
This is common sense. Back in the 30s there was close to no money in the game. Today top players make over 10 million a year. Of course the game wasn't taken as seriously as in the modern era. Come on!



Played in a world wide league, peaked a lot higher with 149 points in a season and achieved this:
b97c8e99955402b5bc941b41928abc9f.png

Yep way more impressive than anything in #47. No need to recalculate anything since Jagr was statistically superior.

in what way? I'm surprised no one has broken this down piece by piece yet.

About the 149 points: League offense was up to 6.285 goals per game in 1995-96. In Howe's most statistically significant season, it was 4.790. So right away, in order to compare apples to apples we'd need to adjust based on schedule length and league scoring. Howe's 95 points come out to 146, practically even with Jagr's total.

From there, it doesn't take a brilliant hockey analyst to conclude that 146 points scored while carrying players who scored at 63% and 75% of your level, is a lot different from scoring 149 while playing on the PP and most of your ES time with a player who scored 26.5% more per game than you did.

Olympics: There was no way for Howe to participate in Olympics. During his entire career it was a tournament for sub-NHL level players.

World Championships: See Olympics.

World Cup: No best on best tournaments were played during his career. If they were, Canada would have swept to victory and Howe would have been Canada's premier player in the majority of them.

Junior accomplishments: not worth discussing, really.

Continental cup: What is this really worth in a discussion of top-level NHL achievements?

Stanley cups: 2 is good. one more time as a finalist is good too. But Howe won four cups and was a finalist many other times.

Prince of Wales Trophy: simply restating the point that Jagr made it to three finals.

Art Ross Trophy: 5 is excellent! Among the best all-time. Howe has six.

Hart trophy: One is more than most people have ever won. Five other times a finalist is really rare company. But Howe won six times and I lost count of how many times he was a finalist. 13, maybe?

Pearson trophy: Did not exist during Howe's career. The award can't be used to pump up one player at the expense of another who played before it existed.

Masterton trophy: You don't think they'd have awarded this to Howe at least a couple of times if it existed during his prime? Following his major head injury, for example?
 

Overrated

Registered User
Jan 16, 2018
1,200
493
Can the OP point to the exact season the NHL went from being a joke to competitive?
I think it is silly to ask this question. Obviously the game has been developing for a century and players have been getting better ever since. It is the same with every sport. Check the Olympic times for any discipline, they have been getting better. I do think though the early 90s were the times when the NHL got especially more competitive due to the massive influx of Eastern Bloc talent and the fact both Gretzky and Lemieux still played.
 

Overrated

Registered User
Jan 16, 2018
1,200
493
in what way? I'm surprised no one has broken this down piece by piece yet.

About the 149 points: League offense was up to 6.285 goals per game in 1995-96. In Howe's most statistically significant season, it was 4.790. So right away, in order to compare apples to apples we'd need to adjust based on schedule length and league scoring. Howe's 95 points come out to 146, practically even with Jagr's total.
What? That is not how this works. The players make an era, not the other way around. You don't simply add imaginary goals because the rest of the players also did not score. Howe played in 46-47 when the average amount of goals was 6.32. Did that affect his scoring and made him score way more? Nope! 22 points in 58 games. Your hocus-pocus does not apply. By the way Jagr also scored 127 points during the 98-99 season when the average amount of goals scored was just 5.08. What are you gonna do now? Black magic?

From there, it doesn't take a brilliant hockey analyst to conclude that 146 points scored while carrying players who scored at 63% and 75% of your level, is a lot different from scoring 149 while playing on the PP and most of your ES time with a player who scored 26.5% more per game than you did.
He scored 95 though. Never forget that.

Olympics: There was no way for Howe to participate in Olympics. During his entire career it was a tournament for sub-NHL level players.
So? It was still an achievement. It was the hardest tournament of the century. Jagr won it. Just because Howe did not take part it doesn't count?

World Championships: See Olympics.
You have to take all accomplishments into consideration. You are ignoring half of them and then creating fake statistics of imaginary goals that were never scored.

Junior accomplishments: not worth discussing, really.
Junior World Championship has more stars than even the regular World Championship. It is a valid achievement.

Continental cup: What is this really worth in a discussion of top-level NHL achievements?
How top level was really the NHL in the 50s?

Stanley cups: 2 is good. one more time as a finalist is good too. But Howe won four cups and was a finalist many other times.
Being the best out of 22 and 24 teams in a World wide league is more impressive than being the best four times out of 6 teams in a Canadian league.

Art Ross Trophy: 5 is excellent! Among the best all-time. Howe has six.
5 times in a league of 850 World's greatest players > 6 times in a league of 150 best Canadian players.

Hart trophy: One is more than most people have ever won. Five other times a finalist is really rare company. But Howe won six times and I lost count of how many times he was a finalist. 13, maybe?
Six is a lot more than one but winning any of these trophies was way more difficult with superstars like Lemieux, Gretzky, Hasek, Fedorov still on the ice.

Pearson trophy: Did not exist during Howe's career. The award can't be used to pump up one player at the expense of another who played before it existed.
You need a few more awards in a league with 6 times the players from all the countries in the World.

Masterton trophy: You don't think they'd have awarded this to Howe at least a couple of times if it existed during his prime? Following his major head injury, for example?
They woulda
They coulda
They shoulda
But they didn't.

But we are going to count one for him just like the imaginary 50+ points.
 
Last edited:

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Mod note:

Please stop arguing about which country was actually more socialist than the other. This leads us nowhere and has very little to do with the topic of the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
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)?



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.
Its not that simple to just take all non Canadians out. You also have to factor in that Jagr played in a 26-30 team league, Howe was playing in a 6 team league. Jagr spent a good chunk of his prime with mediocre linemates, Howe was playing with hall of fame linemates his entire career. In the early to mid 50s, The habs and red wings had all the top players spread out between those two teams.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,076
14,579
I think it is silly to ask this question. Obviously the game has been developing for a century and players have been getting better ever since. It is the same with every sport. Check the Olympic times for any discipline, they have been getting better. I do think though the early 90s were the times when the NHL got especially more competitive due to the massive influx of Eastern Bloc talent and the fact both Gretzky and Lemieux still played.

The Olympics are a HORRIBLE parallel for you to draw.

Let's look at the 100M dash. Who finished in 40th place in the men's final at last olympics? (I have no idea btw, but google him). Okay. Now take this guy's career best time. Guarantee it's better than the olympic gold medal times of guys in the 1920s or 30s. But you know what? Those guys who won the gold in the 1920s and 1930s will still go down as the better athletes/sprinters when ranking the all time sprinters.

When you rank players, you don't rank players in an "absolute" sense. The exercise isn't to imagine picking up the player from his era and dropping him into a league against someone from today's era, yelling "go" and seeing who does better. Howe would struggle in that scenario (up to a point since he is after all pretty good), as would others. And that's true of any athlete across any sports.

How much of a thing is that in hockey vs other sports? I dunno. You can debate it if you want. There's another thread here asking about a 50s team vs a 2010's team without era adjustment.

But when you rank a player all-time - you factor in dominance vs peers, and peak vs peers. You don't factor in whose the best in an "absolute" sense as your Olympic example suggests.

I actually do think Howe's peak (offensively at least) gets overrated. I'm not impressed by the fact that his best 4 years in the 50s happened before guys like Beliveau and a cpl of others who were a bigger challenger for the Art Ross showed up. To draw a modern day parallel - it's as if you delete Ovechkin/Malkin from existence - it would make Crosby look a bit better. It's not an exact parallel but you get the point. Still don't see any real case to have him outside of the top 4 all time.
 

Overrated

Registered User
Jan 16, 2018
1,200
493
The Olympics are a HORRIBLE parallel for you to draw.

Let's look at the 100M dash. Who finished in 40th place in the men's final at last olympics? (I have no idea btw, but google him). Okay. Now take this guy's career best time. Guarantee it's better than the olympic gold medal times of guys in the 1920s or 30s. But you know what? Those guys who won the gold in the 1920s and 1930s will still go down as the better athletes/sprinters when ranking the all time sprinters.

When you rank players, you don't rank players in an "absolute" sense. The exercise isn't to imagine picking up the player from his era and dropping him into a league against someone from today's era, yelling "go" and seeing who does better. Howe would struggle in that scenario (up to a point since he is after all pretty good), as would others. And that's true of any athlete across any sports.

How much of a thing is that in hockey vs other sports? I dunno. You can debate it if you want. There's another thread here asking about a 50s team vs a 2010's team without era adjustment.

But when you rank a player all-time - you factor in dominance vs peers, and peak vs peers. You don't factor in whose the best in an "absolute" sense as your Olympic example suggests.

I actually do think Howe's peak (offensively at least) gets overrated. I'm not impressed by the fact that his best 4 years in the 50s happened before guys like Beliveau and a cpl of others who were a bigger challenger for the Art Ross showed up. To draw a modern day parallel - it's as if you delete Ovechkin/Malkin from existence - it would make Crosby look a bit better. It's not an exact parallel but you get the point. Still don't see any real case to have him outside of the top 4 all time.
Well I don't obviously rank players in an absolute sense. If I did that every player who played back then would be very low on any list but I still believe we should account for the skill growth throughout the decades at least partially.
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,176
926
1953 is an odd year.

Looking at team GF totals, no one but Detroit was scoring goals. 4 of the 6 teams (not Chicago) scored 152-156 goals. That's bad. In 1952 Chicago was the league worst with 158. In 1954 Chicago had a league-worst 133. But from 1950-55, 4 of the worst 6 team GF totals happened in 1953, affecting 2/3 of the league. Chicago was 2nd in 1953 with 169, which isn't strong (T-19th for 50-55).

You'd think it would balance out because Detroit was killing people, but their team GF and GA was average for Detroit. There's just a goal scoring market failure in 1953. I don't know what to make of it. Is that just what happened if Montreal had an off year?
 

insomniac

High on Hockey
Jul 31, 2009
1,217
286
Ottawa
forum.highonhockey.com
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.

I find that argument lacking, especially considering Howe himself was born in and played all of his minor hockey in Saskatchewan!

Not to mention the fact that a league of fewer players should technically have a higher talent-per-capita quotient than one with more players. In any case, the only way to quantify these things is by the player’s performance relative to their competition, and in that regard, as has already been pointed out, Howe’s 95 point season might just be the greatest relative performance we’ve ever seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nnynetpotato

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
This is common sense.

I think it is silly to ask this question.

When you get challenged and your reaction is to call the questions of the opposition "silly" and brand your statements as mere "common sense", then you either are too lazy to provide an actual argument or your cards are a lot worse than want you to make believe.

Back in the 30s there was close to no money in the game. Today top players make over 10 million a year. Of course the game wasn't taken as seriously as in the modern era.

Not only is this not a logically coherent argument, there are also some serious counterpoints you don't consider:

...a disproportionate number of professional athletes in North America played hockey in the prewar era, as hockey and baseball were the only real paying sports on the continent. There is tons of anecdotal evidence that athletes from other sports (football, lacrosse, etc.) were attracted to hockey and became professionals because of the money. The Conacher family is the best example that comes to mind, but there are many more, including Newsy Lalonde, who was a great lacrosse player in the offseason, Tommy Phillips, who was a great rower...

North America was, on the whole, a good deal poorer in the prewar era than it is today. The fewer other opportunities there are for people, the more attractive sport becomes; this is simply common wisdom. Middle and upper class kids pursue sports, but many talented athletes give up sport at an early age in order to pursue a more stable, comfortable life when the opportunity presents itself. The existence of the professional athlete is a hard one, in which a single moment of bad luck can essentially ruin all that you have worked for. It is not a coincidence that the countries with relatively high poverty levels (like the United States and Brazil) produce a disproportionate number of the world's best athletes (...) North America in the prewar era (even before the Great Depression) had a considerably lower standard of living than we enjoy today. It is only logical that more talented athletes would have attempted to become professionals in lieu of other pursuits. Add to that the fact that hockey was the only major professional sport in Canada (very few Canadians played baseball professionally), and we have every reason to believe that the Canadian population produced a significantly higher proportion (as a percentage of population) of elite hockey players than it does today. For quite a long time, basically every Canadian kid who wanted to make money as an athlete was funneled towards hockey.

Affluence may not be a strong deterrent in the era of the superrich athlete, but poverty is, has and always will be a strong encouragement for kids to pursue sports. I happen to be in possession of a great article on Charlie Conacher written shortly after his death which talks about his family life growing up and the crushing poverty that the Conachers faced. (...) Lionel Conacher, had he been born in the 21st century, never would have played hockey, as football was his great sporting love. But he couldn't make any money at it, and turned to the sport through which he could support his family. His brothers followed him, and hockey gained three superstars in the process.

As for this:

There was a nice rundown of it floating around before but I'm not sure if it still exists after the format change on these boards. It was done by a poster named BraveCanadian. If you take those raw numbers at face value then it backs up a lot of your points but most posters in this section will just say the registration system was different back then and/or that everyone played pond hockey so it didn't matter.

That's simply because it was different. If you take the raw registration numbers at face value, you run into the following problems:

Within the O6 era itself for starters we have a rise from ~20,000 to ~240,000 players. Are we really inclined to believe the Canadian talent pool literally increased twelvefold during that time? Even if we take into account the baby boom (birth rate x2) and maybe improving infrastructure, that factor of 12 seems very very very large, hard to believe. And then we have a jump from 264,000 to 540,000 within three years (1969-1972), another headscratcher.
 
Last edited:

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
I find that argument lacking, especially considering Howe himself was born in and played all of his minor hockey in Saskatchewan!

Not to mention the fact that a league of fewer players should technically have a higher talent-per-capita quotient than one with more players. In any case, the only way to quantify these things is by the player’s performance relative to their competition, and in that regard, as has already been pointed out, Howe’s 95 point season might just be the greatest relative performance we’ve ever seen.
You want to go ahead and name all the elite forwards from British Columbia and The United States that played in the original 6 era?

Tell me, what percentage of the league back then was from Ontario and Quebec? Make the criteria a minimum of 30 games played. I guarantee it will be well over 75%.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,041
12,661
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->