Is Gordie Howe Overrated?
- Thread starter Overrated
- Start date
- Status
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,799
- 5,344
I thought people putting 66 ahead of Howe was bad.... now he's apparently not even top 4 because 1950s?
This post right here proves Howe is significantly overrated.
They still have those.
Montreal has a list as long as my leg: Ville de Montréal - Official city portal - Skating rinks
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Toronto has 52 artificial outdoor rinks: Outdoor Rinks Listings
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The new thing of course is families building outdoor rinks in their backyard. Quite common in Ontario but I wouldn't do it because our weather is too unpredictable.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,540
- 4,921
Why the reproachful tone? If you were told we don't have these numbers, it's because we did not have them.
Which of course has a good reason:
You even concede it yourself.
No doubt, but since organized hockey goes back to the 1880s in Canada, it's pure guesswork for us to determine when that point was reached.
I can't speak for others, but I've always acknowledged the fact that the NHL talent pool has increased considerably due to the influx of Americans and Europeans. Which e.g. is why I use the method of excluding non-Canadians* when I compare the scoring dominance of Jaromír Jágr and Gordie Howe relative to their peers (*other than Jágr himself, obviously):
Peter Forsberg, Teemu Selänne, Pavel Bure etc were all removed from the comparison.
The Canadian talent pool, however, is a tougher nut to crack. It is not obvious to me how much the Canadian pool has grown from, say, the O6 era to the 1990s. I have my reservations about the national registration numbers as we do know for a fact that they weren't as inclusive and all-covering in the 1950s and 1960s as they were later. As far as I can see, we don't have anything tangible and reliable to rest upon, which reduces us to working assumptions until new evidence is presented. The working assumption (it's not more than that, really) I'm operating under is that the overall rate of the Canadian population actively playing hockey has been roughly the same from the 1950s to the present day, which is why I've been using the number of births in Canada as a basic framework. Numbers of births per decade (as per Statistic Canada):
1931-1941: 2,3 million births (20 years of age: 1951-1961)
1941-1951: 3,2 million births (20 years of age: 1961-1971)
1951-1961: 4,5 million births (20 years of age: 1971-1981)
1961-1971: 4,1 million births (20 years of age: 1981-1991)
1971-1981: 3,6 million births (20 years of age: 1991-2001)
1981-1991: 3,8 million births (20 years of age: 2001-2011)
Based on this, my assumption is that the Canadian talent pool was indeed quite a bit smaller in the O6 era than it was in later decades, but not nearly as "shallow" as you seem to suggest.
Of course, this workig assumption of mine could turn out wrong once new evidence is unearthed. Maybe the talent pool was smaller than I assume. Or you're in for a surprise and it was even larger than I assume.
Seriously? You're the one who is seemingly trying to argue that hockey hasn't grown as a sport since the early 1900's. That's a non-starter for any debate on the subject. Most sensible people wouldn't even engage in such a debate so I guess I'm not sensible.
This is why the US wasn't a talent stream for the NHL during part of the O6. Good to know. The problem is they weren't part of the talent stream feeding the league so that made it less competitive overall and backs up my argument.
St. Michael's College still has a very nice hockey program. The rest are all major cities in Canada that fed the early NHL. We know this already. What about BC and the Maritimes? Yet more missing talent streams that we do have now. Nova Scotia has given us Crosby, McKinnon, Marchand, MacInnis, etc. No such talent came from there during the O6 or before. It's all downhill from there when you add what the US has developed the last 40 or so years and what Europe has developed the last 50 or so years.
The debate actually concluded years ago when it started.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
This is an interesting approach but produces different conclusions if we change the fundemental question even slightly.
If the question has a focus on the elite hockey players produced then the conclusion goes in one direction. If the question has a focus on elite athletes produced the question goes in the opposite direction.
Specifically into the seventies the province of Quebec produced almost exclusively elite hockey players. Since the seventies, post 1976 Olympics with access to world class installations, coaching and training, Quebec produces elite world class Olympians, summer and winter, CFL and NFL football players( those who choose football over hockey at the bantam/midget age), elite baseball players, some basketball players, etc.
So again we are back at the O6 era and earlier, question of choice and perceived benefits. Conacher brothers chose hockey as did Syl Apps Sr. Harvey chose hockey over baseball and CFL football, Tommy Manestersky made the opposite choice - CFL as did Ron Howell - Harry Howell's brother and Gerry James after brief flirtations with the NHL.
No different from Drobny choosing tennis over hockey or Chara choosing hockey over an amateur athletics career. The pool is very fluid and wide with a constant depth, just a question of who chooses to swim at any given time.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
US trained players from the universities came to O6 NHL training camps but were not willing to take pay cuts to apprentice in the minors adapting to the NHL rules and longer season demands.
BC and the Maritimes you say. Pre WWI Maritime teams challenged for the Stanley Cup - 1912(Moncton) and 1913(Sydney):
Greatest Hockey Legends.com: Stanley Cup History: The Challenge Cup Years 1893-1913
Well the Maritimes was producing quality players - pre WWII - Gordie Drillon HHOF and others. You do manage to overlook the various Maritime teams that competed and won the Allan Cup with home grown talent. Similarly BC players stayed in BC to play locally. Look at the Allan Cup champions and finalists, The Maritime and BC teams did very well into the sixties.
Allan Cup - Wikipedia
Then you have Mike Buckna from BC who turned down the NHL to accelerate the growth of hockey in pre and post WWII Czechoslovakia.
Basically you should have researched claims instead of starting a debate unprepared.
Sentinel
Registered User
I am surprised two points have not been addressed.
1. There is more to life than offensive numbers. Howe was a phenomenal two-way player, better than any other forward from the Top 10. You have to wait until you drop down to Makarov, Yzerman, Trottier, and Messier to see this kind of defensive domination. The OP keeps bringing up Howe's 95 points (without mentioning the difference between 60 and 82 game seasons), while completely dismissing his stellar two-way play for twenty plus years.
2. Star players find a way to dominate in any era and we have cross-era dominant stars to compare eras. Selanne and Sakic dominated 00s and 90s. Gretzky dominated 90s and 80s. Dionne dominated both 80s and 70s. Esposito dominated 70s and 60s (with and without Orr). Howe dominated 60s and 50s. It's fairly easy to follow their statistical paths. Howe reached 100 pts for the first time in the first expansion season, so you can immediately tell how much the talent pool dilution affected the league. And so on, and so forth. Great players are great, regardless of the era.
1. There is more to life than offensive numbers. Howe was a phenomenal two-way player, better than any other forward from the Top 10. You have to wait until you drop down to Makarov, Yzerman, Trottier, and Messier to see this kind of defensive domination. The OP keeps bringing up Howe's 95 points (without mentioning the difference between 60 and 82 game seasons), while completely dismissing his stellar two-way play for twenty plus years.
2. Star players find a way to dominate in any era and we have cross-era dominant stars to compare eras. Selanne and Sakic dominated 00s and 90s. Gretzky dominated 90s and 80s. Dionne dominated both 80s and 70s. Esposito dominated 70s and 60s (with and without Orr). Howe dominated 60s and 50s. It's fairly easy to follow their statistical paths. Howe reached 100 pts for the first time in the first expansion season, so you can immediately tell how much the talent pool dilution affected the league. And so on, and so forth. Great players are great, regardless of the era.
Voight
#winning
What exactly is overrated about
* 6 Art Ross Trophies (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)
* 6 Hart Trophies (1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963) - as many as Lemieux and Orr combined
* First or second team All-Star every season from 1949-1970 except for 1955, or 21 times in the NHL in 22 seasons
* Top 5 in points in the NHL 20 straight times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in goals in the NHL 13 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in assists in the NHL 17 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969)
* Top 5 in PIM in the NHL 1 time (1954)
Here is some extra reading for you, on how damn good Howe was -
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/atd-2010-bios.737224/#post-23805029
Sentinel
Registered User
That said, I do believe it's easier to be the best out of 150 players than out of a 1000.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Doubtful. Competition for best or the various AST spots and honours usually is limited to the top 50 to 100 players each season. O6 or prior eras or even today. Probably tending to 50.
Back to a very valid point you made in post #183 about great players dominating. True but does their dominating play lead a team to victory or ultimate honours?
Exhibit A = Conor McDavid. Exhibit B = the Las Vegas expansion team. Examine all facets of the argument in this light and the relationship between individual play and team play comes into focus.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,583
- 10,170
If a player can't crack the top 150, what are the chances they were going to compete for #1?
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,583
- 10,170
I think this is a safest assumption.
If anything you can argue that the talent pool is larger now therefore it is more difficult to separate one's self from the pack. If you accept this understanding, then being from a more modern era is perhaps a little more powerful than a tie breaker, and not much more than that. So yeah, I would say 3 Harts from after 2005 is more impressive than 3 Harts from the 1940s. But I certainly wouldn't say 3 Harts from after 2005 is more impressive than 6 from the 50's.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,799
- 5,344
That's fine. And if you think Howe is better than Lemieux that's your opinion. But saying "I thought it was bad saying 66 was better" is highly overating Howe.
Voight
#winning
Except its not when the majority of people rate Howe above him. I don't understand why you think Lemieux being the 4th best ever is some sort of insult.
[MOD: No name-calling.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Farkas
Grace Personified
Just be mindful, though it goes without saying - I'm going to say it anyway, not every poster here (much less non-regular posters) speaks for all of us...
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Just like with the top-7 goaltenders, there's probably a number of mentalities that could put any of the top-4 skaters in different orders. Lemieux/Orr in 1/4 or 4/1 would look weird though. Having only post-expansion players in 1-2-3 is maybe worth an eyebrow raise though.
For the record: vadim, Hobnobs, and the edler have my expressed written consent to speak on my behalf.
For the record: vadim, Hobnobs, and the edler have my expressed written consent to speak on my behalf.
Doctor No
Registered User
My belief has always been that everyone here agrees with whatever I say.
I don't know how long you've been on this board. Maybe you went by another name, or I just don't remember you, but I guess I've been around for well over 10 years now. Originally, one couldn't even try to discuss this topic without regular posters complaining to mods, who would either give you a warning or close the thread down. It's obviously got a lot better since then but it always seemed as though those same regulars hid behind the strange rules of this section and the fact that we did not have statistics. We eventually got statistics and then they were not to be believed. I agree they may not be accurate but those same posters now hide behind that, and anything else they can conjure up. They don't want to give an inch because that's always been a slippery slope.
In the big picture (Modern NHL talent streams vs. O6 and pre-O6), I don't think their argument has any validity whatsoever. Even just comparing what's happened in Canada in that same comparison I don't think they have much of an argument either...
Yes, hockey is an extremely young sport. People playing on ponds for fun is one thing but it took years for it to get more serious, and there were several phases before there were even 100,000 "organized" people who could actually be considered as potential candidates for a top league.
That's a good start. Personally, in reality I think it should even go one step further because Canada has not been some static hockey producer. It's been up and down since the products of the baby boom but before that it was lower than it has been since.
This is very similar to how I view it actually. We both know that birth rates aren't the only factor but it's a good place to start, since this is a country that loves hockey and that hasn't changed much.
I think the O6 and pre-O6 is very shallow compared to the international streams we've had in the NHL since 1989. Certainly it wasn't as shallow if you just compare it with other eras of only Canada though.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Theokritos is one of our senior moderators. And those threads were closed down because there would be several contemporaneous threads getting derailed by the same posters regarding the same topic. It wasn't exactly censorship.
If arguing about the number of hockey players that are registered in a given year becames a recurring topic in multiple threads to the detriment of the flow of discussion like it was at that time, the moderation staff will consider responding accordingly. For now, enjoy your thread and do not speculate publicly about what the moderation staff does or does not do.
There's some merit to the idea that it's harder to stand out in a larger league, although it's not by a huge margin. The number of top spots - number 1 center, starting goalie, etc. have an impact on the competition. Being the second best player at your position is going to hurt your chances at winning awards simply because you'll start the year getting less ice time (particularly, offensive ice time for scorers) than the guy who is better than you. The more teams in the league, the more likely that second best player is instead the best player on another team and is getting the best offensive minutes from the get go, so if he's having the year of his life he can capitalize from the beginning. Think a guy like Patrick Kane - you previously wouldn't expect him to be an Art Ross contender (albeit not too far behind), but he is Chicago's best offensive threat and in 2015/2016 he ran away with it. In a smaller league he might get stuck playing behind someone else and never really get off to the hot start he did that year that led him to a dominant win. He might not get the Ross, or might win it by a much less impressive margin, if he has to earn the post-icing shifts, the top powerplay spot, etc instead of having them to begin the year.
In a long term discussion it doesn't really matter much since only a relatively few players are really in the conversation for being the best of their era, but on a year to year basis you're a bit more susceptible to potential career year performances from other players simply because there are more of them in a position to get those hot streaks. It doesn't really matter much for the outlier players like Howe or Gretzky who were dominating hard enough that a career year from other guy would still be unlikely to catch up though.
No disrespect to Drillon but he does not compare well with what came later from the Maritime provinces. Buckna is an even bigger stretch.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
He retired for good in 1980. If he retired in 1965 you don't think he is still a top 4 player? What did he do from 1965-'71 in his NHL years that put him over the top? I think he did his damage already by then. That peak in the 1950s is pretty incredible, and dare I say at times underrated.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Bringing things full cycle, back to Gordie Howe. In some of the few books and articles it is stated that in his grade school days he played goalie on his school team, reaching local championships.
So the level must have been pretty solid.
Roughly at the same time, Notre Dame in Wilcox, Sask was producing NHL level players , Nick and Don Metz, plus Gus Kyle:
The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités
Blurb in Vern De Geer's column from 1958 recognizes this.
First half of the 20th century, school hockey down to the grade school hockey was a major force and a solid source for talent.
So the level must have been pretty solid.
Roughly at the same time, Notre Dame in Wilcox, Sask was producing NHL level players , Nick and Don Metz, plus Gus Kyle:
The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités
Blurb in Vern De Geer's column from 1958 recognizes this.
First half of the 20th century, school hockey down to the grade school hockey was a major force and a solid source for talent.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,777
- 16,507
... Wait.
You're telling us that you're... Gordie Howe?
And you're pulling that old Gretzky trick by putting on a pedestal (above you) a player that is clearly a notch below (in that case, Dominik Hasek).
- Status
