Peak: Messier, Howe, Lindros, Trottier, Clarke

[04' hockey]

Lindros
Howe
Trottier
Clarke
Messier

Lindros only peaked for a few years but he was the most dominating player in the game at that time. Fight, hit, score, pass he could do it all. Basically the same as Howe.

I would love to be able to put a 24yr old Lindros against a 24yr old Howe and see what happens.

If you're a fan of lindros, believe me, you wouldn't want to see the results.....lindros never made Scott Stevens pay for his transgressions(playoff hit) and lindros TOWERED over Stevens.....Stevens would NEVER do to Howe what he did to lindros, he'd know better.

 

[Hardyvan123]

ha ha. that's exactly what i was going to say.

as time passes people more and more are confusing how dominant lindros was projected to be with how dominant he actually was. as with bure, this overrating may be in large part be youtube's fault.

there is no basis to reasonably argue that lindros was a top 5 player all time when healthy and at his peak (which is what howe was). at his peak, howe did everything lindros did physically and more, and his offense was at nearly a gretzky/lemieux level with respect to his peers. lindros' offence was closer to a dionne/bossy level-- exceptionally good, but you can't even start to compare the two.

Howe was never at the level of Gretzky and Lemieux at his peak and Dionne had a better peak and Prime than any of the 5 listed here, at least offensively.

Lindros was one of the top 5 players in the league for his peak, injuries is what diminished his overall impact , even in his prime.

 

[67 others]

Howe was never at the level of Gretzky and Lemieux at his peak and Dionne had a better peak and Prime than any of the 5 listed here, at least offensively.

Lindros was one of the top 5 players in the league for his peak, injuries is what diminished his overall impact , even in his prime.

Didn't Howe win his scoring titles by a ridiculous gap over the next closest player? Larger than Lemieux did with his? While also being a complete player. Physical and good defensively?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Didn't Howe win his scoring titles by a ridiculous gap over the next closest player? Larger than Lemieux did with his? While also being a complete player. Physical and good defensively?

I was talking about pure offensive terms which can be measured and if you look at adjusted stats he is in the Dionne level. Howe's prime and longevity is what sets him apart.

From 50-59 he had 91,118,105,131,114,84,106,112,91 and 90 points.

Dionne from 75-85 was 105,81, 109,71,110,116,104,85,86,73,101 pick your peak and with some pretty weak linemates as well.

Howe was never in the peak equation with Gretzky and Lemieux although his peak is the best of the 5 in the list on this thread.

The gap between the top scorer and Howe might have more to do with the lack of skill players during the time period Howe played in compared to the other 4 guys on the list IMO.

 

[JackSlater]

Howe was never at the level of Gretzky and Lemieux at his peak and Dionne had a better peak and Prime than any of the 5 listed here, at least offensively.

Lindros was one of the top 5 players in the league for his peak, injuries is what diminished his overall impact , even in his prime.

... there is no way Dionne's offensive peak is as good as Howe's. The gap between Howe and everyone else was sometimes massive. The gap between Dionne and the rest of the NHL at his peak was usually non existant.

 

[Hardyvan123]

... there is no way Dionne's offensive peak is as good as Howe's. The gap between Howe and everyone else was sometimes massive. The gap between Dionne and the rest of the NHL at his peak was usually non existant.

I'm not talking about the gap between the two players and the rest of the league.

Using adjusted stats Howe is lightly better than Dionne offensively at their peaks and if you factor in line mates a pretty good argument can be made that they are pretty comparable as well.

If the Habs had picked Dionne instead of Lafleur than Marcel would be a lot higher than 16 on the list of centers. Context matters, as it stands Dionne had a pretty decent career.

 

[matnor]

I'm not talking about the gap between the two players and the rest of the league.

Using adjusted stats Howe is lightly better than Dionne offensively at their peaks and if you factor in line mates a pretty good argument can be made that they are pretty comparable as well.

If the Habs had picked Dionne instead of Lafleur than Marcel would be a lot higher than 16 on the list of centers. Context matters, as it stands Dionne had a pretty decent career.

Top-10 finishes in points:

Howe: 1,1,1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,9
Dionne: 1,2,2,2,3,4,5,7

Howe not only had a ridiculous peak but also unparalleled longevity. Though I do agree that Dionne likely would have been ranked higher had he played for the Canadiens.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's what I'm thinking.

For a couple of years Lindros was the most dominating force in the game. Go much beyond that and he doesn't even belong in this conversation.

Which years were these?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not talking about the gap between the two players and the rest of the league.

Using adjusted stats Howe is lightly better than Dionne offensively at their peaks and if you factor in line mates a pretty good argument can be made that they are pretty comparable as well.

If the Habs had picked Dionne instead of Lafleur than Marcel would be a lot higher than 16 on the list of centers. Context matters, as it stands Dionne had a pretty decent career.

Adjusted points are basically useless pre-expansion.

The fact that a guy who was always among the leaders in points (Dionne) actually compares with a guy who dominated the league in points (Howe) is just more proof of this.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Howe was never at the level of Gretzky and Lemieux at his peak and Dionne had a better peak and Prime than any of the 5 listed here, at least offensively.

Lindros was one of the top 5 players in the league for his peak, injuries is what diminished his overall impact , even in his prime.

not sure what you're trying to say here. of course lindros was a top five player in the league at his peak. i don't think anyone would argue with that. clarke was a top five player in his prime, trots was a top five player, mess was a top five player.

i don't know that much about how adjusted stats work, but in howe's best 5 year stretch ('49-'54), here are the highest points totals.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

howe has the top 4, and the 9th highest scoring years. the next highest non-howe linemate was richard at 16 points below howe's average for those 5 years.

you do bring up an interesting point about howe's competition though. he was still always a regular top-5 scorer for the 15(!) years after that 5 year stretch but in the second half of the 50s guys like beliveau, moore, geoffrion, bathgate, hull, and others were competitive with howe's point finishes. from what i've read and heard from people on this board, i think howe was a better player in the first half of the 50s than he was in the second half, but i am open to compelling arguments that he was the same player throughout the decade but with better competition in the second half if one can be made.

 

[charliolemieux]

Which years were these?

mid-90's pre-Stevens.

Realise I said dominant, not offensive. It was a combination of size, skill and aggression that made him unlike anything in the league.

 

[67 others]

I was talking about pure offensive terms which can be measured and if you look at adjusted stats he is in the Dionne level. Howe's prime and longevity is what sets him apart.

From 50-59 he had 91,118,105,131,114,84,106,112,91 and 90 points.

Dionne from 75-85 was 105,81, 109,71,110,116,104,85,86,73,101 pick your peak and with some pretty weak linemates as well.

Howe was never in the peak equation with Gretzky and Lemieux although his peak is the best of the 5 in the list on this thread.

The gap between the top scorer and Howe might have more to do with the lack of skill players during the time period Howe played in compared to the other 4 guys on the list IMO.

your adjusted stats seem to differ from others.

someone here did an adjustment of howe's best 4 years in the early 50's to the 80's scoring at one point, and in his best year, he was adjusted to around 170 points. another person also showed that howe was among the best shorthanded scorers in the game. and to hear those who played with him and coached talk puts him far above anything dionne ever achieved.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

one thing to think about the hypothetical of dionne being drafted by montreal and lafleur by detroit is that bowman gave lafleur free rein to do whatever he wanted while everyone else had to play a very disciplined brand of hockey. would he have given dionne that kind of leash?

lafleur had either lemaire or mahovlich covering his back. but scotty demands a very specific game from his centers and there is no evidence to suggest that dionne could 1. do the little things that lemaire, mahovlich, fedorov, and yzerman excelled at, and 2. that he could have put up the same numbers if he had been asked to shoulder that kind of load.

not to say that dionne couldn't have been that kind of player or that bowman would definitely not have let him run wild on the first line, but i don't think it's a given that dionne would have had lafleur's career if their draft positions had been swapped.

interesting, joe pelletier points out that montreal tried to get detroit's #2 pick that year and could have had both guys, offering j.c. tremblay, rogie vachon, and terry harper.

http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2009/06/trading-places-guy-lafleur-and-marcel.html

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Am I totally out to lunch or was Lafleur originally drafted as a center and converted to wing by Bowman? Maybe he would have done the same with Dionne... Dionne was a very good goal scorer for a center, so it could have worked maybe.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Top-10 finishes in points:

Howe: 1,1,1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,9
Dionne: 1,2,2,2,3,4,5,7

Howe not only had a ridiculous peak but also unparalleled longevity. Though I do agree that Dionne likely would have been ranked higher had he played for the Canadiens.

I agree that Howe had an unparalleled longevity and prime and peak as well but lets face the facts here too, it is way easier to be in the top 10 in points and in the top 5 when there is a 6 team league and only 6 top lines getting top PP minutes instead of 18 plus teams, not to mention Dionne's lack of quality line mates through out most of his career.

I'm not trying to diminish what a long and great career Howe had in any way but original 6 top 10 and top 5 finishes and comparing them to latter day players is really unfair IMO and more analysis needs to be brought to the table comparing players from these eras.

Bring into context the line mates of Howe and Dionne and I think that you can make a pretty strong argument that they were comparable offensive players in their peak with Howe getting the nod and obviously his total game was better as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

your adjusted stats seem to differ from others.

someone here did an adjustment of howe's best 4 years in the early 50's to the 80's scoring at one point, and in his best year, he was adjusted to around 170 points. another person also showed that howe was among the best shorthanded scorers in the game. and to hear those who played with him and coached talk puts him far above anything dionne ever achieved.

This is the site and their use of adjusted stats is a pretty good base level to work from IMO

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/howego01.html
Howe just isn't in the same peak offensive category as Lemiuex or Gretzky.

Jagr is the 3rd best guy on the list of peak offensively adjusted

 

[Hardyvan123]

not sure what you're trying to say here. of course lindros was a top five player in the league at his peak. i don't think anyone would argue with that. clarke was a top five player in his prime, trots was a top five player, mess was a top five player.

i don't know that much about how adjusted stats work, but in howe's best 5 year stretch ('49-'54), here are the highest points totals.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

howe has the top 4, and the 9th highest scoring years. the next highest non-howe linemate was richard at 16 points below howe's average for those 5 years.

you do bring up an interesting point about howe's competition though. he was still always a regular top-5 scorer for the 15(!) years after that 5 year stretch but in the second half of the 50s guys like beliveau, moore, geoffrion, bathgate, hull, and others were competitive with howe's point finishes. from what i've read and heard from people on this board, i think howe was a better player in the first half of the 50s than he was in the second half, but i am open to compelling arguments that he was the same player throughout the decade but with better competition in the second half if one can be made.

Not sure if Clarke was a top 5 player at his peak, definitely not offensively but the point I was trying to make was that offensively on a PPG average Lindros was definitely a top 5 guy in his peak years but he always missed games, even in his peak due to injuries so his value is diminished somewhat by that IMO.

 

[canucks4ever]

I am aware that Jagr and Lemieux didn't always play together at that point. They did however play on the powerplay together. Lemieux is basically the best powerplay scorer ever. Sharing the ice with a tremendous offensive force like Lemieux would inflate the totals of any player in hockey history to some degree. Plus, as seventieslord noted Jagr would be facing the best defensive players at all times if Lemieux was not around. I'm not implying that Lindros would blow Jagr away if Lemieux wasn't playing, I'm just theorizing that Lindros would have a higher ppg than Jagr during those two seasons... which he did in 1997 even though Lemieux was playing.

I beg to differ, joe sakic was able to score 120 points in 1996. If he can score 120, Jagr should have no problem reaching 130 without mario. Lindros was on pace for 128 points in 1996, jagr could have easily beat that. He did play 12 games without mario and he didn't all of a sudden slow down.

Prime jagr always outpointed guys like forsberg and sakic on a yearly basis. If they scored 116 and 120 respectively in 1996, I am supposed to believe that jagr wouldn't hit 128 without Mario, please.

 

[Sens Rule]

Not sure if Clarke was a top 5 player at his peak, definitely not offensively but the point I was trying to make was that offensively on a PPG average Lindros was definitely a top 5 guy in his peak years but he always missed games, even in his peak due to injuries so his value is diminished somewhat by that IMO.

Clarke was definately a top 5 player at his peak. He was the best player on a team that won 2 Cups and was dominant otherwise. He was undebatedly by far the best defensive forward in the NHL while also being among the scoring leaders and getting 100+ points. Plus he has 3 Harts. Even if he should not have won any of the Harts and Orr gets the ones that were his, he certainly is top 5 those 3 years. He is top 3 all those Hart years almost without any possible argument.

 

[JackSlater]

I beg to differ, joe sakic was able to score 120 points in 1996. If he can score 120, Jagr should have no problem reaching 130 without mario. Lindros was on pace for 128 points in 1996, jagr could have easily beat that. He did play 12 games without mario and he didn't all of a sudden slow down.

Prime jagr always outpointed guys like forsberg and sakic on a yearly basis. If they scored 116 and 120 respectively in 1996, I am supposed to believe that jagr wouldn't hit 128 without Mario, please.

Jagr's scoring is independent from Sakic's. There are far too many variables in play to conclude Jagr's without-Lemieux point total based on Sakic's actual point total. The only pertinent question is whether or not you believe playing with Lemieux was worth 20 points to Jagr. I'm guessing it could very easily go either way, giving Lindros a decent shot that given year.

 

[canucks4ever]

Jagr's scoring is independent from Sakic's. There are far too many variables in play to conclude Jagr's without-Lemieux point total based on Sakic's actual point total. The only pertinent question is whether or not you believe playing with Lemieux was worth 20 points to Jagr. I'm guessing it could very easily go either way, giving Lindros a decent shot that given year.

Either way, Lindros never played full seasons anyways. It's easier to score at a high pace when you only play 50 games. In 1997 Jagr was scoring well above 1.6 ppg before he got injured, then he slowed down, so there is no guarantee lindros would have ended up with more points if he played the full season.

Jagr was able to outscore joe sakic in 1994, 1995, and every year from 1997-2000. But from some reason, jagr wont score 128 in 1996 because he doesnt have mario on the powerplay? Jagr only scored 46/149 points with mario that season. That means 2/3 of his points were on his own. Wihtout mario, that means jagr also gets more ice time, and he was better without mario, not worse.

I dont think 1998 all of a sudden became the year where jagr was better than everyone else. He was the best non-mario player since 1996.

 

[JackSlater]

Either way, Lindros never played full seasons anyways. It's easier to score at a high pace when you only play 50 games. In 1997 Jagr was scoring well above 1.6 ppg before he got injured, then he slowed down, so there is no guarantee lindros would have ended up with more points if he played the full season.

I'm not guaranteeing that Lindros would have more points if he played the full season; I am saying that he would have a decent chance. I've only been talking about ppg this whole time anyway.

Jagr was able to outscore joe sakic in 1994, 1995, and every year from 1997-2000. But from some reason, jagr wont score 128 in 1996 because he doesnt have mario on the powerplay? Jagr only scored 46/149 points with mario that season. That means 2/3 of his points were on his own. Wihtout mario, that means jagr also gets more ice time, and he was better without mario, not worse.

I dont think 1998 all of a sudden became the year where jagr was better than everyone else. He was the best non-mario player since 1996.

Once again I don't know if you actually bother reading what I've said. Regarding Jagr outscoring Sakic that year, I would imagine he would have still outscored Sakic but it isn't certain. It was pretty surprising that Henrik Sedin outscored Crosby last year, but it happened, and Crosby is still likely to outscore Sedin over the next several seasons. The question isn't whether Jagr would outscore Sakic anyway, it is whether or not he gets 129 points, which is 9 above Sakic. As far as the 46 goals Jagr shared with Lemieux, once again the question is whether there would be 26 goals that Jagr played a part of in their place if Lemieux wasn't there, and also if his non Lemieux production would remain the same with greater defensive attention from opposing teams. Just out of curiosity, how many points do you project Jagr would have scored over those 82 games had Lemieux not played that year? You seem to be implying that it would be unquestionably several points above 130.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Not sure if Clarke was a top 5 player at his peak, definitely not offensively but the point I was trying to make was that offensively on a PPG average Lindros was definitely a top 5 guy in his peak years but he always missed games, even in his peak due to injuries so his value is diminished somewhat by that IMO.

i missed this but, what?

bobby clarke was twice the second highest scorer in the league, once behind esposito and once behind lafleur. he was also fifth in '74. he was also top five in playoff scoring three straight years.

completely disregard defensive play, leadership, competitiveness, and everything else. bobby clarke was absolutely a top five offensive player at his peak. there is no question.

as for lindros, no one here is denying that lindros is a top five offensive player in the league at his peak if you discount time missed due to injuries and holdouts.

 

[oil4life97]

Not quite understanding the rationale here for many having Messier at the bottom of their lists. Not very many forwards I'd choose ahead of him on my fantasy team. Six stanley cup rings. Only guy to captain 2 teams to a cup. 2 Hart trophies. Conn Smythe Trophy. Is Lindros and his 115pt peak season better than Messier and his 130pt peak season and being one of the biggest playoff monsters?

 

[oil4life97]

Howe not only had a ridiculous peak but also unparalleled longevity.

Howe- 26 NHL seasons 1767 GP--1850 pts
Messier-25 NHL seasons 1756 GP--1887 pts

Quite Similar? Justsayin