What are the arguments to have Gretzky or Lemieux at 4th?

[Rhiessan71]

Yes, Coffey '85-'86, 48-90-138, that 'touches' Orr numbers.

Hahaha, it took Coffey playing an all out offensive style in a higher scoring era, playing with Gretzky himself to even "touch" Orr.

All time Norris dominance? Lidstrom says hello.

7 Norris in 20 years vs 8 consecutive Norris in basically 9 years...oh yeah, that's close
Harvey also has 7.

 

[daver]

I always find it interesting that people think Howe's offense was actually close to Mario's. In 1966, Bobby Hull put together a season as good as any of Howe's best seasons, no one would say Bobby Hull in the 80s would score 199 points like lemieux did. Heck Stan Mikita's 1967 season is comparable to Gordie Howe's best years.

Statistically, these statements are false. Are there other things to be considered besides what the numbers say?

 

[canucks4ever]

Statistically, these statements are false. Are there other things to be considered besides what the numbers say?

Oh really how is it false? Bobby Hull lead the league in goals by a bigger margin. He lead the league in points per game by a similar margin. Are you going to ignore the fact that the nhl in 1966 and 1967 is considerably better than the league in the early 50s.

 

[daver]

No need to argue really, the numbers are there. Anyway it doesn't really matter, Orr never had a dman with Mario's talent to compete with, and if you remove Mario from the equation, Gretzky's dominance over his peers is even more untouchable.

There is no argument but not in the way you think.

The whole point was that Wayne was not "untouchable", Orr was. The reason that Orr never had a dman with Mario's talent to compete with is because there wasn't one in the history of the NHL.

 

[bobholly39]

Hahaha, it took Coffey playing an all out offensive style in a higher scoring era, playing with Gretzky himself to even "touch" Orr.




7 Norris in 20 years vs 8 consecutive Norris in basically 9 years...oh yeah, that's close
Harvey also has 7.

Lidstrom has 6 Norris in a 7 year stretch. It really IS close if you're looking strictly at Norris record for consecutive years.

 

[daver]

Oh really how is it false? Bobby Hull lead the league in goals by a bigger margin. He lead the league in points per game by a similar margin. Are you going to ignore the fact that the nhl in 1966 and 1967 is considerably better than the league in the early 50s.

The raw numbers are these:

Howe - 95
Lindsay - 71
Richard - 61
4th - 59
5th - 59
6th - 54
7th - 50


Hull - 97
Rousseau - 78
Mikita - 78
4th - 77
5th -75
6th - 72
7th - 69


Leaving aside how goals are apparently better than assists and that Howe's era was apparently easier (and the inside joke that a prime Hull barely beat a 39 year old Howe in 68/69), what exactly is your argument here?

 

[daver]

Lidstrom has 6 Norris in a 7 year stretch. It really IS close if you're looking strictly at Norris record for consecutive years.

I think a cumulative total of Norris votes over their best 9 years puts this argument to bed quite concretely.

 

[K Fleur]

Lidstrom has 6 Norris in a 7 year stretch. It really IS close if you're looking strictly at Norris record for consecutive years.

If you factor in peak play, and the level of dominance displayed in each players Norris wins it's not close.

I could be wrong, but it also feels like Orr's direct competition for the Norris was stronger than Lidstrom's as well. Orr's dominance just doesn't make it appear that way.

 

[canucks4ever]

The raw numbers are these:

Howe - 95
Lindsay - 71
Richard - 61
4th - 59
5th - 59
6th - 54
7th - 50


Hull - 97
Rousseau - 78
Mikita - 78
4th - 77
5th -75
6th - 72
7th - 69


Leaving aside how goals are apparently better than assists and that Howe's era was apparently easier (and the inside joke that a prime Hull barely beat a 39 year old Howe in 68/69), what exactly is your argument here?

Your just going to ignore the fact that the nhl in 1966 and 67 was a considerably better league?

Hull was competing against an absolute peak stan mikita and beliveau, his competition was clearly better. Hull also missed 4 games.

The only thing that stopped Mikita in 67 from winning the art ross by a bigger margin is that his competition was absolute peak bobby hull, not ted lindsey, lol.


Hull's points per game in 1966 was 1.49, the #2 guy was 1.15. He was absolutely just as good.

 

[daver]

Your just going to ignore the fact that the nhl in 1966 and 67 was a considerably better league?

Hard to have an objective discussion if you are always going to appeal to the very subjective topic of era strength.

Statistically, Howe's is better from a raw numbers standpoint. Respective PPGs vs. the PPGs of a larger sample size (i.e. the Top 7 scorers) than just 2nd place is in Howe's favour. Even if we only consider the gap between 1st and 2nd, the fact that it's Howe's linemate is also in Howe's favour.

 

[daver]

Hull was competing against an absolute peak stan mikita and beliveau, his competition was clearly better. Hull also missed 4 games.

Here is where your objectivity comes into question as you have now committed to back up your statement that the NHL was better.

How is a 1.15 PPG Mikita at his "absolute peak" when he was at 1.39 the very next year?

And apparently Hull was also competing against a well past his peak Howe in that period too. Hard to imagine that the NHL was that much better when Gordie was still competing for scoring titles.

 

[canucks4ever]

Hard to have an objective discussion if you are always going to appeal to the very subjective topic era strength.

Statistically, Howe's is better from a raw numbers standpoint. Respective PPGs vs. the PPGs of a larger sample size (i.e. the Top 7 scorers) than just 2nd place is in Howe's favour. Even if we only consider the gap between 1st and 2nd, the fact that it's Howe's linemate is also in Howe's favour.

Objective? Yeah and how much better really? Hull was on pace to score 104 points if he didnt miss 5 games. He was just as good.

Wally Hergsheimer, Metro Prystai and Paul Ronty all finished top 7 in scoring that year? Yeah it was sure an equal league to the mid 60's.

How exactly would you adjust Howe's 1953, Hull's 1966 and Mikita's 1967 seasons to Mario's 1989 season. I'm very curious.

 

[canucks4ever]

Here is where your objectivity comes into question as you have now committed to back up your statement that the NHL was better.

How is a 1.15 PPG Mikita at his "absolute peak" when he was at 1.39 the very next year?

And apparently Hull was also competing against a well past his peak Howe in that period too. Hard to imagine that the NHL was that much better when Gordie was still competing for scoring titles.

Would you like to make a poll comparing the nhl from the early 50s to the mid 60's, I can guarantee the mid 60's will win in a lopsided fashion. Fell free to make the poll.

You dont want to admit that Hull and Mikita posted similar season, all you care about is winning arguments.

 

[daver]

Objective? Yeah and how much better really? Hull was on pace to score 104 points if he didnt miss 5 games. He was just as good.

Setting aside that we are going to give Hull credit for missed games:

Hull's PPG of 1.49 is 38% better than the average PPG of the next 6 scorers.

Howe's PPG of 1.36 is 62% better than the average PPG of the next 6 scorers.

Statistically, Hull was not "just as good". I will leave this with you to add your subjective musings.

 

[canucks4ever]

Setting aside that we are going to give Hull credit for missed games:

Hull's PPG of 1.49 is 38% better than the average PPG of the next 6 scorers.

Howe's PPG of 1.36 is 62% better than the average PPG of the next 6 scorers.

Statistically, Hull was not "just as good". I will leave with you to add your subjective musings to this.

Howe was able to outscore ronty, prystai and hergsheimer by bigger margins than actual hall of famers? You win the argument hands down.

 

[Irato99]

Hahaha, it took Coffey playing an all out offensive style in a higher scoring era, playing with Gretzky himself to even "touch" Orr.

So what, he did, that's the point. I could also say that it took a one-in-a-lifetime player like Mario who had the size and the skills to even touch Gretzky.

 

[daver]

So what, he did, that's the point. I could also say that it took a one-in-a-lifetime player like Mario who had the size and the skills to even touch Gretzky.

Coffey did not touch Orr. Unless you think that Crosby hasn't touched any player with more than 120 points in a season or OV hasn't touched any goalscorer with more than 65 in a season.

And you know a d-man's primary job is to play defense. Was Coffey as good as that as Orr?

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Your just going to ignore the fact that the nhl in 1966 and 67 was a considerably better league?

Hull was competing against an absolute peak stan mikita and beliveau, his competition was clearly better. Hull also missed 4 games.

The only thing that stopped Mikita in 67 from winning the art ross by a bigger margin is that his competition was absolute peak bobby hull, not ted lindsey, lol.


Hull's points per game in 1966 was 1.49, the #2 guy was 1.15. He was absolutely just as good.

The top-ten scorers in 52-53 consisted of 6 Hall of Famers (including Howe). The top-ten scorers in 65-66 consisted of 7 (including Hull). That's not the huge difference you're making it out to be.

Averaging the top 3rd to 12th Canadian-born forwards in points-per-game (minimum of 25 games played, from here), the average was 0.763 points per game in 52-53 while it was 0.946 in 65-66. It was simply a much more physical and defensive-minded era in the 50's. Certainly, you wouldn't attribute the return of players after WWII as watering down the league... but scoring dropped from 8+ goals per game in 43-44 to 4.8 during Howe's peak (and relaxed to 6.08 goals per game in 65-66). (Going the other direction, league scoring rose as more and more players left to fight overseas.)

Adjusted to 2015-16 scoring levels using the 3rd to 12th Canadian forwards as the seasonal benchmark, here are the league leaders until 1967-68 (right before the Orr/Esposito era):

Season|Avg 3rd-12th CDN|Art Ross|Runner-Up|Third|GP|Art Ross (adj)|Runner-up (adj)|Third (adj)|Winner|Link|Notes
1927|0.654|37|36|32|44|96|94|83|Bill Cook| http://hkref.com/tiny/u70XA
1928|0.704|51|39|35|44|123|94|85|Howie Morenz| http://hkref.com/tiny/JjHn9
1929|0.544|32|29|27|44|100|91|84|Ace Bailey| http://hkref.com/tiny/1AlR8
1930|1.184|73|62|61|44|105|89|88|Cooney Weiland| http://hkref.com/tiny/gR8Mj
1931|0.921|51|48|43|44|94|89|79|Howie Morenz| http://hkref.com/tiny/x0LeZ
1932|0.914|53|50|49|48|90|85|84|Busher Jackson| http://hkref.com/tiny/Ntvrl
1933|0.809|50|44|43|48|96|85|83|Bill Cook| http://hkref.com/tiny/dgjUO
1934|0.804|52|46|44|48|101|89|85|Charlie Conacher| http://hkref.com/tiny/dBDvd
1935|0.873|57|47|46|48|102|84|82|Charlie Conacher| http://hkref.com/tiny/ka1ay
1936|0.758|45|40|40|48|93|82|82|Sweeney Schriner| http://hkref.com/tiny/E86Fn
1937|0.791|46|45|44|48|91|89|87|Sweeney Schriner| http://hkref.com/tiny/AQpD8
1938|0.797|52|50|44|48|102|98|86|Gordie Drillon| http://hkref.com/tiny/n51lr
1939|0.826|47|44|42|48|89|83|79|Toe Blake| http://hkref.com/tiny/nm5wO | Cowley adj. pace: 113
1940|0.845|52|43|43|48|96|79|79|Milt Schmidt| http://hkref.com/tiny/qp2uN
1941|0.902|62|44|44|48|107|76|76|Bill Cowley| http://hkref.com/tiny/I8Xdj
1942|1.011|56|54|53|48|86|83|82|Bryan Hextall| http://hkref.com/tiny/TvkQj
1943|1.253|73|72|70|50|87|86|84|Doug Bentley| http://hkref.com/tiny/7ED4U
1944|1.433|82|77|74|50|86|80|77|Herb Cain| http://hkref.com/tiny/a8812
1945|1.136|80|73|67|50|105|96|88|Elmer Lach| http://hkref.com/tiny/xf2wO
1946|0.990|61|52|50|50|92|79|76|Max Bentley| http://hkref.com/tiny/JpEj2
1947|0.962|72|71|63|60|93|92|82|Max Bentley| http://hkref.com/tiny/Lc1hA
1948|0.908|61|60|57|60|84|82|78|Elmer Lach| http://hkref.com/tiny/jD1MK
1949|0.829|68|66|54|60|102|99|81|Roy Conacher| http://hkref.com/tiny/plSBt
1950|0.848|78|69|68|70|98|87|86|Ted Lindsay| http://hkref.com/tiny/kIaVH
1951|0.843|86|66|62|70|109|84|79|Gordie Howe| http://hkref.com/tiny/9JHyb
1952|0.846|86|69|65|70|109|87|82|Gordie Howe| http://hkref.com/tiny/eRyK5
1953|0.763|95|71|61|70|133|100|86|Gordie Howe| http://hkref.com/tiny/kaTXi
1954|0.743|81|67|62|70|117|96|89|Gordie Howe| http://hkref.com/tiny/yOIvs
1955|0.847|75|74|73|70|95|93|92|Bernie Geoffrion| http://hkref.com/tiny/RSmu0
1956|0.873|88|79|71|70|108|97|87|Jean Beliveau| http://hkref.com/tiny/ulWI0
1957|0.940|89|85|84|70|101|97|96|Gordie Howe| http://hkref.com/tiny/obc05
1958|1.026|84|80|78|70|88|83|81|Dickie Moore| http://hkref.com/tiny/yjcao
1959|1.009|96|91|88|70|102|96|93|Dickie Moore| http://hkref.com/tiny/vPTQm
1960|1.036|81|80|74|70|84|83|76|Bobby Hull| http://hkref.com/tiny/ueOw4
1961|1.045|95|90|84|70|97|92|86|Bernie Geoffrion| http://hkref.com/tiny/Mt6qE
1962|0.982|84|84|77|70|91|91|84|Bobby Hull| http://hkref.com/tiny/L8lDO
1963|0.975|86|81|76|70|94|89|83|Gordie Howe| http://hkref.com/tiny/EZMUe
1964|0.938|89|87|78|70|101|99|89|Stan Mikita| http://hkref.com/tiny/M2t5k
1965|0.900|87|83|76|70|103|99|90|Stan Mikita| http://hkref.com/tiny/ZYxlv
1966|0.946|97|78|78|70|110|88|88|Bobby Hull| http://hkref.com/tiny/uP3eA | Hull adj. pace: 118
1967|0.866|97|80|70|70|120|99|86|Stan Mikita| http://hkref.com/tiny/YS1pR
1968|0.995|87|84|82|74|89|85|83|Stan Mikita| http://hkref.com/tiny/PlOO2

Even longevity is an era effect. Before Howe came along, only two players had managed to win the retro Art Ross in back-to-back years (Conacher and Schriner). Injuries (thanks to general viciousness and recklessness) plagued the league. Morenz, in his all-time great season, managed to suffer injuries to his kidney (shoddy construction), head (twice, with the second time being a cross-check that split open the back of his head), and fingers (broken). He missed only one game, but that undoubtedly had long-term consequences. Advances in training and medicine over the years have definitely allowed players to extend their careers.

 

[Irato99]

Coffey did not touch Orr. Unless you think that Crosby hasn't touched any player with more than 120 points in a season or OV hasn't touched any goalscorer with more than 65 in a season.

And you know a d-man's primary job is to play defense. Was Coffey as good as that as Orr?

If you look at defense only there were a few players in the history that were as good as Orr.

 

[bobholly39]

If you factor in peak play, and the level of dominance displayed in each players Norris wins it's not close.

I could be wrong, but it also feels like Orr's direct competition for the Norris was stronger than Lidstrom's as well. Orr's dominance just doesn't make it appear that way.

I'm not necessarily saying Lidstrom is close to Orr as a player per se.

But someone used "Norris dominance" as an argument for Orr. It was pointed out that Lidstrom is close in that area. Then another poster claimed Orr did 8 Norris in 9 years and Lidstrom did 7 in 20 years.

My response was simply that that's mis-representing Lidstrom. 7 in 20 years is fine, but he also had a 6 Norris in 7 year stretch which is extremely close to Orr's level of Norris dominance.

I also disagree - I'd think competition for Norris might have been tougher in Lidstrom's time, with much more parity around the league and more overall teams/elite players. Though I didn't necessarily look at it in great detail

 

[bobholly39]

Setting aside that we are going to give Hull credit for missed games:

Hull's PPG of 1.49 is 38% better than the average PPG of the next 6 scorers.

Howe's PPG of 1.36 is 62% better than the average PPG of the next 6 scorers.

Statistically, Hull was not "just as good". I will leave this with you to add your subjective musings.

Margin of victory is such a flawed way to look at things.

You of all people should know this as a huge Crosby advocate.

Crosby's best years are 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2006-2007, and 2016-2017 (so far).
2013-2014 was a pretty great year for him too but it was NOT his best year offensively on a per game basis. It just wasn't.

Yet because competition happened to be weak that year and no one but Getzlaf at 87 points managed to have a strong year it makes it Crosby's best? That's just dumb and illogical.

Same logic with Howe. I'm not saying it means Howe's 52-53 was bad or anything - but looking at domination over peers is NOT the way to go.

Howe scored 95 points that year. If Hull had played that year how many points would he have scored? 70? 95? 105? What about Lemieux/Gretzky? Also 95? 120? 150? 70? Trying to determine that and then figuring out who would have been better is the way to go.

That's the logic that should go into comparing seasons. It should not simply be looking at margin of victories within a year.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Margin of victory is such a flawed way to look at things.

You of all people should know this as a huge Crosby advocate.

Crosby's best years are 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2006-2007, and 2016-2017 (so far).
2013-2014 was a pretty great year for him too but it was NOT his best year offensively on a per game basis. It just wasn't.

Yet because competition happened to be weak that year and no one but Getzlaf at 87 points managed to have a strong year it makes it Crosby's best? That's just dumb and illogical.

Same logic with Howe. I'm not saying it means Howe's 52-53 was bad or anything - but looking at domination over peers is NOT the way to go.

Howe scored 95 points that year. If Hull had played that year how many points would he have scored? 70? 95? 105? What about Lemieux/Gretzky? Also 95? 120? 150? 70? Trying to determine that and then figuring out who would have been better is the way to go.

That's the logic that should go into comparing seasons. It should not simply be looking at margin of victories within a year.

Exactly. Or we can say that mario lemieux never dominated a season as much as crosby. This is also the main reasoning of people thinking howes peak rivals Lemieuxs. Which is false IMO. In howes era there were a bunch of players winning multiple art ross trophies directly against howe.

From 1981-94 only lemieux and gretzky won the art ross. In a 17 year span 81-97 66 and 99 won 16 art ross trophies. This shows they were far more dominant.

Reminds me of messi and cr7 who have combined for the last 9 fifa world player of the year awards

 

[bobholly39]

Exactly. Or we can say that mario lemieux never dominated a season as much as crosby. This is also the main reasoning of people thinking howes peak rivals Lemieuxs. Which is false IMO. In howes era there were a bunch of players winning multiple art ross trophies directly against howe.

From 1981-94 only lemieux and gretzky won the art ross. In a 17 year span 81-97 66 and 99 won 16 art ross trophies. This shows they were far more dominant.

Reminds me of messi and cr7 who have combined for the last 9 fifa world player of the year awards

I don't even mind if people want to make the argument that Howe's peak WAS that good. I wasn't there, i didn't see it, and i'm simply not very familiar with Howe's level of play to say for a fact it wasn't.

Just don't make the case based only on by how much he won the art ross.

That argument is weak and doesn't tell the whole picture. Crosby is a prime modern example of this

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm not necessarily saying Lidstrom is close to Orr as a player per se.

But someone used "Norris dominance" as an argument for Orr. It was pointed out that Lidstrom is close in that area. Then another poster claimed Orr did 8 Norris in 9 years and Lidstrom did 7 in 20 years.

My response was simply that that's mis-representing Lidstrom. 7 in 20 years is fine, but he also had a 6 Norris in 7 year stretch which is extremely close to Orr's level of Norris dominance.

I also disagree - I'd think competition for Norris might have been tougher in Lidstrom's time, with much more parity around the league and more overall teams/elite players. Though I didn't necessarily look at it in great detail

The difference of course is that Orr wins his 8 almost no matter where you put them in history.
Lidstrom ONLY wins his 7 in the window he did it in.

 

[daver]

Howe scored 95 points that year. If Hull had played that year how many points would he have scored? 70? 95? 105? What about Lemieux/Gretzky? Also 95? 120? 150? 70? Trying to determine that and then figuring out who would have been better is the way to go.

I would be interested to hear your guesses on how these players would have done in 52/53, how you came to those conclusions, and how that method is better than measuring dominance over a reasonable sample size of peers as a primary metric for comparing players from different seasons/eras.