So why do you even have an interest in the history of history if you aren't open to arguments for players you didn't see?
What are the arguments to have Gretzky or Lemieux at 4th?
- Thread starter shazariahl
- Start date
So why do you even have an interest in the history of history if you aren't open to arguments for players you didn't see?
That's a bit of an exaggeration for both guys imo. Though for the most part I don't disagree.
Doesn't change that 6 Norris in 7 years is almost as impressive as 8 in 9 when looking at awards.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,827
- 5,400
He just doesn't agree with art ross % to be a reason to put howe on Lemieuxs peak level. Which is basically the only reason that is ever given
1. You completely ignored everything I said about Crosby when drawing a parallel to Howe. What's your take on it? Would love to see you respond to it.
2. I re-quoted the post I made you specifically responded to, along with your reply. Did you simply not understand what I was saying or read too quickly? I specifically said I *AM* open to argument that Howe can be as good as you want - I didn't see him myself to say for sure he wasn't. All i'm saying is using margin of victory over Art Ross is a weak argument that can very easily not be representative of true level of domination (as is the case with Crosby in 2013-2014).
So if you think Howe's season was better than Hull's season as you were arguing in your post - show us why without going to "margin of victory in art ross" as the only reason.
If you further want to argue that Howe's 52-53 season is comparable to Gretzky or Lemieux's best - fine. Make a case but dont make the case dependent on margin of victory in art ross.
Black Gold Extractor
Registered User
- May 4, 2010
- 3,083
- 4,900
daver's answer would be to average a group of peers rather than just the #2 guy, which more or less solves the problem (and more or less has been his answer for at least a couple of years now). Crosby's 104-point season isn't any stronger than his 120-point season if we average the points-per-game of the 3rd to 12th Canadian forward to use as the benchmark.
2006|1.143|125|123|106|82|100|98|85|Joe Thornton| http://hkref.com/tiny/k3Lyf
2007|1.188|120|114|108|82|92|88|83|Sidney Crosby| http://hkref.com/tiny/o1Aiv
2008|1.087|112|106|98|82|94|89|82|Alex Ovechkin| http://hkref.com/tiny/y4FYR
2009|1.015|113|110|103|82|102|99|93|Evgeni Malkin| http://hkref.com/tiny/N1w7q
2010|1.023|112|109|109|82|100|97|97|Henrik Sedin| http://hkref.com/tiny/zH6UQ | Ovechkin adj. pace: 110
2011|1.034|104|99|98|82|92|87|87|Daniel Sedin| http://hkref.com/tiny/boYb5 | Crosby adj. pace: 117
2012|0.978|109|97|93|82|102|91|87|Evgeni Malkin| http://hkref.com/tiny/GRuat | Crosby adj. pace: 129
2013|1.057|60|57|56|48|89|84|83|Martin St. Louis| http://hkref.com/tiny/qOywP | Crosby adj. pace: 111
2014|1.033|104|87|86|82|92|77|76|Sidney Crosby| http://hkref.com/tiny/oZxnQ
2015|0.907|87|86|84|82|88|87|85|Jamie Benn| http://hkref.com/tiny/JzcZP
2016|0.913|106|89|85|82|106|89|85|Patrick Kane| http://hkref.com/tiny/fGP48
Putting the onus on daver isn't fair. The "Big Four" is basically consensus. I know you've pointed out Beliveau and Moore coming after Howe putting up close numbers, but as aforementioned, league-average scoring had already gone up by roughly 20% by Moore's 96-point season (thus making Howe's 95-point season ~20% better than Moore's Art Ross-winning season). Howe's 52-53 season occurred when league-average scoring was 4.79 goals per game, lower than it is now. Moore's 58-59 season occurred at 5.80 goals per game, and Hull's 65-66 occurred at 6.08.
For the sake of argument, let's assume Gretzky never played in the 80's and he started playing in 2012-13. Would he have any chance of matching Lemieux's 199? Honestly, even a lone 160-point season, nearly doubling the best non-outlier scorer from today, would probably be out of reach (unless you would like to argue that today's players are significantly weaker than those from the 80's).
If time-displaced Gretzky strung together six straight years of 135+ point seasons (to roughly replicate his level of dominance against today's competition), would he be considered #1 all-time in 20 years? He would be out-pointed in raw numbers by Lemieux (multiple times), Esposito (a couple of times), Yzerman, Nicholls, Bossy, and LaFontaine.
I wasn't necessarily making the argument. Just pointing out why statistically it is viewed as comparable (at least the most comparable than any other players' best season) to Wayne and Mario and why Hull's 65/66 season isn't.
What other metrics do you propose other looking at how far ahead of the pack an individual was in their respective seasons?
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,827
- 5,400
I'm going to bed. But before I do I would like a reply to this.
From 81/97 a span of 17 years gretzky and lemieux won 16 of 17 art rosses. With jagr winning the season lemieux didn't play at all in 94-95.
Gretzky 10
Lemieux 6
Jagr 1 (lemieux didn't play this season
Now I will start from howes first art ross.
From 51-67 a 17 years span
Art ross
Howe 6
Bobby hull 3
Mikita 3
Moore 2
Geoffrin 2
Beliveau 1
......
I would like to no how howe is more dominant than lemieux???
From 81/97 a span of 17 years gretzky and lemieux won 16 of 17 art rosses. With jagr winning the season lemieux didn't play at all in 94-95.
Gretzky 10
Lemieux 6
Jagr 1 (lemieux didn't play this season
Now I will start from howes first art ross.
From 51-67 a 17 years span
Art ross
Howe 6
Bobby hull 3
Mikita 3
Moore 2
Geoffrin 2
Beliveau 1
......
I would like to no how howe is more dominant than lemieux???
Last edited:
KoozNetsOff 92
Hala Madrid
- Apr 6, 2016
- 8,567
- 8,229
Because in addition to his ross wins, Howe was a great 2 way player and physical beast. Where as Lemieux had 1 job. So even if Lemieux gets the edge for offensive production (no problem with that), Howe destroys him in basically every other category. So it isn't really crazy to say Howe was more dominant overall.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
I would like to point out that Howe is only one player while 99 and 66 in your example seem to be bunched into one in these respective 17-year spans.
With that said, Howe did have a rather short peak statistically, at least compared to his ultra long prime and also compared to Gretzky and i would say Lemieux although the latter had a number of injury seasons crammed into his.
Looking just at 2nd or 3rd place to make this comparison isn't a strong argument, IMO. Mario's 88/89 season is stronger statistically once a reasonable sample of their respective peers is considered.
I know. For me personally, a full career means really alot in the greatest player evaluation. I do have a bigger issue with broken seasons than with less total seasons. Broken seasons really hurt the team, obviously, while on a shortened career at least that player wasn't relied on. (because they weren't signed, duh)
If you catch what I'm trying to say.
This is where I think you are completely wrong. Orr played basicly 9 years. You can't use Gretzky's 10th+ years as an argument in favor of Orr. Even if Gretzky had been a 4th liner in years 10+ it would still be more than what Orr achieved in those years. Missed years is negative, extra years aren't. If they are, it's going into intellectual dishonesty territory and into fantasy. What could've been wasn't, not in this reality, period.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Did Howe really have a peak though? Granted we will all think of it as the early 1950s but in all honesty what is the difference between Howe in 1953 and 1963? Not much. He was that rare type of superstar that didn't decline much if barely at all for a long, long time.
In 1951 he wins the Art Ross and finishes 3rd for the Hart. All of the way up until 1970 he goes on a tear where he never finishes below 7th in Hart voting (normally in the top 3-4) aside from one unusual year in 1955 where he didn't get a Hart vote among the top 5 (they don't have the records outside of the top 5 those years). That's 20 years. We all know about him finishing top 5 in scoring for 20 straight years, the 21 all-star nods as well, something only Bourque has come close to at 19 and if he dominates in his 30s, perhaps Ovechkin.
I mean, Howe is winning the Hart all over the place in his career at different ages. He does have his Art Rosses bunched together a bit in the early 1950s, but even after he loses Lindsay and then Kelly and such he is still flirting with it practically every year. And who is he losing to? Beliveau, Geoffrion, a couple of peak years with Moore, Hull, Mikita, etc. Anyway, I just thought it was rather telling.
This is the thing that always has me rank Howe over Lemieux. He just kept going. Perhaps he is a better more dominant player - by a bit - in the early 1950s, but man, by how much? He just never declined. He was a beast.
It's been mentioned already, but a much stronger two-way game while being inferior offensively. Not to mention doing it for a long, long time.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Yeah and let's really put things into perspective while we're at it. Somewhere along the way Gretzky from 1989-'99 has sort of turned into an afterthought with some people. Why is that? Granted it is impossible to duplicate what he did in the 1980s in a second decade as you get older. Just isn't going to happen. But here he is from 1989-'99:
3 Art Rosses
One Cup dominant Cup final appearance
1 First team all-star, 4 2nd team all-stars
Led the league in assists 6 times
1020 points in 713 games
Led the entire decade in points by a decent margin (93 points)
The fact he was a combined minus player in these years is meaningless. Who wouldn't be on those later versions of the Kings and then the Rangers? The guy wins 3 Art Rosses. That is a HHOF career in itself. I'd like to see someone tell me that career alone is not HHOF worthy. So yeah, I think an extra 1000+ points in 10 years adds to a guy's legacy. There is no way on heaven and earth Orr had a better career.
If you want to debate Orr (1966-'76) vs. Gretzky (1979-'89) then it is a little more interesting. I still see Gretzky coming out on top of that every time though. But it's still not insane to suggest otherwise. No one should be rewarded for missed time.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
Come on buddy, DWARFS?!? In a fantasy hockey league probably, but not conclusively since i have found a player like Erik Karlsson being quite good to have there when other coaches have guys like Weber and injury plagued Letang. Karlsson weighs up most if not all if i should have Thornton as my first line center and my opponent Crosby. Back in those decades it would have been like Orr and Denis Savard vs. Park and Gretzky. It evens out to a large degree.
Outside fantasy hockey a defenceman's most important job is defensively while a forward's is offensively. This job Gretzky did better then Orr and one can say with considerable margin. But then we have their respective secondary jobs, where Orr offensively must be seen to have an even larger advantage put up against Gretzky's defence. So maybe this secondary but larger advantage Orr have makes up the difference in their primary jobs. Come to think of it, a center's defense is not as secondary as a defenseman's offense i dont think.
Last edited:
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,885
- 13,680
Howe was more dominant offensively in the early 50s, so yeah he had a peak.Obviously he was still a top player long past his peak, but he wasn't the same dominant offensive force he used to be.Winning four consecutive Art Ross is not the same as flirting with it.
It's not a stretch to think he was more physical during those prime early-50s seasons too, where he had to make his reputation as oppose to enjoy the benefits of an established one.
Last edited:
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Still won in 1957 and 1963. You can say his peak was during the Red Wings' dynasty. I am fine with that, but the thing with Howe is that he barely declined in his career. He aged as well as anyone in NHL history.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,885
- 13,680
Of course, the difference between his peak and his later career is lesser than with most players, which is a testament to his longevity as a top player.
It's a bit like Bourque.He had many great seasons later in his career, but his peak is still the late-80s, where he won 4 Norris in 5 years, with the year he didn't win being because he only played 60 games.
I know Gretzky was the greatest playmaker/passer of all-time but one thing I think mario has on wayne is his ability to make long range passes. Mario was the best long range passer of all-time. He was just so tall I guess he could see over everyone. But I'll never forget some of those passes.
I don't know if anyone's interested in this, but one of the biggest arguments for Lemieux > Gretzky is that Lemieux had less to work with. I already posted Gretzky's 1981-82 point shares (page 11, post #254) which is probably the equivalent of Lemieux's 1988-89 season in the sense that both were their first transcendental seasons and the two players had little to work with both those years relative to their later years.
EVSG: amount of player X's goals that Lemieux assisted on at even strength
EVSA: amount of Lemieux's goals that player X assisted on at even strength
AEVSA: amount of Lemieux's assists that Player X assisted on at even strength
Same legend applies to powerplay and shorthanded points.
1989
Player X| EVSG | EVSA | AEVSA | PPG |PPA|APPA|SHG|SHA|ASHA|Total Points|% of Player X Points|% of Esposito's Points
R. Brown | 16 | 20 | 8 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 60.9 | 35.2
P. Coffey | 7 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 21 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 66 | 58.4 | 33.2
B. Errey | 17 | 12 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 45 | 77.6 | 22.6
D. Quinn | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 38.3 | 18.1
Z. Zalapski | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 53.3 | 12.1
J. Cullen | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 42.9 | 10.6
P. Bourque | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 44.2 | 9.55
R. Cunneyworth | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 27.3 | 6.03
Unassisted | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4.52 | 4.52
R. Hillier | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 37.5 | 4.52
D. Hannan | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 26.7 | 4.02
J. Johnson | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 43.8 | 3.52
T. Loney | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 31.3 | 2.51
J. Callander | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 36.4 | 2.01
R. Buskas | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 50.0 | 1.51
D. Bodger | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 50.0 | 1.51
K. Stevens | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 20.0 | 1.51
S. Dykstra | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 28.6 | 1.01
C. Dahlquist | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 33.3 | 1.01
M. Recchi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 100. | 1.01
G. Dineen | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 1.01
J. Caufield | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20.0 | 0.503
S. Guenette | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100. | 0.503
T. Barrasso | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20.0 | 0.503
EVSG: amount of player X's goals that Lemieux assisted on at even strength
EVSA: amount of Lemieux's goals that player X assisted on at even strength
AEVSA: amount of Lemieux's assists that Player X assisted on at even strength
Same legend applies to powerplay and shorthanded points.
1989
R. Brown | 16 | 20 | 8 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 60.9 | 35.2
P. Coffey | 7 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 21 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 66 | 58.4 | 33.2
B. Errey | 17 | 12 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 45 | 77.6 | 22.6
D. Quinn | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 38.3 | 18.1
Z. Zalapski | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 53.3 | 12.1
J. Cullen | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 42.9 | 10.6
P. Bourque | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 44.2 | 9.55
R. Cunneyworth | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 27.3 | 6.03
Unassisted | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4.52 | 4.52
R. Hillier | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 37.5 | 4.52
D. Hannan | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 26.7 | 4.02
J. Johnson | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 43.8 | 3.52
T. Loney | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 31.3 | 2.51
J. Callander | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 36.4 | 2.01
R. Buskas | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 50.0 | 1.51
D. Bodger | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 50.0 | 1.51
K. Stevens | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 20.0 | 1.51
S. Dykstra | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 28.6 | 1.01
C. Dahlquist | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 33.3 | 1.01
M. Recchi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 100. | 1.01
G. Dineen | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 1.01
J. Caufield | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20.0 | 0.503
S. Guenette | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100. | 0.503
T. Barrasso | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20.0 | 0.503
Black Gold Extractor
Registered User
- May 4, 2010
- 3,083
- 4,900
Thank you for your work! (I'm just quoting both your posts together so that it's easier to compare.)
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
GAME 5 - Cape Breton Eagles @ Baie-Comeau Drakkar - Baie-Comeau Drakkar leads series 3-1Wagers: 2Staked: $75.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Rochester Americans @ Syracuse Crunch - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 3Staked: $535.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
