What would it take for a player of today to challenge for a spot in the big 4?

[daver]

When the there is unimonius consensus

In 2018, the average team scored 2.97 goals per game.

From 1939-40 thru 1968-69, only 11 seasons (out of 30) were higher scoring. Six of which were during the depleted war seasons (1942 thru 1947). 1967 and 1969 were 2.98, influenced by poor expansion teams diluting the talent.

So basically, that's wrong. The entirety of the 1950's were lower scoring than today. Generally signifying a strong, tougher league.

Why does this signify a stronger, tougher league? Why not conclude that league dynamics dictates different levels of scoring through the years?

 

[Theokritos]

-Im looking at this rationally. The 40's, 50's and 60s were higher scoring then today, its obvious.

According to the link you've posted, between 2.7 and 2.8 goals per game where scored in the NHL in the last few years. According to the very same source, scoring was on today's level (slightly above 2.7) from 1948-1951 and then in the period afterwards, 1951-1957, it was actually even lower than today (between 2.4 and 2.7). This period happens to coincide with Gordie Howe's best years: He won five of his six Art Ross Trophies during those low-scoring seasons.

To be precise, the goals per game average back then was:
1950-1951: 2.71
1951-1952: 2.60
1952-1953: 2.40
1953-1954: 2.40
1956-1957: 2.69

 

[PenguinSpeed]

In 2018, the average team scored 2.97 goals per game.

From 1939-40 thru 1968-69, only 11 seasons (out of 30) were higher scoring. Six of which were during the depleted war seasons (1942 thru 1947). 1967 and 1969 were 2.98, influenced by poor expansion teams diluting the talent.

So basically, that's wrong. The entirety of the 1950's were lower scoring than today. Generally signifying a strong, tougher league.

-You are using 1 year vs 3 decades. A cumulative shows it. And if you dont want to do a cumulative, all you need to do is count the number of years over 2.97. Its ironic too you are cherry picking 1 season over an entire career. Since this past season with rule changes was the 2nd highest scoring average in the last 20 years.

 

[JackSlater]

-Im looking at this rationally. The 40's, 50's and 60s were higher scoring then today, its obvious. I see multiple years of goals per game over 3 per team on average for a season.

Howe's best year ever- 1.35 points per game
Crosby's all time career average- 1.292


-Its been my argument the entire time that there simply were not "dominant"players back then. The points per game show it, the team points per game goal averages show it (which is higher then today), the all time rankings show it, and the NHL era adjusted points per game stats prove it. Whether Howe has 6 Art rosses or 40, his point per game average simply is not impressive at all on the big scale. And its literally impossible for anyone to refute this.

Last year there were 2.97 goals per game per team. In Howe's best season, 1953, there were 2.4 goals per game per team. There are some years when the period you describe was lower scoring than what we see today, some times when it was higher scoring. Your claim that there were not dominant players is pretty foolish when in that season Howe won the scoring title by 33% and beat the highest scoring player who wasn't his linemate by 55%. Your evidence seems to be just looking at points per game and ignoring any kind of context. I also assume that you rank Joe Malone very high. 2.4 ppg, wow!

So why couldn't Crosby, whose peak level of play is arguably up there with Howe's level of play outside of his 52/53 season, have a greater longevity than Howe, or more specifically, a higher quality longevity than Howe? Yes, Top 5 scoring for twenty years is great but I would say that the equivalent in a 31 team league is Top 10. IMO, Howe was still in the conversation for league's best player from 50/51 to 63/64. Crosby is still in position to be in that conversation for the 13th year. In addition, wouldn't a superior playoff resume, which also isn't unrealistic, add to this?

Crosby was better at age 18 to 21, and I don't think that Crosby is that far behind Howe as of their first 13 seasons. Howe has the clear best regular season resume but Crosby is right there in PPG dominance, and Crosby has the clear best playoff resume.

And I would argue Crosby doesn't lose any ground to Howe in terms of all around play when one considers how Crosby has been able to produce in all roles and with any quality of linemates.

I can't believe that your question was actually a roundabout way to try to artificially elevate Crosby. Who could have known?! I already explained it though. Crosby didn't peak as high as Howe did. He is obviously very unlikely to surpass the greatest longevity in hockey history. I've heard your selective argument where you try to make claims about who was in the conversation for best player in the world for how long and it is a weak one. It's already been discussed. The new wrinkle that Crosby loses nothing on all around play is a weak but not surprising addition.

Crosby needs to suddenly peak higher than he ever did, which is incredibly unlikely, and he needs to have at least ten more elite seasons, otherwise he has no case. That's the long way of saying that he has no case against Howe or to join the big 4 or to create a new big 5.

Crosby should be compared with players against whom he actually has a case. Howe is not one of those players.

 

[Sentinel]

Find me a goalie who got better after 36 years of age. Just one.

Dwayne Roloson?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Last year there were 2.97 goals per game per team. In Howe's best season, 1953, there were 2.4 goals per game per team. There are some years when the period you describe was lower scoring than what we see today, some times when it was higher scoring. Your claim that there were not dominant players is pretty foolish when in that season Howe won the scoring title by 33% and beat the highest scoring player who wasn't his linemate by 55%. Your evidence seems to be just looking at points per game and ignoring any kind of context. I also assume that you rank Joe Malone very high. 2.4 ppg, wow!



I can't believe that your question was actually a roundabout way to try to artificially elevate Crosby. Who could have known?! I already explained it though. Crosby didn't peak as high as Howe did. He is obviously very unlikely to surpass the greatest longevity in hockey history. I've heard your selective argument where you try to make claims about who was in the conversation for best player in the world for how long and it is a weak one. It's already been discussed. The new wrinkle that Crosby loses nothing on all around play is a weak but not surprising addition.

Crosby needs to suddenly peak higher than he ever did, which is incredibly unlikely, and he needs to have at least ten more elite seasons, otherwise he has no case. That's the long way of saying that he has no case against Howe or to join the big 4 or to create a new big 5.

Crosby should be compared with players against whom he actually has a case. Howe is not one of those players.

-Its ironic this claim is made. Since in the other thread Jagr beat every player in the NHL except 2 players to win the Art Ross by 30+ points, and the refute logic was the talent was weak when he slaughtered the field in 1999. It cant be argued both ways, its either one or the other.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Almost invariably, the lower scoring the game -> the higher quality it is.

When the league expands, the talent dilutes and scoring goes up. Then eventually it normalizes. But when you expand the talent pool, you start losing multi-dimensional players...when you lose dimensions, you lose defensive play early on. That's why many of the junior leagues are higher scoring despite having less talent to a man. Only innovation/rule changes would likely push scoring up artificially otherwise...

1950's, no expansion for a while, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 goals per team. Advent of curved stick blades/slapshots pushed it a bit later on.

Then you get all those teams added between 1968 and 1974...scoring jumps to 3+, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5.

Then the WHA dumps some teams in: scoring touches 4 per team per game.

Later in the 80s, it subsides a bit, as goaltending begins to push back and the talent level begins to neutralize and refill. Got down to 3.4 or 3.5. Then expansion again pushes 92-93 scoring to over 3.6.

League dips to 2.6...add a couple teams at the turn of the century, pushes towards 2.75 almost 2.8.

Scoring dips to 2.5 or 2.6 again, but then a ton of power play opportunities adds almost half a goal in the "no touch" rules of 2006 and 2007. Once the power plays went away, then scoring went back to normal.

Expansion happens in 2018, scoring jumps from 2.7 to almost 3.

 

[Michael Farkas]

-You are using 1 year vs 3 decades. A cumulative shows it. And if you dont want to do a cumulative, all you need to do is count the number of years over 2.97. Its ironic too you are cherry picking 1 season over an entire career. Since this past season with rule changes was the 2nd highest scoring average in the last 20 years.

You said "today" and then named three decades that you have shown that you have no knowledge of...you don't get the benefit of the doubt given how you present information.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

You said "today" and then named three decades that you have shown that you have no knowledge of...you don't get the benefit of the doubt given how you present information.

-The whole point is career average. Everything posted is career average.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Ill just cement my point right now head to head

Howe's first 13 years in the NHL

-The average scoring per team per game was 2.94 goals

-Crosby's first 13 years in the NHL was 2.82 goals per team per game


-Howe played in a higher scoring era comparing the 2 players first 13 years in the NHL head to head.

Case Closed.

Crosby has a higher point per game in a lower scoring era any way you look at it

 

[Sentinel]

So why couldn't Crosby, whose peak level of play is arguably up there with Howe's level of play outside of his 52/53 season, have a greater longevity than Howe, or more specifically, a higher quality longevity than Howe? Yes, Top 5 scoring for twenty years is great but I would say that the equivalent in a 31 team league is Top 10. IMO, Howe was still in the conversation for league's best player from 50/51 to 63/64. Crosby is still in position to be in that conversation for the 13th year. In addition, wouldn't a superior playoff resume, which also isn't unrealistic, add to this?

Crosby was better at age 18 to 21, and I don't think that Crosby is that far behind Howe as of their first 13 seasons. Howe has the clear best regular season resume but Crosby is right there in PPG dominance, and Crosby has the clear best playoff resume.

And I would argue Crosby doesn't lose any ground to Howe in terms of all around play when one considers how Crosby has been able to produce in all roles and with any quality of linemates.

For the record, I see Crosby potentially doing things that position him as having arguments over three of the Big Four, which would set him apart from every other player.

Reminding you that Crosby is nowhere near the two-way force that Howe was, nor did he have the physical presence of Howe.

"Superior playoff record"? Howe created a dynasty (stopped by another dynasty) and won 4 Cups. Crosby did not do these things.

 

[JackSlater]

-Its ironic this claim is made. Since in the other thread Jagr beat every player in the NHL except 2 players to win the Art Ross by 30+ points, and the refute logic was the talent was weak when he slaughtered the field in 1999. It cant be argued both ways, its either one or the other.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm quite sure that I am not the person who made the claim that you are trying to describe. Howe's 1953 season was dominant, as was Jagr's 1999 season.

 

[solidmotion]

Reminding you that Crosby is nowhere near the two-way force that Howe was, nor did he have the physical presence of Howe.

"Superior playoff record"? Howe created a dynasty (stopped by another dynasty) and won 4 Cups. Crosby did not do these things.

i mean, he's won 3... and is probably going to end his career 3rd all time in playoff points... by far the most points and best points/game of his generation... i think it's fair to say he has the better playoff record. maybe debatable, but fair to claim.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Reminding you that Crosby is nowhere near the two-way force that Howe was, nor did he have the physical presence of Howe.

"Superior playoff record"? Howe created a dynasty (stopped by another dynasty) and won 4 Cups. Crosby did not do these things.

-And that argument holds very little water since Crosby has received Selke Votes 7 different times in his career including the last 6 years in a row. Lets not make the claim Crosby just sits in the offensive zone and does nothing. People have recognized his defensive awareness for years now. The Selke didnt exist in Howe's day.

 

[Doctor No]

Crosby has received Selke Votes 7 different times in his career including the last 6 years in a row.

Just to clarify, you're saying that Crosby receiving one Selke voting point (as he did last year) has significance?

Also to clarify, you're holding it against Gordie Howe that the Selke wasn't around during his time?

Two yes/no responses would be fine, thanks.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Just to clarify, you're saying that Crosby receiving one Selke voting point (as he did last year) has significance?

Also to clarify, you're holding it against Gordie Howe that the Selke wasn't around during his time?

Two yes/no responses would be fine, thanks.

-Im suggesting neither. Im saying Crosby is no slouch on defense or an offensive cherry picker.

-Im suggesting there was no selke voting in Howe's day, and all we have to go on is opinion, not any voting metric (and Im not saying Howe was the best defender or a poor defender). And Im not holding that against him either

 

[Michael Farkas]

I know I'm just some idiot, I only have a few hundred YT followers, but do get paid to share my opinions on hockey - which is nice. I watch a ton of hockey, probably about ten games a week on a rotating schedule based on divisions. The exception being the Penguins, I watch all 82 games. I've watched over 1000 games in a row, I've seen a fair bit of Crosby's career...

He's not worthy of serious Selke consideration in the regular season...in the playoffs (where, notably, the Selke does not have any authority), that's a different story. He's probably worth some fringe or even minor Selke consideration in the playoffs. He goes end line to end line in the postseason...but not so much in the regular season. The only year I would have considered maybe Crosby getting some scant votes was 2014-15 under Mike Johnston.

He's not some lazy, one-way player...but he's not Selke-good defensively...

Pretending that points per game is the be-all, end-all for offense (we all almost all know that it's not, of course), Howe offers more dimensions to his game...how do we consider them? Or don't we, because hockey was bad until [arbitrary date]...

 

[daver]

Reminding you that Crosby is nowhere near the two-way force that Howe was, nor did he have the physical presence of Howe.

"Superior playoff record"? Howe created a dynasty (stopped by another dynasty) and won 4 Cups. Crosby did not do these things.

Hard to consider the Wings a dynasty when three teams won the Cup in 29 of 30 years and their were five times a team won four Cups within six years. Crosby's Pens have a better case for a dynasty IMO. The 2nd best Cup record since the Oilers.

As for creating said dynasty:

Wings Cup #1 - Howe contributed zero points (Lindsay had eight points)
Wings Cup #2 - Howe contributed seven points (T1 with Lindsay who had three more goals)
Wings Cup #3 - Howe contributed nine points (1st on team, Lindsay had eight points)
Wings Cup #4 - Howe had twenty points (1st on team, Lindsay had nineteen points)

Certainly has the best playoff run but Crosby's run in '09 is right up there. He also clearly wasn't needed in 1950, andwasn't the leading scorer over their four Cups.

Crosby's four Cup runs are better on the whole, and he leads his team in scoring over their four runs.

So yes, Crosby has a chance to have a better playoff resume.

 

[Doctor No]

I only have a few hundred YT followers

Never forget Twitter!

 

[daver]

Pretending that points per game is the be-all, end-all for offense (we all almost all know that it's not, of course), Howe offers more dimensions to his game...how do we consider them? Or don't we, because hockey was bad until [arbitrary date]...

Crosby arguably has more offensive dimensions in that he can carry a line made up of any wingers and defer the scoring role to other lines and still produce. If Crosby was able to make a case offensively for a Big 5, do you think the Howe - more dimensions would be relevant?

 

[Sentinel]

Hard to consider the Wings a dynasty when three teams won the Cup in 29 of 30 years and their were five times a team won four Cups within six years. Crosby's Pens have a better case for a dynasty IMO. The 2nd best Cup record since the Oilers.

As for creating said dynasty:

Wings Cup #1 - Howe contributed zero points (Lindsay had eight points)
Wings Cup #2 - Howe contributed seven points (T1 with Lindsay who had three more goals)
Wings Cup #3 - Howe contributed nine points (1st on team, Lindsay had eight points)
Wings Cup #4 - Howe had twenty points (1st on team, Lindsay had nineteen points)

Certainly has the best playoff run but Crosby's run in '09 is right up there. He also clearly wasn't needed in 1950, andwasn't the leading scorer over their four Cups.

Crosby's four Cup runs are better on the whole, and he leads his team in scoring over their four runs.

So yes, Crosby has a chance to have a better playoff resume.

Sorry, dude, but you don't get to revision history and redefine what constitutes a dynasty. 50s Wings are universally accepted as a dynasty, and Gordie Howe was the greatest player on that dynasty. 10s Penguins isn't a dynasty.

 

[Sentinel]

-And that argument holds very little water since Crosby has received Selke Votes 7 different times in his career including the last 6 years in a row. Lets not make the claim Crosby just sits in the offensive zone and does nothing. People have recognized his defensive awareness for years now. The Selke didnt exist in Howe's day.

This is not a slight at Crosby, who is a competent two-way player. Howe was a two-way force. No comparison.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Crosby arguably has more offensive dimensions in that he can carry a line made up of any wingers and defer the scoring role to other lines and still produce. If Crosby was able to make a case offensively for a Big 5, do you think the Howe - more dimensions would be relevant?

Is that to be read as "Howe minus more dimensions"?

 

[Theokritos]

Howe's first 13 years in the NHL

-The average scoring per team per game was 2.94 goals

-Crosby's first 13 years in the NHL was 2.82 goals per team per game


-Howe played in a higher scoring era comparing the 2 players first 13 years in the NHL head to head.

Case Closed.

Not so fast. Your source for these numbers is ... ?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Not so fast. Your source for these numbers is ... ?

-I provided the link and manually calculated it.