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

[PenguinSpeed]

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]...

-In 2016 and 2017, someone needs credit on defense and here are the options

-Matt Murray
-Penguins defense
-Penguins forwards

-2 years in a row in back to back years, the Penguins won 8 playoff series in a row and shut down everyone in the playoffs. Matt Murray's goals against average prove it, its elite.

-Letang didnt even play in 2017 in the playoffs

-So, who gets credit for the superb defensive job 2 years straight? Because Ive heard Murray is overrated, the Penguins defense is horrible, and Crosby is average on defense.

-Someone needs to get credit here. And luck is not the answer

 

[bobholly39]

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.

-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

Poster#1 claims you can differentiate Howe and Crosby because of how good Howe is defensively and 2 way play.

Post#2 you claim that means nothing because Selke votes

Post#3 you backtrack and claim that you agree that fringe selke votes aren't significant and you aren't holding the lack of existence of the Selke trophy in Howe's day against Howe.

So basically - you agree that it's a differentiator between both players.

I appreciate the enthusiasm you're bringing to this forum - and I'd actually love it if you and other non-regular posters participated in the top 100 player project we're starting on this forum - but you have to try and be more objective in some of your posts imo. You come across as much too bias.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Murray deserves a lot of credit. Fleury was having a Conn Smythe worthy performance to start the 2017 playoffs. Brian Dumoulin emerged as one of the better shutdown players around, Olli Maatta is right there too despite skating limitations, nothing bad happens when he's on the rink (on a per-game average, of course).

Also, our third line center Nick Bonino shouldered a lot of the defensive load.

Of course, as I said, Sid is good in the playoffs defensively.

Why we're trying to assign team defense to exactly one offensive player is befuddling...but here we are. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

Mainly because they had seven consecutive first place finishes during the RS. Never accomplished by another team.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Poster#1 claims you can differentiate Howe and Crosby because of how good Howe is defensively and 2 way play.

Post#2 you claim that means nothing because Selke votes

Post#3 you backtrack and claim that you agree that fringe selke votes aren't significant and you aren't holding the lack of existence of the Selke trophy in Howe's day against Howe.

So basically - you agree that it's a differentiator between both players.

I appreciate the enthusiasm you're bringing to this forum - and I'd actually love it if you and other non-regular posters participated in the top 100 player project we're starting on this forum - but you have to try and be more objective in some of your posts imo. You come across as much too bias.

-Post #1 was not written by me

-Post #2 claims or brings a debate that Crosby is closer to Howe then some care to admit on defense, because of Selke voting. People in todays game recognize Crosby for defense, in some way, shape, or form.

-Posts #3 maintains I dont have a highly positive or negative view on Howe's defense. Post #3 clearly indicates the Selke voting and Crosby being mentioned 7 different times in his career has merit to it. It also maintains there was no Selke voting, only peoples opinion in the 50s and 60s and thats all we have to go by

 

[bobholly39]

-In 2016 and 2017, someone needs credit on defense and here are the options

-Matt Murray
-Penguins defense
-Penguins forwards

-2 years in a row in back to back years, the Penguins won 8 playoff series in a row and shut down everyone in the playoffs. Matt Murray's goals against average prove it, its elite.

-Letang didnt even play in 2017 in the playoffs

-So, who gets credit for the superb defensive job 2 years straight? Because Ive heard Murray is overrated, the Penguins defense is horrible, and Crosby is average on defense.

-Someone needs to get credit here. And luck is not the answer

This is the Internet. You hear a lot of things. If you look up a particular Calgary Flame's fan voting record in the poll section from a while back he didn't consider Crosby to be a top 100 player (i forget poster's name). Not overall - but in current day NHL, Crosby not one of the 100 best players. That's the internet for you.

No one here is saying Murray is overrated or Penguins suck or Crosby suck. I think the very large majority of posters in this subforum are extremely objective in their assessment of players. The general opinion is that Crosby has exceptional hockey IQ, and plays good defense - and tries even harder in important moments/situations - but for example he doesn't play nearly the defensive game guys like Bergeron or even Kopitar play.

And Howe is usually hailed as one of the best 2-way guys of all time. There's a difference.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Murray deserves a lot of credit. Fleury was having a Conn Smythe worthy performance to start the 2017 playoffs. Brian Dumoulin emerged as one of the better shutdown players around, Olli Maatta is right there too despite skating limitations, nothing bad happens when he's on the rink (on a per-game average, of course).

Also, our third line center Nick Bonino shouldered a lot of the defensive load.

Of course, as I said, Sid is good in the playoffs defensively.

Why we're trying to assign team defense to exactly one offensive player is befuddling...but here we are. Why am I not surprised?

-No, it was not meant that way. Only in the fact that the Penguins defense in 2016 and 2017 was very very good. If the answer is the entire team, I could accept that.

 

[daver]

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

No, just asking how much "intangibles" are allowed into the discussion.

As mentioned, IMO, Crosby is more the prototypical #1C than an offensively-minded forward playing in a tighter scoring era.

What's more reasonable?

Howe would be included in the Big 4 without his offensive resume because his other attributes stood out that much vs. his peers.

Howe gets some credit vs, Mario and Wayne for his other attributes and for not playing in an era that saw offense at its highest level ever.

 

[daver]

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.

Sorry dude, you need to be able to count the number of teams in the league at each time with some context. Crosby's three Cups in a thirty team era > Howe's four Cups in a six team era.

The Pens are the most successful franchise during Crosby's era. The Wings are 3rd best in a six team league. His Cup record is no better than Crosby's.

 

[daver]

This is the Internet. You hear a lot of things. If you look up a particular Calgary Flame's fan voting record in the poll section from a while back he didn't consider Crosby to be a top 100 player (i forget poster's name). Not overall - but in current day NHL, Crosby not one of the 100 best players. That's the internet for you.

No one here is saying Murray is overrated or Penguins suck or Crosby suck. I think the very large majority of posters in this subforum are extremely objective in their assessment of players. The general opinion is that Crosby has exceptional hockey IQ, and plays good defense - and tries even harder in important moments/situations - but for example he doesn't play nearly the defensive game guys like Bergeron or even Kopitar play.

And Howe is usually hailed as one of the best 2-way guys of all time. There's a difference.

That term is a bit ambiguous, no? Shouldn't Crosby be hailed as the best 2-way player of his era consideing he easily the best defensive player among the elite offensive forwards.

Is there evidence that Howe was great defensively? It seems he is being made out to be the Bergeron of his era. As a winger...

 

[Canadiens1958]

That term is a bit ambiguous, no? Shouldn't Crosby be hailed as the best 2-way player of his era consideing he easily the best defensive player among the elite offensive forwards.

Is there evidence that Howe was great defensively? It seems he is being made out to be the Bergeron of his era. As a winger...

Yes there are videos that few posters watch.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Is there evidence that Howe was great defensively? It seems he is being made out to be the Bergeron of his era. As a winger...

There are newspaper articles from the 1950s stating that Howe was excellent defensively (ie eyewitness testimony - not something people started saying twenty years after he retired). I'll see if I can dig those up later tonight.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yes there are videos that few posters watch.

and fewer yet take the time to learn how to watch—myself included, admittedly. which is why you won’t see me make a top 40, 60, 120 all time list.

it’s like reading shakespeare, or joyce, or hell even something as recent as toni morrison. if you’re just going to glance at two sentences and then say “well that doesn’t look like english to me,” and never read another word, then who really gas what you think about literary history?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, bingo. It doesn't matter if you watch the game if you don't know what you're watching.

I can watch an open heart surgery (I can't, I'm squeamish about medical stuff) but that doesn't mean I can tell you what's happening and then duplicate it thereafter.

Likewise, I have a few good friends that have watched hundreds or even thousands of games but when they try to tell me what happened, it's not at all in line with reality...

 

[Canadiens1958]

and fewer yet take the time to learn how to watch—myself included, admittedly. which is why you won’t see me make a top 40, 60, 120 all time list.

it’s like reading shakespeare, or joyce, or hell even something as recent as toni morrison. if you’re just going to glance at two sentences and then say “well that doesn’t look like english to me,” and never read another word, then who really gas what you think about literary history?

You are just trying to be perfect.

No one can watch like the team coaches with knowledge of the game plan ahead of time but appreciating the basics is more than sufficient.

 

[Theokritos]

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.

-I provided the link and manually calculated it.

Before you make pretentious claims ("cement my point", "case closed") and erroneous statements ("Howe played in a higher scoring era"), you better double-check your data. Here are the numbers from Howe's first 13 years in the NHL, courtesy of the link you've provided (Hockey Reference):

1946-1947: 3.16
1947-1948: 2.93
1948-1949: 2.72
1949-1950: 2.73
1950-1951: 2.71
1951-1952: 2.60
1952-1953: 2.40
1953-1954: 2.40
1954-1955: 2.52
1955-1956: 2.53
1956-1957: 2.69
1957-1958: 2.80
1958-1960: 2.90

As anybody with a calculator can confirm, these 13 season averages add up to the sum of 35.09 and that number divided by 13 seasons gives us an average of 2.69 goals per game in Gordie Howe's first 13 NHL seasons - a number well below the 36.72/13=2.82 goals per game average during Sidney Crosby's first 13 NHL seasons. (I checked that number too and you didn't miscalculate there.)

In other words: What has been cemented is that you have it backward. In reality, Gordie Howe played in a lower scoring era than Sidney Crosby. A basic fact that many of the "minority people" on this very site could have told you, but apparently all of your YouTube stars with their followers couldn't.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Before you make pretentious claims ("cement my point", "case closed") and erroneous statements ("Howe played in a higher scoring era"), you better double-check your data. Here are the numbers from Howe's first 13 years in the NHL, courtesy of the link you've provided (Hockey Reference):

1946-1947: 3.16
1947-1948: 2.93
1948-1949: 2.72
1949-1950: 2.73
1950-1951: 2.71
1951-1952: 2.60
1952-1953: 2.40
1953-1954: 2.40
1954-1955: 2.52
1955-1956: 2.53
1956-1957: 2.69
1957-1958: 2.80
1958-1960: 2.90

As anybody with a calculator can confirm, these 13 season averages add up to the sum of 35.09 and that number divided by 13 seasons gives us an average of 2.69 goals per game in Gordie Howe's first 13 NHL seasons - a number well below the 36.72/13=2.82 goals per game average during Sidney Crosby's first 13 NHL seasons. (I checked that number too and you didn't miscalculate there.)

In other words: What has been cemented is that you have it backward. In reality, Gordie Howe played in a lower scoring era than Sidney Crosby. A basic fact that many of the "minority people" on this very site could have told you, but apparently all of your YouTube stars with their followers couldn't.

-I stand corrected, I did something wrong before

Howe's first 13 years- 2.699
Crosby first 13 years- 2.82

Howe point per game first 13 years- 1.068
Crosby point per game first 13 years-1.292


-Era Adjustment. 4.3% rounding up for Howe

904 x .043 +904 =942.8 / 846 = 1.114

Howe- 1.114
Crosby- 1.292

-Closer, but still not close. Although I did accidentally miscalculate it the first time, so thanks for checking it.

 

[daver]

-I stand corrected, I did something wrong before

Howe's first 13 years- 2.699
Crosby first 13 years- 2.82

Howe point per game first 13 years- 1.068
Crosby point per game first 13 years-1.292


-Era Adjustment. 4.3% rounding up for Howe

904 x .043 +904 =942.8 / 846 = 1.114

Howe- 1.114
Crosby- 1.292

-Closer, but still not close. Although I did accidentally miscalculate it the first time, so thanks for checking it.

What does league-wide scoring have to do with individual performances? Howe dominated his peers PPG-wise at a similar level to Crosby. There are a lot of factors that can contribute to league-wide scoring levels, why not just focus on the Top 10 - 20 scorers?

 

[PenguinSpeed]

What does league-wide scoring have to do with individual performances? Howe dominated his peers PPG-wise at a similar level to Crosby. There are a lot of factors that can contribute to league-wide scoring levels, why not just focus on the Top 10 - 20 scorers?

-Because people need to see the goals per game in Howe's era, the goals per game in Crosby's era, to effectively look at who the better offensive player is in points per game calculations. You can't claim someone is superior without looking at everything.

-You could look at the Top 20 scorers. But if the other 19 are all average what would the point be?


Case in point

-Guy Lafleur and Marcel Dionne. Lafleur won the Art Ross in 1978 with 132 points. Then Dionne came and won in 1980 with 137 points. At that time people thought this was outstanding. These players are out of this world. Amazing


-Then Wayne Gretzky came along 2 years later, put up 212 blowing both of the former right out of the water. Are Dionne and Lafleur impressive? The answer is no. So in 1982 the GPG was higher at 4.02. But to score and put up 75 more points in a season is the huge difference, the the goals per team per game didnt matter because of the point differences in the Art Ross. Gretzky literally blew these guys away like they were nothing. Yea, the Oilers had an all star team, but so did the Habs.

 

[MXD]

I'm sensing a pattern I'm not liking at all with the players PenguinSpeed wants to put down from their pedestal.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

I'm sensing a pattern I'm not liking at all with the players PenguinSpeed wants to put down from their pedestal.

-There is a clear as day pattern


-Its exposing players for what they are.

Phil Esposito, another one

-His career before Bobby Orr was weak. His career after Orr was weak. He used to park in front of the goal and camp there half the game with his linemates and Orr setting him up. . And he couldnt do anything noteworthy when he wasnt a Bruin without Orr carrying that team and him on his back. The stats tell the truth. In 1968 Orr played under 50 games and Espoito couldnt break 90 points. Orr returned the next year and remained injury free and then the Art Rosses were coming in for Espo.

-Esposito is the anti Jagr. Lemieux retired in 1997, Jagr won the Art Ross the next 4 years without Lemieux. Esposito was nothing special at all without Orr.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

-Because people need to see the goals per game in Howe's era, the goals per game in Crosby's era, to effectively look at who the better offensive player is in points per game calculations. You can't claim someone is superior without looking at everything.

-You could look at the Top 20 scorers. But if the other 19 are all average what would the point be?


Case in point

-Guy Lafleur and Marcel Dionne. Lafleur won the Art Ross in 1978 with 132 points. Then Dionne came and won in 1980 with 137 points. At that time people thought this was outstanding. These players are out of this world. Amazing


-Then Wayne Gretzky came along 2 years later, put up 212 blowing both of the former right out of the water. Are Dionne and Lafleur impressive? The answer is no. So in 1982 the GPG was higher at 4.02. But to score and put up 75 more points in a season is the huge difference, the the goals per team per game didnt matter because of the point differences in the Art Ross. Gretzky literally blew these guys away like they were nothing. Yea, the Oilers had an all star team, but so did the Habs.

So, because of Wayne Gretzky, Dionne & Lafleur are not impressive?

You certainly have some bizarre opinions.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yo dawg, but I heard you like points per game...and random "bars". Esposito has the third highest points per game rate (1.24) in history for anyone with a 1,000 games played (Gretzky, Dionne).

Also, maybe Esposito's peak just happened to fall in line with Orr's career...considering what Esposito did in the 1972 Summit Series without Orr, there's also some evidence that he wasn't just a complete Cheechoo out there...also, ya know, watching him play would help...but according to your notes, he "camp[ed] there half the game with his linemates" - what a strategy!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

-There is a clear as day pattern


-Its exposing players for what they are.

Phil Esposito, another one

-His career before Bobby Orr was weak. His career after Orr was weak. He used to park in front of the goal and camp there half the game with his linemates and Orr setting him up. . And he couldnt do anything noteworthy when he wasnt a Bruin without Orr carrying that team and him on his back. The stats tell the truth. In 1968 Orr played under 50 games and Espoito couldnt break 90 points. Orr returned the next year and remained injury free and then the Art Rosses were coming in for Espo.

-Esposito is the anti Jagr. Lemieux retired in 1997, Jagr won the Art Ross the next 4 years without Lemieux. Esposito was nothing special at all without Orr.

I can only assume you never saw Esposito play by your description.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Yo dawg, but I heard you like points per game...and random "bars". Esposito has the third highest points per game rate (1.24) in history for anyone with a 1,000 games played (Gretzky, Dionne).

Also, maybe Esposito's peak just happened to fall in line with Orr's career...considering what Esposito did in the 1972 Summit Series without Orr, there's also some evidence that he wasn't just a complete Cheechoo out there...also, ya know, watching him play would help...but according to your notes, he "camp[ed] there half the game with his linemates" - what a strategy!

-1000 games is an arbitrary number just like 300, 500, 800. There are a ton of elite players that didnt make it 1000 games because of health