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

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
League wide scoring reflects the overall strength of d-men, goalies and forwards

Let's try this again.

So does lower league scoring = strong d-men, goalies and/or defensive systems while higher scoring equals strong forwards, offensive d-men and/or offensive systems?


(Awaits response touting Richard's 1949 playoff road stats)
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
What's the second best? Just askin'.

Gawd... *Facepalm*

During Howe's first 13 seasons, the Leafs won three in a row and four in five seasons. During his prime, the Leafs again won three in a row and four in six seasons. Either of those teams could be viewed as better than Howe's wings.

Painting a team with the "dynasty" lablel doesn't take away from Crosby's Cup record and his contribution to it.

Crosby's performance in the Pens four SCF appearances > Howe's performance in the Wing's four Cups.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Lower scoring generally represents a stronger, more well-rounded talent pool as a whole. Weaker talent pools lose dimensions, nuances of play away from the puck are generally first to go. Junior hockey, high scoring than pro game. Quebec League highest scoring league because, in part, they have less to pull from territorially, struggle to attract Americans due to culture/language differences vs. Ontario and the West...

WHA high scoring league than NHL, etc.
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
So, last 10 pages are not about who Could jump into Big 4, but hot discussion about Howe and Crosby (with some others players).

Could we go back to original topic?

Sure.

Out of current players I believe Connor McDavid has had the start to his career necessary to challenge the Big 4 in the future. I just hope he won't be Dionne'd by Chiarelli and the Oilers in general...

I don't see Crosby (or Ovechkin for that matter) doing that, barring some unexpected performances in the next few years, like Crosby winning another Ross and Hart. Something like that. Beating an healthy McDavid would be pretty huge.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
Lower scoring generally represents a stronger, more well-rounded talent pool as a whole. Weaker talent pools lose dimensions, nuances of play away from the puck are generally first to go. Junior hockey, high scoring than pro game. Quebec League highest scoring league because, in part, they have less to pull from territorially, struggle to attract Americans due to culture/language differences vs. Ontario and the West...

WHA high scoring league than NHL, etc.

So what can we conclude from this? How does this affect a performance vs. peers analysis?

For the record, I see Crosby's PPG gap over his peers over his career as about the same as Howe's PPG gap over his peers in his 13 seasons. I don't care about league scoring levels in this particular comparison.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
The general conclusion is exactly what I'm saying...the talent pool is strong and it's harder to score, the league is healthy. Look at how scoring balloons during the War...from like 1942 to 1948, it's craziness...because the pool was so depleted...so high scoring or particularly odd, out of character seasons for marginal players should be looked at closer...Babe Pratt perhaps...
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
The general conclusion is exactly what I'm saying...the talent pool is strong and it's harder to score, the league is healthy. Look at how scoring balloons during the War...from like 1942 to 1948, it's craziness...because the pool was so depleted...so high scoring or particularly odd, out of character seasons for marginal players should be looked at closer...Babe Pratt perhaps...

So basically this bears no relevance in determining who dominated their peers more and ranking players based on that.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
So basically this bears no relevance in determining who dominated their peers more and ranking players based on that.

Right. The origin of this side-debate was a certain poster's habit to compare raw stats over time without regard to the actual scoring level. Of course, we have much more reasonable ways to look at statistical comparisons. You name it: domination versus their respective peers is what matters.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Let's try this again.

So does lower league scoring = strong d-men, goalies and/or defensive systems while higher scoring equals strong forwards, offensive d-men and/or offensive systems?


(Awaits response touting Richard's 1949 playoff road stats)

Depends on the distribution of the team scoring and individual scoring.
Question of the scoring margin between the league teams and individual team competition.

League as an entity never scores or defends.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
So basically this bears no relevance in determining who dominated their peers more and ranking players based on that.

You have not studied scoring in depth. A few examples. Bernie Geoffrion dominated the Rangers in scoring in 1955 and 1961. Red Kelly dominated the Bruins in 1953 but against other league teams they were not as strong ranging from high to low average.

Your approach is totally oblivious of such considerations.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
You have not studied scoring in depth. A few examples. Bernie Geoffrion dominated the Rangers in scoring in 1955 and 1961. Red Kelly dominated the Bruins in 1953 but against other league teams they were not as strong ranging from high to low average.

Your approach is totally oblivious of such considerations.

This seems to be more of a O6 phenomenon but still not relevant when looking a PPGs over a 13 year period.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
Right. The origin of this side-debate was a certain poster's habit to compare raw stats over time without regard to the actual scoring level. Of course, we have much more reasonable ways to look at statistical comparisons. You name it: domination versus their respective peers is what matters.

I know what the origin was, there seemed to be a response that the league has been easier to score in different eras which seemed to imply scoring titles and placements from different eras hold different value.

I agree that a certain poster's argument holds no water on many fronts.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
So basically this bears no relevance in determining who dominated their peers more and ranking players based on that.

The need to go "black and white" on this seems unnecessary. Consider scoring intra- and inter-divisionally after the big expansion, for instance. All told, I'm more likely to be interested in players who consistently do well in a strong league...
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
The need to go "black and white" on this seems unnecessary. Consider scoring intra- and inter-divisionally after the big expansion, for instance. All told, I'm more likely to be interested in players who consistently do well in a strong league...

Whether a league is stronger at a particular point in time vs. another is subjective. Does it make sense to use a subjective-based argument against a statistical-based one?

Do you have any examples of players who were clearly affected by the league going from strong to weak or vice versa? What I mean is a player who stood out in a "weak" league was clearly reeled into the pack in a stronger league.

Howe putting up his career high in points in points isn't an example of this; it merely extended his run of Top 5 scoring finishes.
 
Last edited:

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
McDavid has certainly got off to a hot start in his career, and I'm very excited (as an Oilers' fan / sufferer) to see where he goes.

It really could go in any of several different directions. Two scoring titles in a row in one's first three seasons is pretty amazing anytime, and especially now. Since he's just hitting his physical prime (probably) around now and entering his best years, the sky's the limit, especially considering he hasn't played with many great players yet. His style ('visually', as MacT would say) is extremely exciting. Should McDavid continue to trend upward for another year or two, say, and does in fact win three or four scoring titles in a row, and the Oilers improve a lot, we could start talking about his chances of potentially approaching a 'big four' level. (Potentially, mind.)

On the other hand, McDavid could just as likely go in a direction somewhere between Dionne and Crosby. We may have seen the best of him already, and he may run into injury problems and the like. There's certainly a chance the Oilers will manage to blow the window of opportunity they have with him. If he finishes between 2 and 10 in scoring for the next ten years and the Oilers make the playoffs only a few times (being eliminated quickly), he's basically going to end up a more decorated Marcel Dionne.

But why not think optimistically? He does have at least an outside chance of approaching big-four kind of territory from now... although the odds are strongly against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMule93

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Whether a league is stronger at a particular point in time vs. another is subjective. Does it make sense to use a subjective-based argument against a statistical-based one?

Do you have any examples of players who were clearly affected by the league going from strong to weak or vice versa? What I mean is a player who stood out in a "weak" league was clearly reeled into the pack in a stronger league.

Howe putting up his career high in points in points isn't an example of this; it merely extended his run of Top 5 scoring finishes.

Subjective -> Proper talent evaluation. Always wins out. So, yes, absolutely. Game generates statistics, not the other way around. Statistics are used for generalizations and as a crutch for a lack of visual evidence. Even today, every game is on TV - but I can't watch all 1200+ of them, as much as I'd like to. Stats aren't evil or anything, but basing anything completely on them is not a preferred method obviously.

Already provided one example: Babe Pratt. Maurice Richard 50 goals in 50 games (!) when the country was off at war...schedule jumps to 70 games, and rarely reaches 40 again, much less 50.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Subjective -> Proper talent evaluation. Always wins out. So, yes, absolutely. Game generates statistics, not the other way around. Statistics are used for generalizations and as a crutch for a lack of visual evidence. Even today, every game is on TV - but I can't watch all 1200+ of them, as much as I'd like to. Stats aren't evil or anything, but basing anything completely on them is not a preferred method obviously.

Already provided one example: Babe Pratt. Maurice Richard 50 goals in 50 games (!) when the country was off at war...schedule jumps to 70 games, and rarely reaches 40 again, much less 50.

Conversely, you also have instances where a player dominates a team during one season.

1954-55, Bernie Geooffrion, Art Ross Trophy winner by 0ne point, 38G + 37 A = 75 P.

Against the Rangers in 14 games he dominated, 13G + 13A. , pace of 65 G and 130 P. Against the rest of the league he was ordinary.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
Subjective -> Proper talent evaluation. Always wins out. So, yes, absolutely. Game generates statistics, not the other way around. Statistics are used for generalizations and as a crutch for a lack of visual evidence. Even today, every game is on TV - but I can't watch all 1200+ of them, as much as I'd like to. Stats aren't evil or anything, but basing anything completely on them is not a preferred method obviously.

Already provided one example: Babe Pratt. Maurice Richard 50 goals in 50 games (!) when the country was off at war...schedule jumps to 70 games, and rarely reaches 40 again, much less 50.

Why weren't their other players who took advantage of the country being at war? Post war (46 to 50) Richard was still the clear best RS goalscorer, why wouldn't we look at his 44/45 season as just being his peak season rather than an anomaly in need of some explanation?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
Subjective -> Proper talent evaluation. Always wins out. So, yes, absolutely. Game generates statistics, not the other way around. Statistics are used for generalizations and as a crutch for a lack of visual evidence. Even today, every game is on TV - but I can't watch all 1200+ of them, as much as I'd like to. Stats aren't evil or anything, but basing anything completely on them is not a preferred method obviously.

Do you really think a 13 season PPG is not representative of his talent? Shouldn't talent be reflected in statistical dominance relative to the league?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,819
5,709
Visit site
Conversely, you also have instances where a player dominates a team during one season.

1954-55, Bernie Geooffrion, Art Ross Trophy winner by 0ne point, 38G + 37 A = 75 P.

Against the Rangers in 14 games he dominated, 13G + 13A. , pace of 65 G and 130 P. Against the rest of the league he was ordinary.

I am sure if you took away any player's best 20% of their season, they would be significantly affected. Why penalize Bernie for playing in a six team league? Did those 14 games hold less value vs. games against the rest of the league?

Geoffrion had the highest playoff PPG during the Habs five Cup run and the 2nd highest PPG in the RS over that time. Seems you want to unfairly paint him as being only great agaisnt the Rangers.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Why weren't their other players who took advantage of the country being at war? Post war (46 to 50) Richard was still the clear best RS goalscorer, why wouldn't we look at his 44/45 season as just being his peak season rather than an anomaly in need of some explanation?

Huh? There were. I keep naming them. Babe Pratt is the name of a real human...Bill Durnan's best seasons were in '44 and '45 (38-5, 38-7 record)...Elmer Lach, 80 points in 50 games. Strung together three straight All-Star years (compared to two the rest of his career) from '44 to '46. Toe Blake's five highest scoring seasons were all War-altered years and they were all at the end of his career, post-prime...Joe Carveth, ~30-point player, better than a point per game in '44 and '45...Ab DeMarco, not NHL caliber before or after War years, but netted two top-7 scoring finishes and was a point-per-game player from '43 to '46. Herb Cain...10ish goal per season player his whole career...puts up two 30+ goal seasons in '44 and '45, past his prime...

The list goes on and on...
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Do you really think a 13 season PPG is not representative of his talent? Shouldn't talent be reflected in statistical dominance relative to the league?

I'm not referring to any individual player unless noted.

Talent is reflected on the ice. It can manifest itself in other ways, but talent identification comes first.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,041
12,661
Another question to this theme.

Why actually Big Four? Because of Mount Rushmore? When, yes, for Canadians it hasn't any significance, has it?

I don't think that it has anything to do with the actual number four. It's just that there are four players who are clearly above all other players. If Lemieux was never born it would be a big 3 or if another player reaches that level it is a big 5.

Regarding McDavid, this will be a big year for him. He has two Art Ross trophies already which is very good, but at some point he will need to demonstrate that he is far better than every other player in order to get to the level mentioned in this thread. Just being the best player, as he has been for two years, isn't enough. It will be interesting to see if he follows the pattern of any of the other phenom players. Gretzky reached this level by his third season, arguably his second. Lemieux really separated himself from everyone else by his fourth season. For Orr it was clearly his fourth season. Lafleur didn't reach the big 4 level but reached the level of an all time great in his fourth season. Howe separated himself from the pack by his fifth season. Ovechkin peaked by his third season. Crosby and Lindros it is difficult to say because of injuries, but they were near their peak level by their second. If McDavid is going to separate himself from everyone else I think that this is the season to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->