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

[Canadiens1958]

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.

No just illustrated, with details, the continuing fallacies behind your position.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Hockey Reference's "era adjustment" isn't a scientific tool that gives you the be all and end all numbers. It's one approach out of several. Another can be found here.

-And now its my turn (Connor Mcdavid sample size to small for era adjusted)

VSX vs ERA Adjusted. Many repeat names in both Top 15's.

Player	Adj GP	VsX	VsX/GP
Mario Lemieux	926	1,409	1.52
Wayne Gretzky	1,543	2,327	1.51
Bobby Orr	700	940	1.34
Sidney Crosby	808	1,079	1.34
Connor McDavid	127	166	1.31
Syl Apps Sr	681	839	1.23
Peter Forsberg	741	882	1.19
Evgeni Malkin	728	866	1.19
Gordie Howe	2,061	2,444	1.19
Jean Beliveau	1,292	1,519	1.18
Phil Esposito	1,369	1,609	1.18
Mike Bossy	771	894	1.16
Gordie Drillon	528	607	1.15
Bobby Hull	1,203	1,376	1.14
Alex Ovechkin	955	1,080	1.13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Johnny Engine]

Again, getting injured or simply ceasing to exist in one's late 20s or early 30s looks like a great career move, based on those numbers.

 

[daver]

No just illustrated, with details, the continuing fallacies behind your position.

I believe I just did the same. Go figure.

 

[Theokritos]

Player	Adj GP	VsX	VsX/GP
Mario Lemieux	926	1,409	1.52
Wayne Gretzky	1,543	2,327	1.51
Bobby Orr	700	940	1.34
Sidney Crosby	808	1,079	1.34
Connor McDavid	127	166	1.31
Syl Apps Sr	681	839	1.23
Peter Forsberg	741	882	1.19
Evgeni Malkin	728	866	1.19
Gordie Howe	2,061	2,444	1.19
Jean Beliveau	1,292	1,519	1.18
Phil Esposito	1,369	1,609	1.18
Mike Bossy	771	894	1.16
Gordie Drillon	528	607	1.15
Bobby Hull	1,203	1,376	1.14
Alex Ovechkin	955	1,080	1.13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Like Johnny Engine has already pointed out, every season a player keeps playing in the NHL after his best years are behind him will reduce his career average relative to other players. Does that make him a lesser player? Certainly not. It's not a good way to compare players.

Career numbers for Crosby vs Howe mean you compare Crosby aged 18-30 with Howe aged 18-43 plus a year at age 51. Obviously this isn't a very telling comparison, as opposed to comparing their best seasons:

TABLE 1 - BEST SEVEN YEARS, POINTS (last updated: 2018)

Wayne Gretzky	155.6
Phil Esposito	130.4
Gordie Howe	125.5
Mario Lemieux	119.8
Bobby Orr	114.8
Jaromir Jagr	114.2
Bobby Hull	108.3
Stan Mikita	107.8
Jean Beliveau	105.7
Guy Lafleur	104.5
Ted Lindsay	104.4
Marcel Dionne	103.3
Sidney Crosby	102.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Like Johnny Engine has already pointed out, every season a player keeps playing in the NHL after his best years are behind him will reduce his career average relative to other players. Does that make him a lesser player? Certainly not. It's not a good way to compare players.

Career numbers for Crosby vs Howe mean you compare Crosby aged 18-30 with Howe aged 18-43 plus a year at age 51. Obviously this isn't a very telling comparison, as opposed to comparing their best seasons:

-Were you here yesterday? Because I posted the first 13 seasons ONLY comparing Crosby to Howe with the era adjusted metrics to BOOST Howe's points per game and he still lost heavily to Crosby in points per game. So career in longevity are taken out the window as I leveled the playing field. Howe's first 13 seasons vs Crosby's first 13 seasons.

 

[daver]

How important is to convince one poster that their argument is wrong when they show absolutely no interest in a discussion.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Like Johnny Engine has already pointed out, every season a player keeps playing in the NHL after his best years are behind him will reduce his career average relative to other players. Does that make him a lesser player? Certainly not. It's not a good way to compare players.

Career numbers for Crosby vs Howe mean you compare Crosby aged 18-30 with Howe aged 18-43 plus a year at age 51. Obviously this isn't a very telling comparison, as opposed to comparing their best seasons:

-Question?

-I had 3 posters last evening tell me players retired early in their NHL careers in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s etc.. It was told to me that players retired around 30 years old in these decades or prior either to take up another job or whatever reason there may be.

-How can longevity be a legit argument against certain players over 30 years old, when supposedly the bulk or most of the players 1980 and earlier retired early before 30 years old?



-Because again, what is being posted and argued makes absolutely zero sense when there are 2 sides on very different ends of the argument. How can longevity be argued when the bulk of the players prior to 1980 all retired young prior to age 30? What has been posted in the last 24 hours makes zero sense to me. If the bulk of the retirement age from 1900-1980 is 31 years old, then use 31 years old as the base and be done with it. Longevity to me = excuses

 

[MXD]

-Question?

-I had 3 posters last evening tell me players retired early in their NHL careers in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s etc.. It was told to me that players retired around 30 years old in these decades or prior either to take up another job or whatever reason there may be.

-How can longevity be a legit argument against certain players over 30 years old, when supposedly the bulk or most of the players 1980 and earlier retired early before 30 years old?



-Because again, what is being posted and argued makes absolutely zero sense when there are 2 sides on very different ends of the argument. How can longevity be argued when the bulk of the players prior to 1980 all retired young prior to age 30? What has been posted in the last 24 hours makes zero sense to me. If the bulk of the retirement age from 1900-1980 is 31 years old, then use 31 years old as the base and be done with it. Longevity to me = excuses

...You probably couldn't have "made" a better case for Gordie Howe than what you just did.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

...You probably couldn't have better "made" the case for Gordie Howe.

-I want the question answered.

 

[MXD]

-I want the question answered.

...And I just wanted to point out that you litterally made the point for Howe in the first place. I'll let others answer your questions.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You skip out on a lot of questions and slink out of outright lies...you're not in a position to make demands like this, no matter how many hyphens you preface it with...

 

[Spirit of 67]

An awesome career?

 

[Theokritos]

-Look at his stats. How do you ... suck without Orr in 1968? That defines Espo to a T. He was nothing without Orr.

Orr played 46 games in 1968. When Orr went down, Espo's production went down with it.

Since it's been only recently that you have made a factually wrong claim, these further corrections of your next claims shouldn't go unhighlighted. We're still waiting for a reply by you that goes beyond vague statements and actually adress these rebuttals:

Esposito scored more points per game WITHOUT Orr in 1968. In 1973, the difference was only -0.08 points per game without Orr. That's 42 games and Esposito's production was virtually unaffected.

so we are willfully ignoring:

Espo's Hart/Ross year in '68-'69 before Orr blew up? Orr had 64 pts that year, Espo had 126

Or '67-'68 where Orr plays only 46 games and scores 31 pts, while Espo finishes 2nd in scoring by only 3 pts and leads the league in assists?

Also, if the following post is a true reflexion of your opinion, then the History of Hockey board is simply the wrong place for you:

Whats the point of an old record if it was set first if someone destroys the record later on. There were good swimmers in the 1930s and sprinters in the 1930s. Then Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt came along, demolished every record, and the rest is history and everyone else was a has been turned nobody. (...) If your old record is passed over and destroyed with equal playing fields, your record never had value to being with.

 

[VanIslander]

Let's see... 20 straight years top-5 in NHL scoring? Ok, what Gordie did is not fair.

Nine Hart trophies in the first ten years of one's career . .. k, what Gretz did is unattainable.

Eight Norris trophies - heck even water what Orr did down to eight 1st team all star selections.

Six Art Ross trophies and three Hart trophies would put one in the ballpark of Mario at 4th overall...

Otherwise, **** the **** off and cut the ****.

 

[daver]

I am going to say some reflection is needed.

The league has gone through significant changes over the past 70 years. Expecting a player to stand out like an Orr, Wayne or Mario could be unrealistic. If in 30 - 40 years, no player has seemingly approached Big 4 level, one has to question if the very best player (s) in that timeframe isn't deserving of some Big 4 level accolades.

I think the same context is needed when looking at the best teams or dynasties of all time. Do we really think that a 30 year period that saw three teams win 29 of 30 titles and five dynasties (four Cups in six years), is going to happen again? Since the 1992 Pens, the best team showings have been the Wings of 1995 to 2009, the Hawks of 2010 to 2015, and the Pens of 2008 to 2017, all of whom are not close to reaching the "dynasty" title.

I really think Howe sets the benchmark for assessing this. Before Orr, I would have thought he was the unquestioned GOAT. He had one season that blew everyone out of the water (although the Rocket's 50 goal season was pretty close) and kept close to this level for three other seasons. This was complimented by a playoff run that was arguably the best of his era, and a sustained high level of playoff performances over his prime. His longevity was the icing on the cake.

So a player needs to show:

(1) a sustained level of dominance

(2) a playoff resume that clearly compliments their RS one

(3) a normal career trajectory that his somewhat injury-free

 

[bobholly39]

I am going to say some reflection is needed.

The league has gone through significant changes over the past 70 years. Expecting a player to stand out like an Orr, Wayne or Mario could be unrealistic. If in 30 - 40 years, no player has seemingly approached Big 4 level, one has to question if the very best player (s) in that timeframe isn't deserving of some Big 4 level accolades.

I think the same context is needed when looking at the best teams or dynasties of all time. Do we really think that a 30 year period that saw three teams win 29 of 30 titles and five dynasties (four Cups in six years), is going to happen again? Since the 1992 Pens, the best team showings have been the Wings of 1995 to 2009, the Hawks of 2010 to 2015, and the Pens of 2008 to 2017, all of whom are not close to reaching the "dynasty" title.

I really think Howe sets the benchmark for assessing this. Before Orr, I would have thought he was the unquestioned GOAT. He had one season that blew everyone out of the water (although the Rocket's 50 goal season was pretty close) and kept close to this level for three other seasons. This was complimented by a playoff run that was arguably the best of his era, and a sustained high level of playoff performances over his prime. His longevity was the icing on the cake.

So a player needs to show:

(1) a sustained level of dominance

(2) a playoff resume that clearly compliments their RS one

(3) a normal career trajectory that his somewhat injury-free

You don't need an injury free career. Orr and Lemieux are easily in. Give Gretzky a ton of injuries and eliminate a bunch of his seasons - and he's still in.

 

[rfournier103]

Let's see... 20 straight years top-5 in NHL scoring? Ok, what Gordie did is not fair.

Nine Hart trophies in the first ten years of one's career . .. k, what Gretz did is unattainable.

Eight Norris trophies - heck even water what Orr did down to eight 1st team all star selections.

Six Art Ross trophies and three Hart trophies would put one in the ballpark of Mario at 4th overall...

So a player needs to show:

(1) a sustained level of dominance

(2) a playoff resume that clearly compliments their RS one

(3) a normal career trajectory that his somewhat injury-free

I think this really encapsulates the answer almost 100%.

I’ll only add that for a player to join this group, he would have to be so good - so much better than his peers - that people will argue that he’s BETTER than Gretzky; Orr; Lemieux; AND Howe.

What those four men have in common is that there are people here on this very forum that argue that “he” is the GOAT. And make good cases for it too. Lots of people.

If “John Smith” we’re so good that LOTS of knowledgeable hockey fans seriously argued that he was better than all of the big four - and had the stats and accomplishments to back it up - only then could he then join them.

 

[Midnight Judges]

What those four men have in common is that there are people here on this very forum that argue that “he” is the GOAT. And make good cases for it too. Lots of people.

There is no case based on actual results for Lemieux being the GOAT. Everything he did, Gretzky did it better, and far more often.

 

[rfournier103]

Everything he did, Gretzky did it better, and far more often.

I agree with you on this in regards to Mario, but he has his supporters that say he was better (or would have been better) and go to great lengths to make his case.

 

[daver]

You don't need an injury free career. Orr and Lemieux are easily in. Give Gretzky a ton of injuries and eliminate a bunch of his seasons - and he's still in.

I should have stated that said domination would not be on those three player's levels. More like Tier 2 level domination (for forwards) which I think Howe was at save for his 52/53 season.

So the cavaet is that a player doesn't necessarily have to peak at the same statistical level that Wayne, Mario and Orr did in order to get consideration.

 

[daver]

There is no case based on actual results for Lemieux being the GOAT. Everything he did, Gretzky did it better, and far more often.

Best peak season is closer to the same than it is Wayne being better. As is Mario's level of play on 92/93. Consensus is that Mario was on Wayne's peak level but obviously did not sustain it.

 

[BadgerBruce]

The word “longevity” gets tossed around so much in this thread that it almost seems like a dirty word.
“Sustained excellence” is how most of us quite rightly contextualize it.

Here’s a simple example. We know that Howe broke Richard’s all-time record for goals early in his 18th NHL season (1963-64).

How did he perform in the 5 year period immediately before achieving this milestone (58-59 through 62-63, his 13th-17th seasons) and then in the 5 year period immediately following the milestone season (64-65 through 68-69, his 19th-23rd seasons)?

From 58-59 through 62-63, Howe played 344 games, missing just 6 over the 5 year period (all in 60-61). He put up 386 points in those 344 games. He finished 4th, 5th, 5th, 3rd and 1st in the regular season points races.

From 64-65 through 68-69, Howe played even more games, 359, missing just 1 regular season game in the 66-67 season. He put up 401 points in those 359 games. He finished 3rd, 5th, 4th, 3rd and 3rd in the regular season points races — in his 19th-23rd seasons in the league.

There’s no drop off. Howe achieved just as much in his 19th-23rd seasons as he did in his 13th-17th.

That’s not “longevity” — it’s sustained excellence that boggles the mind, and the figures I’ve provided completely exclude his prime! He’s borderline “Big 4” without those huge years.

 

[JackSlater]

A player needs to peak at the level that the big 4 peaked and thus needs to stand out in a similar way. It's pretty simply. It isn't something where you can look back decades later and retroactively anoint a player the level of Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux even though no reasonable person at the time thought it to be true. We don't need to make it a lower threshold just so someone does it every X number of years, even if that someone is Crosby.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Best peak season is closer to the same than it is Wayne being better. As is Mario's level of play on 92/93. Consensus is that Mario was on Wayne's peak level but obviously did not sustain it.

Fair enough. I should have said "everything he did, Gretzky did it more often."