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

[Canadiens1958]

This has nothing to do with the scoring environment for the league unless you are arguing that Howe's point totals were influenced by the quality of his team.

Howe never played 1 on 6. Point totals are always influenced by the quality of a player's team.

Prime examples Leafs winning multiple SCs without a Ross winner because they had the depth to roll an extra line.

Mikita and Hull winning multiple Ross Trophies in the sixties because Chicago did not have the depth to roll an extra line.

Jean Beliveau's point totals with the dynasty Canadiens linked to the quality and depth of the other centers.

 

[daver]

Howe never played 1 on 6. Point totals are always influenced by the quality of a player's team.

I think a player's points are only really influenced when you play with a better talent then yourself. The truly great ones put up points regardless. Wayne, did, Mario did, Jagr, Crosby etc... To elevate or diminish point totals based on Team GF is very questionable and certainly disagree with using it in any other context than to perhaps differentiate similar players who were close in production.

IMO, there is no real reason to think the strength of Howe's Rosses should be weighted by his team's GF.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You were the one that made the initial claim that Crosby has been regressing since Age 24 therefore it is you who is being scrutinized.

I believe I did my due diligence as I checked that Crosby was 30 last year and saw that there was no way possible to interpret one season, let his 30 year old season, let alone a season that was a clear statistical anomaly in comparison to his previous eleven seasons, as representing a clear decline since age 24.

You used league GPG to compare point totals from different seasons to try to back up your claim then threw in a red herring of TOI when challenged. I checked that in no way possible can you incorporate individual players' TOI into the calculation of league GPG.

You also used Crosby's 19 year old season vs. his 30 year old season. I did my due diligence and can state with 100% confidence that you cannot conclude anything about Crosby at age 24 from that data.

Produce your due diligence.

TOI is not a red herring unless you believe that a player can score regularly when he is not on the ice.

Crosby age 19.
79 GP, 120 PTS, 2o:46 ATOI.

Crosby age 30,
82 GP, 89 PTS, 20:41 ATOI.
actually had a bit more ice time at age 30 once the extensions are calculated.

Thru age 24 he was trending upwards until injured.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think a player's points are only really influenced when you play with a better talent then yourself. The truly great ones put up points regardless. Wayne, did, Mario did, Jagr, Crosby etc... To elevate or diminish point totals based on Team GF is very questionable and certainly disagree with using it in any other context than to perhaps differentiate similar players who were close in production.

IMO, there is no real reason to think the strength of Howe's Rosses should be weighted by his team's GF.

Usual misrepresentation.

No one was weighing Howe's Ross efforts by his team GF.

Just providing context.

 

[daver]

Produce your due diligence.

TOI is not a red herring unless you believe that a player can score regularly when he is not on the ice.

Crosby age 19.
79 GP, 120 PTS, 2o:46 ATOI.

Crosby age 30,
82 GP, 89 PTS, 20:41 ATOI.
actually had a bit more ice time at age 30 once the extensions are calculated.

Thru age 24 he was trending upwards until injured.

The red herring is you responded to a challenge about using league GPG with zero context to say to compare a 120 points with 89 point straight up. Are you still are using that red herring as you have yet to respond to that challenge.

The fact that you are not acknowledging that a comparison between a 19 year old and 30 year ofd has zero relevance to your claim is confirmation of your inability to argue honestly.

 

[daver]

Usual misrepresentation.

No one was weighing Howe's Ross efforts by his team GF.

Just providing context.

How does this add context to the different scoring environments in Howe's and Beliveau's peak seasons?

 

[JackSlater]

Ok just testing the waters here, but what if a forward in this era accomplished these milestones. Would that be enough? These are roughly milestones I put together using Jagr, Sakic, Crosby and Ovechkin’s accomplishments as a base. I feel like this would exceed them. The rockets depend on whether the player is a goal scorer or not and the Ted Lindsay’s stop at 5 because that is how many Gretzky won.

1600-1700 points
A 130 pont season
12 top 5 scoring finishes
15 top 10 scoring finishes
5-6 Art Ross Trophies
4-6 Hart Trophies
3-5 Ted Lindsay awards
1-4 Rockets
7-8 1st team all stars
5 2nd team all stars
3-4 Stanley cups
2-3 Conn Smythe Trophies
1-2 Olympic gold medals

Probably, but some context is still needed. It's pretty similar to Howe's resume.

How about this for a checklist to break into the big 4:

5-6 smythes.

Nothing else spectacular. Maybe a Joe Sakic type career (so a few trophies in regular season, maybe 1-2 ross/harts - but nowhere near 5-10 like Gretzky/Howe).

Just playoff excellence.

i think that would get the conversation started.

It would be a very bizarre case, and I suspect weaker than the big four. Conn Smythe is so influenced by team (and often bad voting) that it is difficult to rate. I also don't think that the voters would give the same player that many Conn Smythes unless he was blowing away the competition, and a player who could blow the competition away that much in the playoffs but can't consistently do so in the regular season is difficult to imagine.

 

[steve141]

At Lemieux's "retirement" in 1997, he was not aging better than Gretzky had to the same age. And everything he did after that is partial seasons with large periods of rest, a luxury Gretzky didn't subscribe to. I am pretty confident that Lemieux would not have been able to put up 76 points in a 43-game run if he had been hard-grinding every game from 1997 to 2001, with no time off. By 2000 or so, he probably would have been burned out and ready to quit.

Of course, it's also a testament to Lemieux's freak-of-nature physicality that he could sit out 3.5 years and then come back and do what he did, even for short periods. But I tend not to give "aging benefit of the doubt" to the guy who quit pro-hockey at 31 because the game was too rough for him.

Gretzky's unique combination of high peak, durability and longevity as an elite player is what ultimately sets him apart from other superstars. It's not a knock on Gretzky that he merely matched instead of dominated other top forwards (who were in their peak) in his last few years.He surely was more valuable to his team on the ice than Lemieux was sitting out.

My point was that when Lemieux eventually stepped on the ice he was still the top offensive performer in the game, while Gretzky never finished top five in PPG after he was 34. They both had their last elite season at 37 years old. Lemieux finished 2nd in PPG with 91 points in 67 games, while Gretzky finished 7th with 90 points in 82 games. Again, Gretzky might still have been the more valuable player, playing all 82 games, but Lemieux outperformed him slightly in the last few years of their respective careers.

Anyway, this thread is not about Lemieux vs Gretzky, but what it would take to upset the big 4. Since I think Lemieux is clearly the worst of the big 4 he is the natural bar for others players. And that bar is still very high.

 

[bobholly39]

It would be a very bizarre case, and I suspect weaker than the big four. Conn Smythe is so influenced by team (and often bad voting) that it is difficult to rate. I also don't think that the voters would give the same player that many Conn Smythes unless he was blowing away the competition, and a player who could blow the competition away that much in the playoffs but can't consistently do so in the regular season is difficult to imagine.

For sure it would be bizarre and different. But I'm willing to bet there would be a ton of traction to acknowledge the greatness of such a player.

I mean let's use Sakic, since i brought him up. It's a Joe Sakic level of talent - so not a 200 point players, but maybe a 100-110 point guy in a great year, regular top 5-10 scorer, yet not at all your perennial art ross winner. Yet he leads teams to championships, multiple times, always clearly establishing himself as the best player in the playoffs.

And to the bolded - yes exactly. To win 5 conn smythes you need to be the clear cut winner, or else voters vote elsewhere. It doesn't mean he has to score 50 points every playoff year - but if he scores 35 points while the next guy scores 24 - well he wins it. So there would be no weak smythes, only strong ones, or he wouldn't win them.

It would be less about people seeing the player as underachieving in the regular season than it would be about overachieving in the playoffs.

 

[JackSlater]

For sure it would be bizarre and different. But I'm willing to bet there would be a ton of traction to acknowledge the greatness of such a player.

I mean let's use Sakic, since i brought him up. It's a Joe Sakic level of talent - so not a 200 point players, but maybe a 100-110 point guy in a great year, regular top 5-10 scorer, yet not at all your perennial art ross winner. Yet he leads teams to championships, multiple times, always clearly establishing himself as the best player in the playoffs.

And to the bolded - yes exactly. To win 5 conn smythes you need to be the clear cut winner, or else voters vote elsewhere. It doesn't mean he has to score 50 points every playoff year - but if he scores 35 points while the next guy scores 24 - well he wins it. So there would be no weak smythes, only strong ones, or he wouldn't win them.

It would be less about people seeing the player as underachieving in the regular season than it would be about overachieving in the playoffs.

I honestly doubt that this Sakic type, already with four Conn Smythes to his name, wins the Conn Smythe with that scoring edge. Pretty easy to see a Goring type situation where a narrative forms and the player with fewer points wins it. Bossy outscored Goring 35-20, with 17 goals no less, and Goring won the trophy. That was before Bossy had even won one. I think that the voters would stretch very, very far to find a way to give it to someone else. No way to know this but I think it's reasonable.

This player really sounds like a well off man's version of Ted Kennedy. If a somewhat better Ted Kennedy up there with the big four? No slight intended toward Kennedy but probably not. A somewhat better Kennedy is probably Beliveau.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Circumstances surrounding a potential “big four” candidate would need to be unbelievably unique, given the current state of coaching in the NHL.

Put aside all of the team and individual hardware a player would need to acquire, because that’s just post-career counting that tells half the story to me.

The difference maker is being permitted to “break the rules.” Orr wouldn’t be permitted to play the way he did in today’s league. The beauty would be coached right out of him by “systems coaches.” Same with Gretzky and Lemieux. Even Howe, who is usually thought of as an up and down the wing lane hockey player, actually used the whole ice surface more like a centre man — his puck handling ability and vision were elite and he had permission to follow his hockey sense and instincts. Remarkable talent.

I can’t think of a single coach or team in the NHL today that wouldn’t try to turn a preternatural talent into a robot.

When a great player retires, I need to look back and remember him as an innovator, a player who did things nobody or nearly nobody else did. Things that make me go, “Wow. Just wow!” Gretzky in his office sending a blind pass between 2 opponent’s sticks right on the tape of a line mate for a tap in goal. Orr ragging the puck on the penalty kill with absolutely no one able to get near him for 90 seconds! Ambidextrous Howe deftly switching to lefty to evade a poke check and then firing a low screen shot into the bottom corner. The classic Lemieux flip, a deke that fooled and embarrassed Hall of Fame quality defencemen.

Yes, the player needs to leave the game with big numbers people on boards like this can parse and debate. He needs team success. But to me, there has to be more than raw data to crack the Big Four. And unless a rookie is somehow fortunate enough to join a team where his extraordinary skills are permitted to fully shine, I can’t see anyone breaking into the club anytime soon.

 

[bobholly39]

I honestly doubt that this Sakic type, already with four Conn Smythes to his name, wins the Conn Smythe with that scoring edge. Pretty easy to see a Goring type situation where a narrative forms and the player with fewer points wins it. Bossy outscored Goring 35-20, with 17 goals no less, and Goring won the trophy. That was before Bossy had even won one. I think that the voters would stretch very, very far to find a way to give it to someone else. No way to know this but I think it's reasonable.

This player really sounds like a well off man's version of Ted Kennedy. If a somewhat better Ted Kennedy up there with the big four? No slight intended toward Kennedy but probably not. A somewhat better Kennedy is probably Beliveau.

I mean Patrick Roy has 3 smythes. Imagine he had 5. Nobody else has 2. I think if you give Roy 5 smythes, there's a discussion being had today. And Patrick Roy is probably a better regular season player than Sakic - but he's closer to Sakic than he is to any of the big 4. It's playoffs that sets him apart.

Of course to win the 3rd, 4th and even 5th smythe the player would need stronger and stronger performances. If it's close with another candidate, they likely win due to voter fatigue.

 

[CartographerNo611]

In a 120 years of NHL hockey only has one player got to 200 points,.. 4 times. Only 1 player put 90 pucks into the net.

To be on par with Greztky, this person would need to get 200 points twice and atleast one 80 goal season and crack 90 points at the age of 36. Current hockey is easier to score then when a no back Gretzky put up 90 points at 36. Thats just how dominate Gretzky was . Crosby is no where near that level of dominance.

 

[Maestro84]

Crosby and McDavid are probably the two closest candidates. Crosby would've had a much better chance but injuries really got in his way of fully dominating hockey, while McDavid's career is just getting started. McDavid's career so far is sort of similar to Crosby's first 2-3 years so as long as Connor stays healthy, expect him to keep racking up countless awards year after year.

IF McDavid can end up winning 5+ Art Rosses, 3+ MVPs, 3+ Richards, 5+ Ted Lindsay's, keep putting up 100+ point seasons for the next 10 years or so, average around 1.3-1.5 PPG, have great International success with Canada, and win a Cup/Smythe, then he'd have a very good argument since he's playing in a much tougher era for superstar players to completely dominate. The latter will be the hardest to accomplish as winning championships is of course a team thing and Edmonton has been an incompetent franchise for most of the past 20-25 years or so. Overall, I'm very excited to see how McDavid's career turns out and I really really hope he doesn't go down the same path as Lindros, Kariya and even Crosby who all become what ifs to different extents

 

[Canadiens1958]

Circumstances surrounding a potential “big four” candidate would need to be unbelievably unique, given the current state of coaching in the NHL.

Put aside all of the team and individual hardware a player would need to acquire, because that’s just post-career counting that tells half the story to me.

The difference maker is being permitted to “break the rules.” Orr wouldn’t be permitted to play the way he did in today’s league. The beauty would be coached right out of him by “systems coaches.” Same with Gretzky and Lemieux. Even Howe, who is usually thought of as an up and down the wing lane hockey player, actually used the whole ice surface more like a centre man — his puck handling ability and vision were elite and he had permission to follow his hockey sense and instincts. Remarkable talent.

I can’t think of a single coach or team in the NHL today that wouldn’t try to turn a preternatural talent into a robot.


When a great player retires, I need to look back and remember him as an innovator, a player who did things nobody or nearly nobody else did. Things that make me go, “Wow. Just wow!” Gretzky in his office sending a blind pass between 2 opponent’s sticks right on the tape of a line mate for a tap in goal. Orr ragging the puck on the penalty kill with absolutely no one able to get near him for 90 seconds! Ambidextrous Howe deftly switching to lefty to evade a poke check and then firing a low screen shot into the bottom corner. The classic Lemieux flip, a deke that fooled and embarrassed Hall of Fame quality defencemen.

Yes, the player needs to leave the game with big numbers people on boards like this can parse and debate. He needs team success. But to me, there has to be more than raw data to crack the Big Four. And unless a rookie is somehow fortunate enough to join a team where his extraordinary skills are permitted to fully shine, I can’t see anyone breaking into the club anytime soon.

Great post.

Short shift game -Lemieux was really the last long shift skater, curb creativity as much,maybe more than systems.

Howe in a long shift game had a way of stretching the width of his influence especially when extra shifted with a depth/fringe center.

 

[Bustedprospect]

Gretzky's unique combination of high peak, durability and longevity as an elite player is what ultimately sets him apart from other superstars. It's not a knock on Gretzky that he merely matched instead of dominated other top forwards (who were in their peak) in his last few years.He surely was more valuable to his team on the ice than Lemieux was sitting out.

My point was that when Lemieux eventually stepped on the ice he was still the top offensive performer in the game, while Gretzky never finished top five in PPG after he was 34. They both had their last elite season at 37 years old. Lemieux finished 2nd in PPG with 91 points in 67 games, while Gretzky finished 7th with 90 points in 82 games. Again, Gretzky might still have been the more valuable player, playing all 82 games, but Lemieux outperformed him slightly in the last few years of their respective careers.

Anyway, this thread is not about Lemieux vs Gretzky, but what it would take to upset the big 4. Since I think Lemieux is clearly the worst of the big 4 he is the natural bar for others players. And that bar is still very high.

Gretzky had a busted back and had played twice the number of games in playoffs, about 40% more games in RS as a pro, a lot more internationally as well as starting his career in an earlier era.

Last three seasons Gretzky played around 95% of the games so its harder to keep a pace in this scenario.

 

[SovietWings]

I would say that only 'real' way to do it is as a goalie. But even Roy and Hasek weren't able to do it, so such a goalie would need to be better than them.. (they combined would make it?)
So probably:
-start revolution in goalie style/have own style nobody is able to copy
-atleast 2 Harts (as Hasek)
-atleast 3 Smythes (as Roy)
-multiple Vezinas, Jennings and 1AST
-longevity (about 15 good seasons in NHL)
-add some crazy unbreakable stats (wins, shutouts,...)

...good luck with that. But skaters have even smaller chance nowadays with systems, short shifts, trainings (its hard to dominate when everybody in league is well trained.. In Howe's, Orr's, but even in Gretzky's and Lemieux's time, hockey IQ was more important than today imho).

 

[quoipourquoi]

I would say that only 'real' way to do it is as a goalie. But even Roy and Hasek weren't able to do it, so such a goalie would need to be better than them.. (they combined would make it?)
So probably:
-start revolution in goalie style/have own style nobody is able to copy
-atleast 2 Harts (as Hasek)
-atleast 3 Smythes (as Roy)
-multiple Vezinas, Jennings and 1AST
-longevity (about 15 good seasons in NHL)
-add some crazy unbreakable stats (wins, shutouts,...)

...good luck with that.

So basically just Patrick Roy if the voters don’t distinguish between value (Hart winner Jose Theodore) and best (1st Team All-Star Patrick Roy) in 2001-02 and if Mark Messier isn’t traded to the Rangers in 1991-92? Or if he has his 33-5 season practically any year except in 1988-89?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

McDavid wins the next 3 scoring titles.

The conversation begins.

 

[solidmotion]

McDavid wins the next 3 scoring titles.

The conversation begins.

agreed, especially if he does it by hitting 120 pts or more - and he's also a unique and creative enough player (like bure but a centre) that he satisfies the eye test even more than crosby ever did, on par with peak ovechkin.

 

[SCampo98]

I don't think it's possible. The amount of points Gretzky and Lemieux put up make them essentially uncatchable. The innovation of Orr makes him uncatchable. Howe is the only one that could be challenged and even then it would be extremely hard. Maybe if Jagr played until he was 52 and put up a good amount of points each season...

 

[JackSlater]

I never like to see it called impossible to reach the big four level. I'm sure that Howe's accomplishments, dominating the league and more impressively playing at a very elite level for over 20 years seemed basically impossible... until Howe did it. I'm sure that leading the league in scoring as a defenceman seemed impossible... until Orr did it. I'm sure that Gretzky's scoring, both absolutely and relatively, seemed impossible.. until Gretzky did it. Lemieux of course scored at a level similar enough to Gretzky that probably no one thought what he did was impossible, but then again Lemieux's dominant comeback after chemotherapy and his scoring success as a shell of himself in the 2000s probably also seemed nearly impossible... until he did it. The player that inevitably joins that level should do something that seemed impossible until the player does it. We can see it in other sports right now. LeBron James' consistent dominance seems nearly impossible, and yet he has been the best player in the NBA for probably over a decade now. Messi and Ronaldo's scoring in this day and age seemed nearly impossible until they began doing it. We should know when we see it.

 

[overg]

So basically just Patrick Roy if the voters don’t distinguish between value (Hart winner Jose Theodore) and best (1st Team All-Star Patrick Roy) in 2001-02 and if Mark Messier isn’t traded to the Rangers in 1991-92? Or if he has his 33-5 season practically any year except in 1988-89?

Even under those conditions, I don't see Roy as a "Big 5" inclusion. Primarily because he was decisively topped by Hasek when their careers overlapped.

However, give Hasek's 90's run to Roy, or Roy's playoff success to Hasek, and you've got yourself a Big 5 lock.

 

[SovietWings]

So basically just Patrick Roy if the voters don’t distinguish between value (Hart winner Jose Theodore) and best (1st Team All-Star Patrick Roy) in 2001-02 and if Mark Messier isn’t traded to the Rangers in 1991-92? Or if he has his 33-5 season practically any year except in 1988-89?

Or Hasek, had his name been Dominique Hacheque, he's from Quebec and enters the league 83/84 (when he was drafted).
But anyway both would need more Vezinas and Jennings imho.

 

[quoipourquoi]

However, give Hasek's 90's run to Roy, or Roy's playoff success to Hasek, and you've got yourself a Big 5 lock.

That’s why I think Ken Dryden was the best bet to get any sort of talk like this - had he continued playing anyway. Best parts of Hasek (a little worse in the regular season) and Roy (a little worse in the playoffs).

After Patrick Roy, it’s Terry Sawchuk and Jacques Plante that probably check the most boxes on the hypothetical consensus Big 5 goaltender we’re building, but few had them ahead of any of Beliveau, Hull, and Richard when they played.

I think they were hurt by the fact that we didn’t know Gretzky was the ceiling for forwards when they were rated against the above three (and Howe). With so few goaltenders who have challenged their career value compared to how we seem to get one or two forwards every generation that people want to put in the Beliveau, Hull, and Richard conversation, a re-appropriation of their career could land them pretty high, but there’s the can of worms - can you judge someone higher relative to their contemporaries 50-60 years later based on the skill set being less replicable?

I guess what I’m saying is that if someone came along and had Terry Sawchuk’s career now, he’d be #5 and above Beliveau, Harvey, and Richard.