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

[daver]

without having thought about this too much, or really deep-diving into the seasons involved, my initial observation is malkin: 1.45 points/game, sakic 1.44 points/game, giroux 1.21 points/game, forsberg 1.22 points/game. so yes, there were a lot more players in the 1-1.2 points/game range, but neither sakic nor malkin were in that range. and i don't necessarily see the evidence that whatever advantages the "pack" had in 2001 were shared by the outlier (sakic) over 2012's outlier (malkin). unless you want to argue that giroux in 2012 was better than forsberg in 2001?

In terms of how their PPGs compared the PPGs of the other Top 10 -20 scorers, it was better. How else are we supposed to differentiate seasons from others if we don't compare points and PPGs to their respective peers?

I may be misreading your comment but you seem to be insinuating that it would be unreasonable to think that Giroux had a better season than Forsberg that year. I find this line of thinking troublesome as it basically presumes that great players from other eras played at their peak level throughout their primes which statistically is not the case.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Gretzky Lemieux, Orr we’re far better hockey players than Jordan was a basketball player

 

[Rick Kehoe]

There is no big 4.

Lemieux is nowhere near Gretzky in terms of greatness.

They're not on the same level. There could very well be a tier in between their tiers, and I would argue that there is: The Howe tier.

Lemieux could be picked off and passed. So could Orr. Both of those players have a gargantuan glaring weakness: longevity. A player of slightly less talent with a slightly lower peak but much better longevity could surpass them IMO.

It will absolutely not be Sidney Crosby. Crosby has precisely zero all-time great seasons and after the last 4 years of being an 80-something point player, the likelihood that it happens into his 30's seems remote.

If anyone from this generation can do it, it is Alexander Ovechkin. Ovechkin's 07-08 and 08-09 seasons are all-time great seasons. He swept almost everything in those years while being by far the best goal scorer and physically dominant. Ovechkin also has a shot at the all-time goals record - which is astounding considering he played basically his entire career in a dead puck era. If Ovechkin gets 800 goals, he has a clear case for surpassing Lemieux.

Anybody who experienced hockey during the late 80s and part of the 90s would definitely say Mario pushed Gretzky in terms of greatness. And while Howe had the longevity, he wasn't as dynamic as Mario and Orr. The next three after Gretzky are truly interchangeable.

 

[Orange Dragon]

For a goalie 6+ Vezinas, 2+ Harts, 2+ Smythes. Basically Hasek+Roy combo.

 

[Plural]

Gretzky Lemieux, Orr we’re far better hockey players than Jordan was a basketball player

Don't know about that. Jordan was pretty damn good. Lebron is his only competition in the recent decades. In fact, it's only those two.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I agree with the poster who said we'll know it when we see it.

Crosby never looked like a Top 4, or for way too short a window.Him, Lindros, you could believe they had a (small) shot at becoming a Top 4 after 2-3 years into their career, but they didn't.McDavid could hit another level and surprise us, but I'm not holding my breathe.

I'm still waiting for a Lemieux type of prospect to come along.Is it even possible to develop individual skills to that extent in the minor and junior system?

Lemieux was the last of the "Long Shift" skaters developed when shift management was part of minor and junior hockey. Shift management is not part of developmental hockey these days.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In terms of how their PPGs compared the PPGs of the other Top 10 -20 scorers, it was better. How else are we supposed to differentiate seasons from others if we don't compare points and PPGs to their respective peers?

I may be misreading your comment but you seem to be insinuating that it would be unreasonable to think that Giroux had a better season than Forsberg that year. I find this line of thinking troublesome as it basically presumes that great players from other eras played at their peak level throughout their primes which statistically is not the case.

i just don't think giroux in his second best year was better than forsberg at any point during his '96 to '06 prime. and it's not like '01 was an off year for forsberg; he scored about what he did through his entire prime before the '03 and '04 (and first half of '06) peak, and backed it up in the playoffs before norstrom ruptured his spleen, but just missed ten games so he finished 9th instead of 3rd (and that 9th, mind you, was only three points back of 3rd).

basically, the way i see it, even if we grant that there were more PPs to go around in 2001 (which is true) it's hard for me to get over the fact that sakic and malkin have identical points/game averages, and the guys directly behind them also have identical points/game averages.

so even if that year was a more advantageous scoring environment, as you say, it was probably more advantageous to PP-reliant players, which seems to have created a much larger "upper middle class" (for ex, martin straka scores at basically the same rate at ES as the two seasons before but his PP points go way up, similar story for jason allison; ironically, claude giroux was by far the most PP-reliant of any points/game player in 2012). but sakic, who obviously was an excellent PP threat but in no way shape or form was his production PP-reliant, saw both his ES points and his PP points go up from the pace of the previous year because he just had a magical, career-defining year.

so i think we go back to the margin of victory for both guys from the pack, which is almost identical. does it really matter if there are more guys in the 80-95 point range in 2001 when we are talking about the two best guys, who (subtracting mario/jagr because crosby was injured) were both head and shoulders above and scored 120 and 109 points, respectively?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Don't know about that. Jordan was pretty damn good. Lebron is his only competition in the recent decades. In fact, it's only those two.

Many players have had better stats than him.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Many players have had better stats than him.

I know you’re technically ageless, so you’ve likely seen him play, but is it strictly a statistic-based opinion? I’m not a huge basketball fan, but I wasn’t sure if there were nuances that I wouldn’t have picked up about his game that maybe someone else would have that make him not the best. Visually, I found Jordan to be the most stunning player I’ve watched.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Jordan's will to win was unparalleled, and mixed with his great talent that made him the greatest ever.Mental strenght is crucial.

Hockey comparison to Jordan's spirit would be Roy.

 

[daver]

i just don't think giroux in his second best year was better than forsberg at any point during his '96 to '06 prime. and it's not like '01 was an off year for forsberg; he scored about what he did through his entire prime before the '03 and '04 (and first half of '06) peak, and backed it up in the playoffs before norstrom ruptured his spleen, but just missed ten games so he finished 9th instead of 3rd (and that 9th, mind you, was only three points back of 3rd).

basically, the way i see it, even if we grant that there were more PPs to go around in 2001 (which is true) it's hard for me to get over the fact that sakic and malkin have identical points/game averages, and the guys directly behind them also have identical points/game averages.

so even if that year was a more advantageous scoring environment, as you say, it was probably more advantageous to PP-reliant players, which seems to have created a much larger "upper middle class" (for ex, martin straka scores at basically the same rate at ES as the two seasons before but his PP points go way up, similar story for jason allison; ironically, claude giroux was by far the most PP-reliant of any points/game player in 2012). but sakic, who obviously was an excellent PP threat but in no way shape or form was his production PP-reliant, saw both his ES points and his PP points go up from the pace of the previous year because he just had a magical, career-defining year.

so i think we go back to the margin of victory for both guys from the pack, which is almost identical. does it really matter if there are more guys in the 80-95 point range in 2001 when we are talking about the two best guys, who (subtracting mario/jagr because crosby was injured) were both head and shoulders above and scored 120 and 109 points, respectively?

There 28 players at a PPG or better in 00/01. In 11/12, there were seven. 31 players hit 30 plus PP points in 00/01, in 12/12 there were four.

You say you cannot get over the fact that the top two players had the identical points/game averages, and the guys directly behind them also have identical points/game averages and that you don't think Giroux was as good as Forsberg was that year. But the next ten players after Forsberg averaged a PPG of 1.16. The next ten after Giroux averaged 1.03. Giroux was significantly more ahead of the pack than Forsberg who was really no better than Palffy, Fleury, Kovalev, Elias etc... that season,

I don't see how you can say that Giroux wasn't clearly better that year.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Many players have had better stats than him.

ironic coming from me, given that i think daver is relying far too much on per game stats to tell us what's right under our noses,* but i do want to point out that michael jordan has the highest points per game average in NBA history.

also worth noting that the only player to ever score more points in a single season than jordan is wilt chamberlain.

Many players

* after all, the ten-odd points separating kovalev, allison and straka from spezza, kovalchuk, and spezza; bure, weight, and palffy from james neal, henrnik sedin, and tavares; and robert lang from loui eriksson; is the same ten-odd points separating sakic from malkin.

 

[daver]

* after all, the ten-odd points separating kovalev, allison and straka from spezza, kovalchuk, and spezza; bure, weight, and palffy from james neal, henrnik sedin, and tavares; and robert lang from loui eriksson; is the same ten-odd points separating sakic from malkin.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying here but why are you changing to raw points? Sakic vs. Malkin was clearly being compared on a PPG basis.

 

[Kevs Security]

For a forward it would take something like a 20-year career, 1.45PPG, extraordinary scoring or passing and 15'ish individual awards. 1400 games, 2000 points. Basically you'd have to be a generational talent on a high-scoring era.

 

[Thenameless]

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

It looks like a reasonable standard to warrant consideration for turning the Big 4 into a Big 5. One thing I always maintain though is that you still have to watch the games in order to get a good feel for how good the player really was. In hockey history (and in the histories of other sports for that matter), there are players that were better than their trophy count would suggest, and conversely, there are players that weren't as good as their trophy count would suggest.

In an alternate reality, a relatively injury-free version of Sidney Crosby might have been able to accomplish the above list of trophies and accolades, but if you watched them play, you would know that he still wasn't nearly as good as Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[bobholly39]

Jordan's will to win was unparalleled, and mixed with his great talent that made him the greatest ever.Mental strenght is crucial.

Hockey comparison to Jordan's spirit would be Roy.

So using the Jordan parallel - I go back to the point I made earlier in this thread. Forget winning multiple art rosses as a defender or besting Gretzky records as a forward

Win 5-6 smythes and your inclusion in the big 4 becomes a possibility.

 

[daver]

It looks like a reasonable standard to warrant consideration for turning the Big 4 into a Big 5. One thing I always maintain though is that you still have to watch the games in order to get a good feel for how good the player really was. In hockey history (and in the histories of other sports for that matter), there are players that were better than their trophy count would suggest, and conversely, there are players that weren't as good as their trophy count would suggest.

In an alternate reality, a relatively injury-free version of Sidney Crosby might have been able to accomplish the above list of trophies and accolades, but if you watched them play, you would know that he still wasn't nearly as good as Gretzky or Lemieux.

What about Howe? In Crosby's case, this seems to be the wildcard for his chance to make it a Big 5 however slim one thinks that may be.

Was Howe's absolute best hockey that much better than Crosby's? Howe has one season that clearly stands out above all non-Big 4 players in 52/53 while the best of his other Art Ross wins are on par with the best of Hull, Belliveau, Jagr and Richard. Crosby's best hockey came in partial seasons so he will always be lacking that comparable full peak season (s). But that hasn't stopped Crosby from surpassing Jagr in most people's minds. Nor does Jagr's four year Art Ross stretch, which is quite comparable to Howe's, or his superior seven season prime. I know that playoff legacy and all around game plays a major role but never the less, there is a precedent.

Thru their first thirteen seasons, Howe and Crosby show a similar RS PPG dominance over their peers with Howe showing a significant points dominance. Crosby has the more dominant playoff resume in both points and PPG dominance vs. his peers with a similar peak playoff run.

What could Crosby surpass Howe in? IMO, longevity of elite prime i.e. in the conversation for best in the world.

Playoff resume? Absolutely. Crosby has a chance to have the 2nd best playoff resume of all time.

If he does this then I think the question of how to view his peak vs. Howe's becomes an interesting one. Was Howe a player that should be defined by his peak 52/53 season, one that he did not replicate multiple times like Orr and Wayne did (and Mario to a lesser extent) or was he a player that was clearly on a tier above his era peers, and every other non-Big Four player, in both peak and prime, strongly complemented by his durability and longevity.

 

[JackSlater]

This fantasy that Crosby can catch Howe cracks me up, especially when longevity is apparently part of it. Crosby cannot catch Howe unless he has an unprecedented second peak that is probably higher than the peak that he actually did reach.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

So using the Jordan parallel - I go back to the point I made earlier in this thread. Forget winning multiple art rosses as a defender or besting Gretzky records as a forward

Win 5-6 smythes and your inclusion in the big 4 becomes a possibility.

only problem is 6 Finals MVPs isnt what made Jordan the best.

It was:

10x scoring champ
5x MVP
9x all defensive team

so your theoretical player above would also need to have 10x Ross, 5x Hart and at least 5x Selke

 

[bobholly39]

only problem is 6 Finals MVPs isnt what made Jordan the best.

It was:

10x scoring champ
5x MVP
9x all defensive team

so your theoretical player above would also need to have 10x Ross, 5x Hart and at least 5x Selke

Forget the NBA comparison for a second lol. You don't have to exactly match Jordan award for award


All I'm saying is - give a Sakic or Forsberg level player (so not necessarily a Lemieux or Gretzky regular season record breaker guru) 5-6 playoff mvps in the NHL and there starts to be a very interesting debate.

I mean Roy himself with 3 isn't far. And although he obviously has a great regular season record - he's nowhere near Lemieux or Gretzky level. Hasek with 2 harts is easily ahead of Roy yet still behind Lemieux and Gretzky for regular season.

Messier is actually also a great example too for such a player. Lesser talent but give him 5 smythes and it closes the gap.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

What about Howe? In Crosby's case, this seems to be the wildcard for his chance to make it a Big 5 however slim one thinks that may be.

Was Howe's absolute best hockey that much better than Crosby's? .

in a word, yes.

his non longevity accomplishments were:

6x Hart
12x Hart finalist (1,1,1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,3,3)
6x Ross (5x led the playoffs in scoring)
if the Smythe existed back then, Howe has at least 2 (52 and 55)
5x Rocket
12x AS-1

in 4 of his Ross seasons, he outscored 2nd place by 25%, 23%, 20% and 17%

 

[JackSlater]

Forget the NBA comparison for a second lol. You don't have to exactly match Jordan award for award


All I'm saying is - give a Sakic or Forsberg level player (so not necessarily a Lemieux or Gretzky regular season record breaker guru) 5-6 playoff mvps in the NHL and there starts to be a very interesting debate.

I mean Roy himself with 3 isn't far. And although he obviously has a great regular season record - he's nowhere near Lemieux or Gretzky level. Hasek with 2 harts is easily ahead of Roy yet still behind Lemieux and Gretzky for regular season.

Messier is actually also a great example too for such a player. Lesser talent but give him 5 smythes and it closes the gap.

It doesn't though. Arbitrarily give a Sakic/Forsberg level player 5 Conn Smythe trophies and the player is still only a Sakic/Forsberg level player.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It doesn't though. Arbitrarily give a Sakic/Forsberg level player 5 Conn Smythe trophies and the player is still only a Sakic/Forsberg level player.

this.

case in point, when is the last time you've seen anyone list his 2 Smythe's as a reason why Lemieux was so great?

 

[bobholly39]

this.

case in point, when is the last time you've seen anyone list his 2 Smythe's as a reason why Lemieux was so great?

Never.

But VERY often i've heard people listed the reason for Roy's greatness as his 3 smythes. And he only has 3 - not 5 or 6. Which is my point. Roy is a pretty fantastic player, but i'd put him closer to Sakic level than Gretzky level.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What about Howe? In Crosby's case, this seems to be the wildcard for his chance to make it a Big 5 however slim one thinks that may be.

Was Howe's absolute best hockey that much better than Crosby's? Howe has one season that clearly stands out above all non-Big 4 players in 52/53 while the best of his other Art Ross wins are on par with the best of Hull, Belliveau, Jagr and Richard. Crosby's best hockey came in partial seasons so he will always be lacking that comparable full peak season (s). But that hasn't stopped Crosby from surpassing Jagr in most people's minds. Nor does Jagr's four year Art Ross stretch, which is quite comparable to Howe's, or his superior seven season prime. I know that playoff legacy and all around game plays a major role but never the less, there is a precedent.

Thru their first thirteen seasons, Howe and Crosby show a similar RS PPG dominance over their peers with Howe showing a significant points dominance. Crosby has the more dominant playoff resume in both points and PPG dominance vs. his peers with a similar peak playoff run.

What could Crosby surpass Howe in? IMO, longevity of elite prime i.e. in the conversation for best in the world.

Playoff resume? Absolutely. Crosby has a chance to have the 2nd best playoff resume of all time.

If he does this then I think the question of how to view his peak vs. Howe's becomes an interesting one. Was Howe a player that should be defined by his peak 52/53 season, one that he did not replicate multiple times like Orr and Wayne did (and Mario to a lesser extent) or was he a player that was clearly on a tier above his era peers, and every other non-Big Four player, in both peak and prime, strongly complemented by his durability and longevity.

Big 5? Interesting erosion. The Big 4 is a group because a solid argument may be made for each as #1.

Yet to see a plausible position for Crosby at #1.