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

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
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.

If Crosby keeps putting up elite seasons, seasons that reasonably keep him the conversation for best player, for another five years or so then that is a plausible position for #1 as the quantity of prime would be unmatched.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Making quite a leap from outside top 10 to in top 10 to possibly 5 ish top 4 to suddenly #1.

Given that the lag within top the 5 amongst contemporaries has grown with the arrival of McDavid and a few others.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
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.

For what it's worth - I disagree.

If a player one day makes it a Big 5 (Crosby or not) - it doesn't have to be because that player has a shot at #1. It just has to be that those 5 players are a noticeable tier above everyone else. So even if such a player is a generally agreed 5th - but if he's a unanimous 5th and agreed above others - i'd still call it a Big 5.

Also - Lemieux doesn't have much of a case at #1. Gretzky did it as good - longer, more often. Maybe you can say Lemieux was more talented - but all-time rankings is more about results and accomplishments than talent level. You can argue Lemieux at #2 pretty strongly - but always behind Gretzky imo
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
I think BobHolly is referring to Crosby without naming him.

No i'm not actually. Not necessarily.

If anything - I think Crosby is a step above such a player I'm describing. I didn't say a Crosby/Mikita/Beliveau type player with 5 smythes. I said a Sakic/Forsberg type player (so slightly lesser).

Give Crosby/Beliveau/Mikita 5-6 smythes and they definitely are in the big 4-5.

But I think even simply a Sakic/Yzerman level player would be enough. Let's use Yzerman as an example. As talented/accomplished as he is. But instead of winning 3 cups - he wins 5. And in each playoff run he established himself as the clear mvp and wins 5 smythes (to do so - he'd have to clearly surpass HOF worthy teammates like Lidstrom, Fedorov and others in each and every playoff run, keeping in mind voter-fatigue would have people try to find different winners ) and wins 5 cups. I'd have a hard time not having that Yzerman leapfrog every player in history outside of the big 4 all-time with such a resume. And the playoff legacy alone is enough to infiltrate the big 4, probably.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
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%

The bolded is what I was commenting on. You obviously only look at raw point finishes, so Crosby has an Art Ross where he outscored 2nd place by 20%. Shouldn't that mean he was in the ballpark of Howe? Mario is thought of in Wayne's ballpark based on only one season.

I was more referring to his level of play in his partial seasons tjhat most accept was his ceiling and comparable to the best of any other non-Big Four player.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Making quite a leap from outside top 10 to in top 10 to possibly 5 ish top 4 to suddenly #1.

Given that the lag within top the 5 amongst contemporaries has grown with the arrival of McDavid and a few others.

Why wouldn't a prime that outlasted Wayne's and Howe's be a reason for #1? What is Howe's claim for #1 over Wayne?
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Why wouldn't a prime that outlasted Wayne's and Howe's be a reason for #1? What is Howe's claim for #1 over Wayne?

It would.

But Crosby is already behind Howe for prime. Wasn't he top 5 scorer 20 years in a row? How in the world do you figure Crosby can match or top that?

Not sure how you get to the conclusion that Howe is vulnerable for Prime out of all metrics...
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
It would.

But Crosby is already behind Howe for prime. Wasn't he top 5 scorer 20 years in a row? How in the world do you figure Crosby can match or top that?

Not sure how you get to the conclusion that Howe is vulnerable for Prime out of all metrics...

Depends on what you count as prime. IMO, Howe was at the top of the league from 1950 to 1963 or 64 or at least shared that mantle with players like Belliveau and Hull for a season or two. After that, Top 5 finishes, as impressive as they were at his age, were not enough to keep him in the best player conversation. If Crosby stays at his current level, he can surpass Howe on that front.
 
Last edited:

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
No i'm not actually. Not necessarily.

If anything - I think Crosby is a step above such a player I'm describing. I didn't say a Crosby/Mikita/Beliveau type player with 5 smythes. I said a Sakic/Forsberg type player (so slightly lesser).

Give Crosby/Beliveau/Mikita 5-6 smythes and they definitely are in the big 4-5.

But I think even simply a Sakic/Yzerman level player would be enough. Let's use Yzerman as an example. As talented/accomplished as he is. But instead of winning 3 cups - he wins 5. And in each playoff run he established himself as the clear mvp and wins 5 smythes (to do so - he'd have to clearly surpass HOF worthy teammates like Lidstrom, Fedorov and others in each and every playoff run, keeping in mind voter-fatigue would have people try to find different winners ) and wins 5 cups. I'd have a hard time not having that Yzerman leapfrog every player in history outside of the big 4 all-time with such a resume. And the playoff legacy alone is enough to infiltrate the big 4, probably.

I think it would be a huge factor, but certainly not an automatic thing. Take Ted Kennedy - assuming there is a Conn Smythe and he receives distribution according to the retroactive Conn Smythe (1945, 1947, 1948). I mean, he still had great playoffs and Finals in 1949 and 1951 when Toronto won the Stanley Cup, but would a few slightly better games in their victories be the difference between being largely held beneath Syl Apps and being a top-5 player?
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
I think it would be a huge factor, but certainly not an automatic thing. Take Ted Kennedy - assuming there is a Conn Smythe and he receives distribution according to the retroactive Conn Smythe (1945, 1947, 1948). I mean, he still had great playoffs and Finals in 1949 and 1951 when Toronto won the Stanley Cup, but would a few slightly better games in their victories be the difference between being largely held beneath Syl Apps and being a top-5 player?

I know this is the history section and so I probably should be but - i'm really not all that familiar with Ted Kennedy. I know I learned a bit about him during the playoff project, but it's hard for me to relate and answer your question as well as I'd like to.

I do know in the Center's project he was voted 21 - Sakic (who i keep using as an example) was 10th.
All time player (top 70 list from 2009) - he was voted 70 - Sakic as 32.

So Kennedy seems like not enough of a good player. I'd want at least something closer to a Sakic type player - with 5 smythes to heavily tilt his all-time rankings towards the big 4.

Finally - are you sure Kennedy would win the 3 smythes mentionned - 45, 47 & 48? Is that simply taking into account who you think might be the better player in that playoffs - or also taking into account the law of diminishing returns, and voter fatigue needing his performance to be truly stellar to be voted a 3rd time.

ie in modern times - if Crosby is ever up for another smythe - he won't win a 3rd one if other candidates are very close to him as deserving - voter fatigue will award it elsewhere.

That's another factor I take into account when I say 5 smythes. Using the Crosby example - if he ever gets 5 smythes, i know Smythes 3, 4 and especially 5 will be VERY strong or he wouldn't win them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grentthealien

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Finally - are you sure Kennedy would win the 3 smythes mentionned - 45, 47 & 48? Is that simply taking into account who you think might be the better player in that playoffs - or also taking into account the law of diminishing returns, and voter fatigue needing his performance to be truly stellar to be voted a 3rd time.

ie in modern times - if Crosby is ever up for another smythe - he won't win a 3rd one if other candidates are very close to him as deserving - voter fatigue will award it elsewhere.

That's another factor I take into account when I say 5 smythes. Using the Crosby example - if he ever gets 5 smythes, i know Smythes 3, 4 and especially 5 will be VERY strong or he wouldn't win them.

Is there much evidence that voters get fatigued? If anything, voters seem to like manufacturing history. In recent years, there were reasonable alternatives to Ovechkin’s 3rd Hart (1090-1058-919-886 in Hart voting), Lidstrom’s 7th Norris (736-727 in Norris voting), Brodeur’s 4th Vezina (2nd Team All-Star), Hasek’s 6th Vezina (a narrow 160-154-143 in All-Star voting).

Honestly, if Ted Kennedy was winning championships right now, it would probably be a narrative the voters would chase.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
for Conn Smythes I think voters do fatigue. Maybe regular season trophies are different.
but for conn smythes - they found a way to give each of Chicago player 1 recently (even though it's largely believed some won the wrong year).
Gretzky is the biggest travesty - he should have won more than 2.

It could certainly be a narrative too though, so it's hard to say for sure. If Crosby is ever up for a 3r or 4th one - there's no way of knowing if voters will fatigue and not want to see him surpass other greats and find a way not to give him a smythe (unless there's no other way because he's so far the MVP) - or if the flipside is true and voters give him a smythe even when he's a rather weak candidate just to make history. Or if both forces cancel each other out.

based on the smythe history i've always thought it would be the first. But who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
for Conn Smythes I think voters do fatigue. Maybe regular season trophies are different.
but for conn smythes - they found a way to give each of Chicago player 1 recently (even though it's largely believed some won the wrong year).
Gretzky is the biggest travesty - he should have won more than 2.

I don’t know that those are signs of fatigue though. Gretzky lost in his 1st and 3rd Stanley Cups while winning in his 2nd and 4th Stanley Cups. It would make more sense as fatigue if he had lost in 1987 and 1988 instead of 1984 and 1987.

As for Chicago, no one had won in 2010, so no one winning that year would have been a result of fatigue. Toews, the 2010 winner, wasn’t in discussions in the other years where Kane and Keith won. For this to be a sign of fatigue, it would probably need to be one of Keith or Kane winning in 2010 and then not winning in either 2013 or 2015 - or an inverse situation where the 2010 playoffs are last in the sequence and the voters side with the player (Toews) who hadn’t won yet.

I mean, voters didn’t have to give Patrick Roy his 3rd Conn Smythe in 2001. Granted, Sakic’s contributions were limited in the 2nd round because of his injury, he still played great overall, so they didn’t have to give Roy a trophy that separated him from the other 2x winners.

It seems like the better examples might be from the Canadiens’ and Islanders’ dynasties. Right now though? I think star power might be a tie-breaker for some voters.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
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.

Obviously yes.Not to mention a player who wins 5-6 Smythes will almost certainly have a strong RS resume to back it up.

We're not talking Claude Lemieux playoff greatness here, we're talking 5-6 Smythes.To win that you must be spectacular, have a narrative, beat voters' fatigue and somehow play on a powerhouse or dynasty.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,665
I don't understand how a player at Sakic level punching above his weight to the tune of 5 Conn Smythe trophies is suddenly up there with Gretzky. I think that most people rate players, not trophy cases. Players get lots of trophies because they were great players, players aren't great players because they won a lot of trophies. The novelty of a player having two more Conn Smythe trophies than Roy doesn't just elevate a player from Sakic to Lemieux. Sakic himself had two Conn Smythe worthy runs. Let him get a little voting luck in 2001 and give him three run of the mill Conn Smythe trophies (Colorado beats Detroit in 1997, Colorado beats Dallas in 1999 and Forsberg gets injured, throw in some other one) and what is he? Still Joe Sakic, but with five Conn Smythe trophies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadiens1958

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
What about Howe?

I agree, and don't see Howe having the same talent finesse-wise as Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux.

Howe does have a pretty good peak like Crosby.
Howe beats everyone in high level longevity.
And where Howe really beats Crosby, Gretzky, and Lemieux is all-around play. Way better defensively, and way more physical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I don't understand how a player at Sakic level punching above his weight to the tune of 5 Conn Smythe trophies is suddenly up there with Gretzky. I think that most people rate players, not trophy cases. Players get lots of trophies because they were great players, players aren't great players because they won a lot of trophies. The novelty of a player having two more Conn Smythe trophies than Roy doesn't just elevate a player from Sakic to Lemieux. Sakic himself had two Conn Smythe worthy runs. Let him get a little voting luck in 2001 and give him three run of the mill Conn Smythe trophies (Colorado beats Detroit in 1997, Colorado beats Dallas in 1999 and Forsberg gets injured, throw in some other one) and what is he? Still Joe Sakic, but with five Conn Smythe trophies.

Very good point and about as close to the answer as can be.

A Big 4 player has to dictate the management and flow of the game.

Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux did this better than most. Yes they were beaten more often than not by teams who collectively executed better.

Example, Bobby Orr and the Bruins never beat the Canadiens in the playoffs because the Canadiens collective talent speed and mobility was superior.

Gordie Howe is a Big 4 lock because from he dictated a physical yet skilled game fr0m the late 1940s to 1971. The counts or prime(1964?) do not matter.

Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux brought pace and one-dimensional offensive skills that had to be countered.

Neither Crosby nor Ovechkin have shown the skills or ability to dictate the game long term compared to the usual 5 to 15 range candidates.
 
Last edited:

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
I agree, and don't see Howe having the same talent finesse-wise as Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux.

Howe does have a pretty good peak like Crosby.
Howe beats everyone in high level longevity.
And where Howe really beats Crosby, Gretzky, and Lemieux is all-around play. Way better defensively, and way more physical.

I don't see this as a talking point with Crosby. He has gotten some Selke recognition while playing a solid to very good all around game. His deployment and ability to carry a line regardless of where his wingers are on the team's depth charts should be recognized. And Crosby uses his physicality to win puck battles along the boards and doesn't necessarily shy away from the rough stuff.

If Crosby can produce some offensive numbers that begin to look comparable, if not superior to Howe, I don't think secondary elements should keep him automatically behind Howe. Crosby's aptitude for winning at all levels and having an impressive leadership resume are things that could go in his favour.
 

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
I don't see this as a talking point with Crosby. He has gotten some Selke recognition while playing a solid to very good all around game. His deployment and ability to carry a line regardless of where his wingers are on the team's depth charts should be recognized. And Crosby uses his physicality to win puck battles along the boards and doesn't necessarily shy away from the rough stuff.

If Crosby can produce some offensive numbers that begin to look comparable, if not superior to Howe, I don't think secondary elements should keep him automatically behind Howe. Crosby's aptitude for winning at all levels and having an impressive leadership resume are things that could go in his favour.

Crosby is not on the same level as Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux from an offensive/finesse skills standpoint. What brings Howe into the Big 4 is being reasonably close in the above respects plus having the other things that he is noted for. Howe is completely superior to Crosby when it comes to those other things like defensive play, high level longevity, and physical play/intimidation.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Crosby is not on the same level as Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux from an offensive/finesse skills standpoint. What brings Howe into the Big 4 is being reasonably close in the above respects plus having the other things that he is noted for. Howe is completely superior to Crosby when it comes to those other things like defensive play, high level longevity, and physical play/intimidation.

How much better at defense was he than Crosby? Given he was winger, would that not limit his contribution regardless of aptitude?

If Crosby has an argument for a higher level of longevity than Howe, shouldn't that open the door the a Big Five discussion? Crosby also could have some elements to his career the other don't i.e. 2-way play (over Mario and Wayne), championships (Orr and Mario, and maybe Howe), leadership (which I know is very subjective but so is defense).
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
How much better at defense was he than Crosby? Given he was winger, would that not limit his contribution regardless of aptitude?

If Crosby has an argument for a higher level of longevity than Howe, shouldn't that open the door the a Big Five discussion? Crosby also could have some elements to his career the other don't i.e. 2-way play (over Mario and Wayne), championships (Orr and Mario, and maybe Howe), leadership (which I know is very subjective but so is defense).

In the fifties and sixties his defensive assignments at ES includes opposing LW like Moore, Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->