How does listing three players from a 20 year period with no context add to his defensive legacy?
What would it take for a player of today to challenge for a spot in the big 4?
- Thread starter grentthealien
- Start date
How does listing three players from a 20 year period with no context add to his defensive legacy?
I don't know why you're insisting on this Howe vs Crosby comparison. It's not close.
Howe has insane peak seasons. Maybe Crosby could have done that in 2011, and 2012 - unfortunately he didn't. Peak is arguably the biggest reason the Big 4 are untouchable - so that's already a very significant handicap for Crosby.
Longevity. Howe is pretty untouchable in this department. He was a top performing player for longer than anyone in the history of the sport (and by a lot).
Can Crosby beat/top that? Sure, maybe. After 13 years he's certainly pacing him, no doubt. He's yet to have a down year. But Howe did it for 20+ years. Crosby is barely at the halfway point. It's way too early to seriously consider Crosby topping the longevity.
Actual accomplishments/awards. Didn't Howe win like 6 Ross/Harts? Crosby has very few.
I think Crosby stands out very nicely against almost everyone outside of the big 4. I can see him reaching 5th - but to keep pushing the argument that he's going to top Howe imo is pointless.
Maybe if you use my scenario - and have Crosby do something completely unique such as winning 4-5 total smythes - sure. Than you can make the argument for him. But he's still very far away from that.
Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
A player's position does not determine how good he is defensively.
It's next to impossible for Crosby to reach a higher level of longevity than Howe.
Crosby's other elements aren't enough to make it a Big 5.
I'll defend him vehemently as the best player of this generation. Even though I like Ovechkin's style more, I think the people who think Ovechkin is better are out to lunch. But Crosby is not good enough to nudge his way into the Mt. Rushmore of hockey. He belongs with other hockey greats in the 5-15 range.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Shows Howe's defensive prowess over a twenty year period. In the context of your claim alleging his prime to be roughly 15 seasons.
I would argue that their first 13 seasons are quite comparable. Howe has one season where his level of play would be on a level above Crosby's best which came in his partial seasons. Howe obviously wins the raw point battle but Crosby's career PPG vs. his peers is right there with Howe's PPG vs. his peers.
Crosby has the clearly better playoff resume while their peak playoff performance is quite similar.
Given Crosby is only 30, if he stays at his current level of play, I don't think it's off the table that he surpasses Howe in the number of years he was at the very top of the league (something Howe was not before 1950 and after 63/64.
I don't think his last five seasons of that 20 year period were his prime or at least comparable to Crosby;s prime.
He has one peak season that is, at worst, the 4th best all-time. His other seasons were not clearly above the best of rest in his era. Since he did repeat that performance one could argue his 52/53 season was an anomaly and Crosby's peak level of performance was pretty close.
He has one of the best playoff runs of his era but certainly did not clearly confirm his peak level of greatness. I think he is clearly above the best of his era regardless of his longevity but it don't think he is untouchable in terms of someone reaching his peak level of play.
If Crosby is still Crosby after 17 or 18 years, I don't see how the Big 5 discussion cannot be had. Especially if another Cup and/or Smyhte run is made.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You keep saying this, but:
1950-51:
| 1. | Gordie Howe* • DET | 86 |
| 2. | Maurice Richard* • MTL | 66 |
| 3. | Max Bentley* • TOR | 62 |
| 4. | Sid Abel* • DET | 61 |
| Ted Kennedy* • TOR | 61 | |
| Milt Schmidt* • BOS |
Points
| 1. | Gordie Howe* • DET | 86 |
| 2. | Ted Lindsay* • DET | 69 |
| 3. | Elmer Lach* • MTL | 65 |
| 4. | Don Raleigh • NYR | 61 |
| 5. | Sid Smith • TOR |
Points
| 1. | Gordie Howe* • DET | 95 |
| 2. | Ted Lindsay* • DET | 71 |
| 3. | Maurice Richard* • MTL | 61 |
| 4. | Alex Delvecchio* • DET | 59 |
| Wally Hergesheimer • NYR | 59 |
Points
| 1. | Gordie Howe* • DET | 81 |
| 2. | Maurice Richard* • MTL | 67 |
| 3. | Ted Lindsay* • DET | 62 |
| 4. | Bernie Geoffrion* • MTL | 54 |
| 5. | Bert Olmstead* • MTL | 52 |
Does the fact that Beliveau's career year in 1955-56 was almost (but not quite) as good as any 1 of Howe's 4 straight seasons really take anything away from how impressive this is? I don't think it does.
Regarding the bolded - I feel this could be directed at me considering how often I've argued against howe's Peak seasons.
To me it's more about my issue about adjusting stats, period. It's all guesswork, and there's never been, and likely will never be a method that does this properly with precision and accuracy consistently. So if you compare the best forwards of all time - you have to reconcile the fact that Howe was barely able to put up 80-90 points to the fact that Gretzky surpassed 200 points multiple times, and Lemieux had 199 and paced for more himself. 1950s Hockey is too different from 1980s or 1990s to use raw points of course - but any "adjusting" basically gives the benefit of the doubt to the lower performer, and penalizes the stronger one (ie Gretzky's 200 points adjusts to less, and Howe's 95 points adjusts to more).
Having said that - it's very easy for me to be able to tell that no one came close to touching Lemieux or Gretzky at their peak in modern times. 200+ points - no other forwards/player in history came even close to that. Let alone close to repeating it.
Yet Beliveau seems very close to Howe in the 50s (much closer than say - Jagr got to Lemieux for example). So my questioning has always been - is Beliveau's peak really that amazing that he's clearly the highest peaking forward after the big 4 - since he's so close to Howe? Or is Howe's peak in itself somehow overvalued - and considerably lower than both Lemieux and Gretzky. It has to be one or the other.
The problem with Crosby is he has no full season to show for it. Howe has 4. That's what I mean when I say Howe >>> Crosby for peak seasons.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,733
- 16,121
^ what we were saying about per games upthread
my point was, whatever way you slice it, per game over the next guy, raw points over the next guy (which in both cases is a different guy), you get the same result. which should tell us something. but anyway, on to new debates.
my point was, whatever way you slice it, per game over the next guy, raw points over the next guy (which in both cases is a different guy), you get the same result. which should tell us something. but anyway, on to new debates.
Just to clarify, we are arguing if Crosby's best was as good as Howe's. The obvious caveat is that Crosby's best came in partial seasons. I believe most people are willing to give consideration to this and look at PPGs rather than raw points when reasonable.
Howe's PPG in 50/51 was 1.23 which was 21% better than the 2nd best PPG (Richard at 1.02) and 28% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Howe's PPG in 51/52 was 1.23 which was 24% better than the 2nd best PPG (Lindsay at 0.99) and 35% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Howe's PPG in 52/53 was 1.36 which was 35% better than the 2nd best PPG (Lindsay at 1.01) and 55% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Howe's PPG in 53/54 was 1.23 which was 24% better than the 2nd best PPG (Geoffrion at 1.00) and 32% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Belliveau's PPG in 55/56 was 1.26 which was 11% better than the 2nd best PPG (Howe at 1.13) and 22% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers. (If you remove Howe as an outlier the numbers change to 20% and 27%)
Hull's PPG in 65/66 was 1.49 which was 30% better than the 2nd best PPG ( Mikita at 1.15) and 36% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Mikita's PPG in 66/67 was 1.39 which was 15% better than the 2nd best PPG (Hull at 1.21) and 36% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
The biggest gap between #1 and #2:
Howe 52/53 - 35%
Hull 65/66 - 30%
Howe 53/54- 24%
The biggest gap between #1 and #2 to #6
Howe 52/53 - 55%
Hull 65/66 - 36%
Mikita 66/67 - 36%
Howe clearly has the best peak season but his other three seasons are clearly in the mix with Hull, Mikita and Belliveau's best. There is no denying Howe's dominance given he has three seasons to the other player's one on top of the clear best season.
Crosbys PPG in 12/13 was 1.56 which was 25% better than the 2nd best PPG (St. Louis at 1.25) and 32% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Jagr's PPG in 99/00 was 1.52 which was 13% better than the 2nd best PPG (Selanne at 1.43) and 27% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Malkin's PPG in 11/12 was 1.45 which was 20% better than the 2nd best PPG (Giroux at 1.21) and 31% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
I would say all three of those players reached a level that the same as the best of Howe's era save for Howe's 52/53 season.
Jagr's PPG in 99/00 was 1.52 which was 13% better than the 2nd best PPG (Selanne at 1.43) and 27% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
Malkin's PPG in 11/12 was 1.45 which was 20% better than the 2nd best PPG (Giroux at 1.21) and 31% better than the avg. PPGs of the five best PPGs in the Top 20 scorers.
I would say all three of those players reached a level that the same as the best of Howe's era save for Howe's 52/53 season.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
ok. thanks for "showing your work"
like i said, there's a huge difference between doing it once, and doing it for 4 straight years
In career value, absolutely. When talking about the peak level or the very best of a player, why doesn't one time count?
The point was to establish that Howe only had one season that was a clear level above the best of the rest, not four seasons as may seem to think or reference in narrative.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Do you think that the case for Crosby? Twice he was leading by a fair margin over the league and by a significant gap over Malkin, if he actually provided help anyways. Crosby had clearly shown he produces in all situations.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
For all players since the margin of success is linked to the success or failure of others in the league, opponents or teammates.
OkimLom
Registered User
- May 3, 2010
- 15,215
- 6,689
For me personally, I think the player would need to put up about 15 seasons worth of outlier seasons for their seasons.
For example scoring 100-110 points where the next guy is in the low 80’s would fit there. But producing 100-110 points when the next competition puts up 95-100 points doesn’t.
If a forward wins at least say 5 MVPs in a row, while being in the top 3 for another 5-10 years, I think would help make a case.
If a defenseman wins a large collection of Unanimous Norris Trophies while also producing numbers tiers above his competition for more than 10 years then he should be considered.
In short, he needs to be consistently being putting up special seasons in relation to the talent of his peers for a long long time(Gretzky & Howe) , or “god-like” special in a handful of years (Mario & Orr).
For example scoring 100-110 points where the next guy is in the low 80’s would fit there. But producing 100-110 points when the next competition puts up 95-100 points doesn’t.
If a forward wins at least say 5 MVPs in a row, while being in the top 3 for another 5-10 years, I think would help make a case.
If a defenseman wins a large collection of Unanimous Norris Trophies while also producing numbers tiers above his competition for more than 10 years then he should be considered.
In short, he needs to be consistently being putting up special seasons in relation to the talent of his peers for a long long time(Gretzky & Howe) , or “god-like” special in a handful of years (Mario & Orr).
Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
Absolutely, on the PPG during the partial seasons. I hold Lemieux in such high regard even though he has the same "hole" in his resume. We still know he was the best during the seasons where he was hampered by Hodgkins and his bad back. So I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't give the same allowances for Crosby. Having said this, we all know that Lemieux's level of offense during his peak years is on another level from Crosby's peak years.
Where Howe can make up this difference with Lemieux is his excellence in other aspects of the game. Howe is like a better Messier with his great scoring, great defense, and great physical play. Crosby has neither Lemieux's creme de la creme level of offense, nor Howe's dominant all-around game at his peak.
agentblack
Registered User
Not sure but to reach the big 4 levels, you gotta be about more than just incredible jaw dropping numbers, you have to change the game in some way, you have to have a story or mystique about you that there gonna talk about for decades after your gone.
The Panther
Registered User
Unfortunately, we are in an era of hockey where players no longer control the games. Games today are 90％ decided by coaches and systems.
Therefore, it's effectively impossible for any player to dominate a team or the League the way an Orr or Gretzky did.
In years past, I could have been optimistic about this, and thought, "Well, it's a phase we're in and it will pass." But unfortunately there's so much money at stake now that the League will never allow the game to grow or exist organically.
Therefore, it's effectively impossible for any player to dominate a team or the League the way an Orr or Gretzky did.
In years past, I could have been optimistic about this, and thought, "Well, it's a phase we're in and it will pass." But unfortunately there's so much money at stake now that the League will never allow the game to grow or exist organically.
Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
A very fair assessment. I just think that if consideration for other aspects of the game beyond their offensive production are going to be considered that will always be a positive for Howe over Crosby, and keep a potential Big 5 discussion closed, then I would argue that Crosby's offensive game is a bit underrated given he has deferred the team's best winger (s) to Malkin or another line for many years along with the primary ES scoring role. The 2016 Cup run was a great example of Crosby's offensive #'s not representing his contribution especially in the Cup final. Call it great defense or effective puck possession but the Shark's #1 line was rendered completely ineffective which opened the door for the Pens' superior #2 and #3 lines to tak advantage of their matchups . Does Crosby's four assist in six games represent this?
I am simply trying to apply some of the standards that seem to get applied to the Big Four. If Crosby maintains his level of play, he could have a longevity of elite prime argument over all of them. If this is complemented with another Cup and another Smythe, it creates an interesting scenario that sees him beating one, two or three members of the Big Four in multiple elements like playoff resume, all around game, leadership, career value, overall longevity.
Maybe his lost time to injuries will be a hurdle he simply cannot overcome; raw point totals and actual accomplishments will always trump a partial season or career that was on the same level performance-wise. But if he did the above, he would set a pretty damn high standard of what a player would need to accomplish in order to open the door to a Big 5 discussion.
The other dynamic that Panther mentions is the changes to the league over the years. Perhaps a look back 30 or 40 years from now shows how much more difficult it was for an offensive prodigy to stand out. If Crosby is known as the Wayne or Gordie of the 21st Century because no other player got close to him, then perhaps that opens the door.
Crosby's game is one that aesthetically doesn't stand out; he loses that battle to Jagr, OV, Malkin and McDavid. Nor does his all around game necessarily stand out as winning faceoffs and puck battles on the board don't look as good as big hits or takeaways. What really doesn't stand out, and could be argued is his unique calling card is his ability to consistently produce at a league best level over his career given any level of wingers and deployment.
As for mystique, Crosby's has overcome concussion issues that threatened to end his career early like many other players, and it came it came at his peak. He could have bowed out of the 2017 playoffs with yet another concussion, that again made one had to wonder if that was it for him, yet he returned and won the Smythe.
I think this angle will only be appreciated after he has retired.
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Speculation: Offseason coaching thread: Should they stay or should they go?- Latest: DesertedPenguin
