Who needed to play a full season the most? Lemieux (92-93) or Crosby (10-11)

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Howe vs. Crosby is becoming an interesting comparison that should not be ignored just because Howe will always be ahead (barring the unlikely, but not impossible, prospect that Crosby keeps his prime going for another 5 to 6 years.)

It's a convoluted, and very poor, attempt to elevate Crosby to the level of the big four that's been floated out since at least last summer. It's extremely unlikely that Crosby will match Howe's longevity, and we know that he didn't match Howe's peak, so it seems that a much more creative approach was needed.

So what's the problem with comparing them in the context I laid out? At age 31, they are very comparable.

This is the history board right? We should not ignore a comparison based on projections on what Crosby will or will not do.

After age 31, Howe has the clear RS raw points advantage, their PPG dominance is very similar. Crosby has the superior playoff resume.
 

Cursed Lemon

Registered Bruiser
Nov 10, 2011
11,328
5,812
Dey-Twah, MI
Thanks for making my point. He was clearly behind Mikita and Hull after 64/65 then Orr and Esposito.

Howe is as "in the conversation" for best player of that time period as Crosby is "in the conversation" for best regular season player from 2015 to now, and that's not the same age bracket.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,662
So what's the problem with comparing them in the context I laid out? At age 31, they are very comparable.

This is the history board right? We should not ignore a comparison based on projections on what Crosby will or will not do.

After age 31, Howe has the clear RS raw points advantage, their PPG dominance is very similar. Crosby has the superior playoff resume.

Crosby is not challenging the length of Howe's prime right now. He's a half decade away from that even being a consideration, and even then it would still be Howe. Howe has the better peak. Crosby almost certainly won't challenge Howe's longevity. Inventing convoluted measures for Crosby's benefit in order to attempt to boost him, as seen in the post quoted by the poster that I quoted, doesn't make him any closer.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
Crosby is not challenging the length of Howe's prime right now. He's a half decade away from that even being a consideration, and even then it would still be Howe. Howe has the better peak. Crosby almost certainly won't challenge Howe's longevity. Inventing convoluted measures for Crosby's benefit in order to attempt to boost him, as seen in the post quoted by the poster that I quoted, doesn't make him any closer.

I don't think that Crosby is chasing Howe, more like he is chasing Mario and that will b very interesting to watch play out.

Before that he is going through the number of guys who might be 5th in Hull, Beliveau ect...
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Regardless of whether Crosby "catches" Mario in career value, everyone will remember that Mario was a higher level player.

There are things you cannot surpass by accumulation.
 

frisco

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Sep 14, 2017
3,553
2,643
Northern Hemisphere
What we see with Mario between 1989 and 1995 is small glimpses of genius, with long spells in between due to injury or to rest. He put up insane numbers over 60 games in 1992-93... but that's the most inflated scoring season for elite forwards, ever, and Mario slowed down a lot once the Pens' 17-game winning streak was over, which again doesn't convince me he could have kept it up over a full season.

Now, is it possible that Lemieux was hampered by his injuries from his full level of performance during 1989-1995? Yes, it's possible, but I don't think so. I think when we saw him, we saw him at his best. That's why he needed to take all that time off -- to recover. I certainly don't think he was playing at 50% of his level. Otherwise, he would have been able to play 82 games per year.
Lemieux from 1989 on had severe back problems and was literally on the brink of having his career ended many times. Listen, maybe you didn't follow him that closely but to say he was "healthy" just because he was in the lineup just isn't true. In 1990, the back was in such severe shape that he had to walk away from a 46-game point streak with the Penguins in the middle of a playoff chase. He came back for one game, the finale, against almost everyone's best judgment. He then had surgery and infection after and was on his back for months. I guess you could say he was "resting". He came back for 20+ games in 90-91 and the playoffs. He even missed games in the Finals because of his back.

The stories about him not being able to bend over and tie his own skates, though good copy, were actually true. 1991-92 he was in and out of the lineup. I think to say that he was even close to 100% that season when playing is just incorrect. 92-93 he dominated and then the cancer diagnosis. The treatments plus anemia took a backseat to him coming back to win the Art Ross and lead his team to a 17 game winning streak. All in all, his 2.67 points/game is a shade off Gretzky's best of 2.77. In the playoffs, the back acted up and he wasn't near 100% even missing a playoff game. The next season was 20-some games due to back problems and after affects of radiation-cancer treatments. A weakish showing in the playoffs and the health problems made him sit out 94-95.

95-96 and 96-97 were 70+ game seasons and easy Ross wins. His 2.30 in 1993 at age 30 is far better than anything Gretzky did away from Edmonton (age 28+). How healthy was he these two? Hard to say. He managed to stay in the lineup for the most part but then again he retired in 1997 which is probably a good indication that he wasn't enjoying great health. He mostly played LW the last year just so he wouldn't have to strain to take faceoffs another clue that things were not right.

To repeat, it is just incorrect to think or say that Lemieux was anywhere near 100% between 1989-1997. He was spotting himself in the lineup, missing back-to-backs, and just missing huge chunks of games due to serious ailments. I don't see how you could NOT understand that when he did will himself back into the lineup that he was playing at anything near full capacity.

My Best-Carey
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
After 63/64, Howe was not in the conversation for league's best player. His Top 5 Art Ross finishes from his era are not the same caliber statistically as Top 5 in a 30 team league.
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,359
16,642
Mulberry Street
After 63/64, Howe was not in the conversation for league's best player. His Top 5 Art Ross finishes from his era are not the same caliber statistically as Top 5 in a 30 team league.

What? he was a 2x 2nd AST and 4x 1st AST and had the first 100 point season ever from 64-65 until he retired for the first time. :facepalm:
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Lemieux from 1989 on had severe back problems and was literally on the brink of having his career ended many times. Listen, maybe you didn't follow him that closely but to say he was "healthy" just because he was in the lineup just isn't true.
I didn't say he was "healthy" (not sure why you put that in quotations). I said we saw him at his best. There's a difference. That's why players take games off -- to rest and be ready to give their all. Then, after giving everything they have, and playing through the pain, they need to recover.
His 2.30 in 1993 at age 30 is far better than anything Gretzky did away from Edmonton (age 28+).
It's not. (I think you are referring to 1996, not 1993.) Gretzky scored at a rate of 2.09 per game in 1991, after recovering from his own back injury the previous spring. He also scored 104 points that season at even strength (or short-handed), while Mario had 82 at the same age, while playing on a much deeper team.
To repeat, it is just incorrect to think or say that Lemieux was anywhere near 100% between 1989-1997.
I think he was, when he played. He didn't look weaker in the '91 playoffs or during 1992-93 than he had in 1988-89. He was playing at his peak level, whenever he could play.

The narrative heading into the 1996-97 season was that Mario was now fully healthy, and that his back wasn't bothering him for the first time in ages. It was a so-so season for Pittsburgh, and Mario took his time getting going (he didn't win the scoring title "easily", as you said). Then, he quit. He said he didn't like the clutching and grabbing, but he also said he was no longer able to beat players one-on-one like he had before. But he was able to do that after 1989, and for several years.


It seems the argument you're presenting for Mario is: He wasn't at his prime for his first five seasons, and then he had one prime season, and then he was injured so we never saw him at his best. I don't think it would hold up in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

frisco

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Sep 14, 2017
3,553
2,643
Northern Hemisphere
I think he was, when he played. He didn't look weaker in the '91 playoffs or during 1992-93 than he had in 1988-89. He was playing at his peak level, whenever he could play.
We're covering some of the same territory repeatedly but I see Mario 1989 and on as far as health in two categories. Basically, physically unable to play or in the lineup but hampered. Just to throw a number out there maybe an average of 70% when playing. For example, when Lemieux returned from back surgery in 1991 after pretty much a calendar year off-missing 60 games that season and 23 out the last 24 the year before, he just didn't hit the ground running in "peak" form. It defies common sense to believe so.

Mario's points per game in 1995-96 (my bad) was 2.30 at age 30. That was better than any 30+ Gretzky season which was either 2.09 in 90-91 (when he was 29 for half and 30 for half) or 1.64 (the next year).


My Best-Carey
 

Video Nasty

Registered User
Mar 12, 2017
4,537
7,769
Neither. Lemieux is already cemented as a top 4 player for the foreseeable future and he already has his group of cronies who try making the case he is better than Gretzky anyway. Nothing would change if he projected out that season.

Crosby benefits from this same mindset. It’s very unlikely he would have held up that pace, seeing as how he’s not Gretzky or Mario. So he benefits because people think he actually would have scored 60+ goals and 130+ points any way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Crosby is not challenging the length of Howe's prime right now. He's a half decade away from that even being a consideration, and even then it would still be Howe. Howe has the better peak. Crosby almost certainly won't challenge Howe's longevity. Inventing convoluted measures for Crosby's benefit in order to attempt to boost him, as seen in the post quoted by the poster that I quoted, doesn't make him any closer.

The first bolded. It depends what you mean by "prime". That can be just as convoluted.

To the 2nd bolded, it isn't about Crosby challenging Howe nor should you be making any assumptions about what Crosby does from here on in; it is the significance of Crosby hanging with Howe after their first 14 seasons.

According to the HOH Best player in the world thread, Howe wasn't in the in the conversation after the 62-63 season ( IMO, I would make it the 63-64 season as he has a dominant playoffs), and while Top 5 Art Ross finishes in his era are good, they do not compare with a Top 5 finish in the current era strictly from a statistical perspective. IMO, Crosby can finish in the Top Ten in scoring to, in theory, stay in his "prime" like Howe did.

So, in this context, why can't there be a discussion about comparing their first 14 seasons?

You seem to want to shut that down because Howe wins the "peak" debate, yet there are many examples of players with lower peaks being rated higher than others in the HOH Top 100 project, look no further than Howe vs. Mario.

Yes, Howe had the better peak season, but he was never able to reach that peak again, and other players reached those same "peak" point totals and PPGs a few years later which, IMO, leaves one wondering where to place "peak" Howe. At best, it is above every other player besides the Big 3 but is not on their level. He has three other Art Ross win seasons that are equaled by the best seasons of Hull, Mikita, Beliveau and Richard. His playoff resume by 1960 was very good but not befitting his regular season stature. He was T2 in points, 3rd in PPG (well behind Beliveau) and had the 2nd or 3rd best playoff run during that time period. It can be argued that Beliveau and Geoffrion were the superior performers.

Crosby reasonably has two partial seasons (10/11 and 13/14) that were on the level of three of Howe's four Art Ross seasons in a row and his two Art Ross wins are arguably superior to Howe's 56/57 win. I would argue that Crosby was just as dominant, maybe moreso, on a per games basis mainly on the strength of hitting his prime almost from the get go. His playoff resume is clearly superior to Howe's and is befitting his regular season stature of being the dominant per game performer.

So we are left with injuries being the primary reason that Howe would be ahead of Crosby after 14 seasons but I think it is very reasonable to say they are on the same tier.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,662
The first bolded. It depends what you mean by "prime". That can be just as convoluted.

Pretty much everyone knows what prime is. It is not a convoluted notion along the lines of what you propose on a weak attempt to elevate Crosby to Howe's level. Crosby should be compared to Beliveau and Hull, players that he can conceivable surpass.

To the 2nd bolded, it isn't about Crosby challenging Howe nor should you be making any assumptions about what Crosby does from here on in; it is the significance of Crosby hanging with Howe after their first 14 seasons.

According to the HOH Best player in the world thread, Howe wasn't in the in the conversation after the 62-63 season ( IMO, I would make it the 63-64 season as he has a dominant playoffs), and while Top 5 Art Ross finishes in his era are good, they do not compare with a Top 5 finish in the current era strictly from a statistical perspective. IMO, Crosby can finish in the Top Ten in scoring to, in theory, stay in his "prime" like Howe did.

So, in this context, why can't there be a discussion about comparing their first 14 seasons?

You seem to want to shut that down because Howe wins the "peak" debate, yet there are many examples of players with lower peaks being rated higher than others in the HOH Top 100 project, look no further than Howe vs. Mario.

Yes, Howe had the better peak season, but he was never able to reach that peak again, and other players reached those same "peak" point totals and PPGs a few years later which, IMO, leaves one wondering where to place "peak" Howe. At best, it is above every other player besides the Big 3 but is not on their level. He has three other Art Ross win seasons that are equaled by the best seasons of Hull, Mikita, Beliveau and Richard. His playoff resume by 1960 was very good but not befitting his regular season stature. He was T2 in points, 3rd in PPG (well behind Beliveau) and had the 2nd or 3rd best playoff run during that time period. It can be argued that Beliveau and Geoffrion were the superior performers.

Crosby reasonably has two partial seasons (10/11 and 13/14) that were on the level of three of Howe's four Art Ross seasons in a row and his two Art Ross wins are arguably superior to Howe's 56/57 win. I would argue that Crosby was just as dominant, maybe moreso, on a per games basis mainly on the strength of hitting his prime almost from the get go. His playoff resume is clearly superior to Howe's and is befitting his regular season stature of being the dominant per game performer.

So we are left with injuries being the primary reason that Howe would be ahead of Crosby after 14 seasons but I think it is very reasonable to say they are on the same tier.

Again, I see the dancing and the grasping for straws, but it isn't going to happen. Crosby is never going to surpass Howe and no convoluted proposals (I did have a laugh that you are questioning what a prime is) are going to change that for reasonable people. You've now moved on to trying to bury that Howe's peak is unquestionably better. Howe unquestionably peaked higher than Crosby did. Howe has the most impressive longevity for any hockey player ever and we can very reasonably guess that Crosby won't match Howe in this regard. Attempting to build a case for Crosby over Howe based on longevity is nonsense and frankly embarrassing.

I want to highlight as well that you've now moved on from conceding that Howe's peak is superior to now questioning that even though nothing has changed with regard to either's peak. I look forward to the arguments in the future that Crosby has superior longevity to Howe, even though he almost certainly falls off before Howe does.

Crosby should be compared to Hull and Beliveau, players who he actually can surpass. Howe is not someone what Crosby will be able to surpass. The attempts are ridiculous.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Again, I see the dancing and the grasping for straws, but it isn't going to happen. Crosby is never going to surpass Howe and no convoluted proposals (I did have a laugh that you are questioning what a prime is) are going to change that for reasonable people. You've now moved on to trying to bury that Howe's peak is unquestionably better. Howe unquestionably peaked higher than Crosby did. Howe has the most impressive longevity for any hockey player ever and we can very reasonably guess that Crosby won't match Howe in this regard. Attempting to build a case for Crosby over Howe based on longevity is nonsense and frankly embarrassing.

I want to highlight as well that you've now moved on from conceding that Howe's peak is superior to now questioning that even though nothing has changed with regard to either's peak. I look forward to the arguments in the future that Crosby has superior longevity to Howe, even though he almost certainly falls off before Howe does.

Crosby should be compared to Hull and Beliveau, players who he actually can surpass. Howe is not someone what Crosby will be able to surpass. The attempts are ridiculous.

To the 2nd bolded, it isn't about Crosby challenging Howe nor should you be making any assumptions about what Crosby does from here on in; it is the significance of Crosby hanging with Howe after their first 14 seasons

You seem unable to broach the topic with the context I have clearly laid out multiple times. Why is that?

Using the generally accepted methods of player evaluation, why can't it be argued that Crosby is close to Howe after 14 seasons?

Crosby has many arguments over Howe to make up for the difference in peak, which as you should well know, is not the be all, end all of player assessment otherwise Mario is rated over Howe and Jagr and Esposito are much higher.
 
Last edited:

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,662
You seem unable to broach the topic with the context I have clearly laid out multiple times. Why is that?

Using the generally accepted methods of player evaluation, why can't it be argued that Crosby is close to Howe after 14 seasons?

Crosby has many arguments over Howe to make up for the difference in peak, which as you should well know, is not the be all, end all of player assessment otherwise Mario is rated over Howe and Jagr and Esposito are much higher.

I am not required to discuss anything under the convoluted context you provide, which is transparently designed to elevate Crosby. Howe is certainly ahead of Crosby after 14 seasons. Howe then goes on to have the greatest longevity in hockey history. Hence why Crosby is not going to catch up to him. It's very obvious.

Howe has a better peak than Crosby does. Howe has, all things considered, probably the second best prime ever in terms of level and sustained greatness. He has the most impressive longevity in hockey history. Thinking that Crosby is going to surpass Howe, who is already ahead on peak even though it is the weakest part of his resume, based on some form of longevity is some of the most notable straw grasping and fantasizing that I have ever seen on this site.

Attempting to elevate Crosby to the level of Howe/Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux is embarrassing. Crosby should be compared to players that he has the chance to pass, such as Beliveau/Hull.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
I am not required to discuss anything under the convoluted context you provide, which is transparently designed to elevate Crosby. Howe is certainly ahead of Crosby after 14 seasons. Howe then goes on to have the greatest longevity in hockey history. Hence why Crosby is not going to catch up to him.

Let's hear your argument.

The only certainties I see is that Howe had one season that is above Crosby' best full season and above Crosby's level of play in any of his partial seasons, Howe wins the raw point battle due to better luck with injuries, and Crosby has the superior playoff resume.

Crosby was certainly ahead of Howe after his first four, five or even six seasons.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,662
Let's hear your argument.

The only certainties I see is that Howe had one season that is above Crosby' best full season and above Crosby's level of play in any of his partial seasons, Howe wins the raw point battle due to better luck with injuries, and Crosby has the superior playoff resume.

Crosby was certainly ahead of Howe after his first four, five or even six seasons.

Better peak. Had a more dominant stretch around that peak. Better playoff performer, and yes I know that you are going to plan on arguing this based on Crosby's pretty weak Conn Smythe trophies. More well rounded offensive player. Brought more to the table outside of scoring. I agree that Crosby was certainly ahead at first. Unfortunately Howe's peak quickly surpasses Crosby's and Crosby, as is the subject of this thread, had injury issues that hurt him against Howe. Really the onus is far more on someone attempting to make the case that Crosby/Beliveau/Hull/Ovechkin is on Howe's level.

Most important of all, no one in hockey history has a better career after their first 14 seasons than Howe, making it ridiculous that your ambition is to have Crosby pass Howe, already ahead of him after 14 years, based on longevity. It's almost akin to hoping that Crosby will pass Gretzky based on career points or Lemieux based on highlight reel plays or Orr based on Norris trophies.

Crosby should not be compared to Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux but rather players that he actually has a chance of reaching or passing. They're a tier above him.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Better peak. Had a more dominant stretch around that peak. Better playoff performer, and yes I know that you are going to plan on arguing this based on Crosby's pretty weak Conn Smythe trophies. More well rounded offensive player. Brought more to the table outside of scoring. I agree that Crosby was certainly ahead at first. Unfortunately Howe's peak quickly surpasses Crosby's and Crosby, as is the subject of this thread, had injury issues that hurt him against Howe. Really the onus is far more on someone attempting to make the case that Crosby/Beliveau/Hull/Ovechkin is on Howe's level.

Most important of all, no one in hockey history has a better career after their first 14 seasons than Howe, making it ridiculous that your ambition is to have Crosby pass Howe, already ahead of him after 14 years, based on longevity. It's almost akin to hoping that Crosby will pass Gretzky based on career points or Lemieux based on highlight reel plays or Orr based on Norris trophies.

Crosby should not be compared to Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux but rather players that he actually has a chance of reaching or passing. They're a tier above him.

Better peak season? Agreed.

Had more dominant stretch around that peak? Not sure what that means or why it is relevant. Crosby was more dominant consistently throughout his 14 seasons.

Better playoff performer? Statistically this is clearly in Crosby's corner. Not sure how you can argue this.

Crosby is the clear #1 in points and PPG vs. #T2 and #3 in PPG. Howe has the #1 playoff run in total points, his next best one is #25. Crosby has three runs in the Top 10 plus the best goal total. Howe has the 2nd, 14th and 32nd best PPG runs (min. of 4 games), Crosby is T1, 9th, 15th and 22nd (min. of 8 games).

If Howe is more well rounded offensively, I would counter than Crosby played with far less talented linemates. Let's call that a wash.

Brought more to the table This is becoming a very secondary argument. Crosby is making a case for being one the most well rounded players overall ever.

no one in hockey history has a better career after their first 14 seasons than Howe so what? it is irrelevant to this comparison. Not sure why you keep inserting this.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,662
Better peak season? Agreed.

Had more dominant stretch around that peak? Not sure what that means or why it is relevant. Crosby was more dominant consistently throughout his 14 seasons.

It means that Howe had the better peak and stayed around that level, consistently dominating the NHL for a stretch. Crosby came close to this but never did it.

Better playoff performer?
Statistically this is clearly in Crosby's corner. Not sure how you can argue this.

Crosby is the clear #1 in points and PPG vs. #T2 and #3 in PPG. Howe has the #1 playoff run in total points, his next best one is #25. Crosby has three runs in the Top 10 plus the best goal total. Howe has the 2nd, 14th and 32nd best PPG runs (min. of 4 games), Crosby is T1, 9th, 15th and 22nd (min. of 8 games).

Tremendous. Playoff comparisons across eras are very difficult and almost always flawed given the wildly different contexts in which players played and the small sample sizes. Each had four Conn Smythe type runs, and beyond that I don't see a lot to discuss given how different the situations are. You could argue that it was easier to have a Conn Smythe type run in the 1950s and I would probably agree.

If Howe is more well rounded offensively
, I would counter than Crosby played with far less talented linemates. Let's call that a wash.

It's not a wash just because you wish it to be so. Howe is unquestionably the more well rounded offensive player. Linemates don't make a player more well rounded.

Brought more to the table
This is becoming a very secondary argument. Crosby is making a case for being one the most well rounded players overall ever.

No, Howe definitely brought more to the table. Hand wave it away if you will, and create a fantasy about Crosby being one of the most well rounded players ever, but that doesn't make it untrue.

no one in hockey history has a better career after their first 14 seasons than Howe
so what? it is irrelevant to this comparison. Not sure why you keep inserting this.

Again, I'm under no obligation to discuss things only under your pro-Crosby context. That Howe has the best career ever after 14 seasons is very relevant when someone is attempting to push the fantasy that Crosby might pass Howe, whom he is already behind, based on longevity. After 14 seasons Howe had ten seasons as a post season all star. An Art Ross and Hart. Eight top five Hart finishes. Led the playoffs in scoring three times. Then there are his WHA seasons which add something, though it isn't easy or currently worth the effort to assess right now. Crosby is in an era when achieving those results is more difficult, but if he wants to surpass Howe he would probably have to do even better than that given that he is already behind. Really Howe isn't even the one that the fantasy should be about Crosby surpassing.

Again, Crosby should be compared to players that he can possibly reach or surpass, not Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr/Howe. That's the tier above him.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
It's not a wash just because you wish it to be so. Howe is unquestionably the more well rounded offensive player. Linemates don't make a player more well rounded.

I was stating that if you wanted to qualify his numbers as being more well rounded, then the linemates dyanamic can be intriduced.

Not sure what else Crosby can do to win the well rounded argument. He has lead the RS and the POs in goals, assists and points.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Tremendous. Playoff comparisons across eras are very difficult and almost always flawed given the wildly different contexts in which players played and the small sample sizes. Each had four Conn Smythe type runs, and beyond that I don't see a lot to discuss given how different the situations are. You could argue that it was easier to have a Conn Smythe type run in the 1950s and I would probably agree.

I am confused. You said:

" Better playoff performer, and yes I know that you are going to plan on arguing this based on Crosby's pretty weak Conn Smythe trophies."

What were you basing this on if you feel that "Playoff comparisons across eras are very difficult and almost always flawed given the wildly different contexts in which players played and the small sample sizes"?

Of course we can only judge them on how they performed vs. their peers in their respective eras. You seem perfectly content to judge Howe vs. his regular season peers but not against his playoff peers. In Crosby's case, his PPG dominance in the playoffs is completely reflective of his PPG dominance in the regular season which can be argued is equal or even superior to Howe's PPG dominance after 14 seasons.

IMO, I don't think Howe is that far ahead of Crosby and that gap is certainly attributed mainly to Crosby losing the opportunity to play more games. Ironically, he has played almost a 100 more games than Howe after 14 seasons.
 
Last edited:

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,662
I was stating that if you wanted to qualify his numbers as being more well rounded, then the linemates dyanamic can be intriduced.

Not sure what else Crosby can do to win the well rounded argument. He has lead the RS and the POs in goals, assists and points.

He can't unless he suddenly peaks higher than he already did.

You said that Howe was better in their first 14 seasons. What Howe did after his 14th is irrelevant to making your argument hence my comment.

I also said, far more frequently, that Crosby is not going to catch Howe. That is the main point I am making. You are attempting to lay a foundation for Crosby to surpass Howe but Howe's incredible longevity as an elite player (in addition to Crosby's inferior peak) make that extremely unlikely.

I am confused. You said:

" Better playoff performer, and yes I know that you are going to plan on arguing this based on Crosby's pretty weak Conn Smythe trophies."

What were you basing this on if you feel that "Playoff comparisons across eras are very difficult and almost always flawed given the wildly different contexts in which players played and the small sample sizes"?

Of course we can only judge them on how they performed vs. their peers in their respective eras. You seem perfectly content to judge Howe vs. his regular season peers but not against his playoff peers. In Crosby's case, his PPG dominance in the playoffs is completely reflective of his PPG dominance in the regular season which can be argued is equal or even superior to Howe's PPG dominance after 14 seasons.

IMO, I don't think Howe is that far ahead of Crosby and that gap is certainly attributed mainly to Crosby losing the opportunity to play more games. Ironically, he has played almost a 100 more games than Howe after 14 seasons.

The contexts are so different in the playoffs that it makes comparisons very awkward. The closest comparison would probably be to compare Howe's playoffs with Crosby's performances in the final two rounds of the playoffs, but even that isn't a very good comparison. The regular season is a large sample size in which most top players perform in a similar context. Comparisons are pretty easy. The playoffs feature tiny sample sizes and wildly different contexts for players.

I shouldn't have bothered wasting all this time when the answer is so obvious. It's very simple. Howe has the greatest longevity in hockey history. Unless someone peaked higher than Howe (like a Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux) then there really isn't an argument to be made that the player is above Howe. Crosby's peak is below Howe's. Crosby is extremely unlikely to match Howe's longevity. Even if he did match it, it becomes a question of how much more he would need to do to equal Howe. Given that basically no one puts Bourque above Orr despite having far superior longevity (even acknowledging the peak difference between Orr and Bourque being somewhat larger than the peak difference between Howe and Crosby, it isn't as if Crosby is going to more than double Howe in longevity as Bouque did to Orr) it seems nearly impossible for Crosby to surpass Howe, barring an unprecedented late career peak.

Crosby should be compared to players that he can conceivably pass, such as Beliveau/Hull/Jagr etc. and not players that are in the tier above him such as Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux/Howe.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
He can't unless he suddenly peaks higher than he already did.

So one season at a higher peak = well rounded offensively? I am still not sure what this means, at least to the point where it counts as another plus for Howe. As I said earlier, Crosby may go down as the best player with the least talented linemates but I would view that as something that can be used a tiebreaker when players have similar production.

I am more than happy to let their numbers speak for themselves, at least to establish a foundation for the comparison. Both players should be recognized for their all around games.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,662
So one season at a higher peak = well rounded offensively? I am still not sure what this means, at least to the point where it counts as another plus for Howe. As I said earlier, Crosby may go down as the best player with the least talented linemates but I would view that as something that can be used a tiebreaker when players have similar production.

I am more than happy to let their numbers speak for themselves, at least to establish a foundation for the comparison. Both players should be recognized for their all around games.

It is clear what it means. Howe was a more well rounded offensive player. Leading the NHL in goals and assists several times each, even in the same season. Coming close to doing each several other times. Crosby would need to peak again in order to reach the well rounded offensive levels that Howe reached.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->