Who was better- Lemieux or Howe?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CH

Registered User
Jul 30, 2003
865
249
Visit site
Ogopogo said:
I have to disagree with some points that you make. Howe dominated his era to a much greater degree than Lemieux dominated his. I have worked the numbers, it is very true.

Here is one study that disagrees. Daryl Shilling (who is arguing for Howe) did it. http://members.shaw.ca/hbtn/player_study/nor_points.htm Normailized Points.

Lemieux seasons come in 4th, 10th, 19th, 30th and 34th.

Howe seasons come in at 13th and 46th.

This is in a list of the top 50 all time adjusted points seasons.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
revolverjgw said:
Scoring was low. VERY LOW. Gordie was putting up 90-100 points in an era where there was 5 goals a game. That's lower than today's NHL.
so you tell me what's more impressive. 100 pts in 70 games @5gpg (Howe) or 161 pts in 70 games @ 6.2gpg (Lemieux)
 

revolverjgw

Registered User
Oct 6, 2003
8,483
19
Nova Scotia
so you tell me what's more impressive. 100 pts in 70 games @5gpg (Howe) or 161 pts in 70 games @ 6.2gpg (Lemieux)

That season is more impressive than anything Howe did, I'll concede, but it's a bit of an aberation. He rarely dominated that much, plus if I remember, his plus/minus wasn't all that hot despite being on a spectacular team. Howe was doing more than just scoring, anyway, and he was dominating year after year after year.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Dark Metamorphosis said:
i looked at his stats, and there are a lot of 80-95 pts in 70 games. i'm certain that was great for his time, but mario put up seasons of 160 pts in 60 games, 161 pts in 70 games, and 199 pts in 76 games. There's no way scoring was that much less in gordie's era for their totals to be similar. Goals per game would have to be 3-4.

Here are the average goals per game stats during Gordie's prime:

1948 5.86
1949 5.43
1950 5.47
1951 5.42
1952 5.19
1953 4.79
1954 4.81
1955 5.04
1956 5.07
1957 5.38
1958 5.60
1959 5.80
1960 5.90
1961 6.00
1962 6.02
1963 5.95
1964 5.55
1965 5.75
1966 6.08
1967 5.96
1968 5.43
1969 5.96
1970 5.81
1971 6.24

Here are the average goals per game during Lemieux's prime:

1985 7.78
1986 7.94
1987 7.34
1988 7.43
1989 7.48
1990 7.37
1991 6.91
1992 6.96
1993 7.25
1994 6.48
1995 5.97
1996 6.29
1997 5.83


The fact is, you cannot look at point totals to compare them. Lemieux played in a much more offensive era. You need constants to compare and Howe wins in those categories.

Hart Trophies: Howe 6, Lemieux 3
Post Season All Star Teams: Howe 21, Lemieux 9
Scoring Titles: Howe 6 with 2 by more than 25% margin. He also had 1 second place finish and 4 3rds, Lemieux 6 with largest margin 21%. He also had one second place and once he tied for 3rd.

How did dominate his era more. People will say that Lemieux had to compete with Gretzky for awards but, Howe had Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita and Jean Beliveau.

Injuries slowed Mario, he could have been more dominant duing his era if healthy. But again, what ifs don't do much good. All players have their own adversity.
 

CH

Registered User
Jul 30, 2003
865
249
Visit site
Ogopogo said:
The fact is, you cannot look at point totals to compare them. Lemieux played in a much more offensive era. You need constants to compare and Howe wins in those categories.

True. So you normalize for that.

Daryl Shilling did http://members.shaw.ca/hbtn/player_study/nor_points.htm Normailized Points.

Lemieux seasons come in 4th, 10th, 19th, 30th and 34th.

Howe seasons come in at 13th and 46th.

And the NHL talent level has improved since Howe's day. Lemieux scored more NORMALIZED points against better opposition.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
i just looked up goals per game in the 50s and 60s. in the 50s it was around 5, but the 60s were 5.5 to 6 goals per game. i still can't believe people are actually suggesting howe was a better offensive player than lemieux. these new goals per game numbers make mario's seasons compared to gordie's even more impressive.

mario's '87-88 season : 168 pts in 77 games @ 7.43 gpg
mario's '88-89 season : 199 pts in 76 games @ 7.37 gpg
mario's '92-93 season : 160 pts in 60 games @ 7.24 gpg
mario's '95-96 season : 161 pts in 70 games @ 6.29 gpg

i'd like to see any of gordie's seasons compare to those four.

http://www.hockey-fans.com/stats/appendix-a.php
 

revolverjgw

Registered User
Oct 6, 2003
8,483
19
Nova Scotia
Mario's scoring isn't superior enough to make up for the fact that Howe was a tough muther, IMO. A durable power forward that routinely won the scoring championship, that seals the deal for me. That never happens, usually it's... not-so-tough and not-so-rough one-dimensional guys like Lemieux and Gretzky leading the league (not that I don't love them, they're number 1 and number 4 respectively in my book).

Mario is the better scorer, no doubt about that. Mario's numbers look better than Howe's even with era-inflation taken into account. I guess I didn't clarify that in my previous posts... I'm not arguing Gordie is a superior scorer... ''just'' the superior hockey player.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
ogo, why are you so obsessed with # of awards and such? that does not determine who dominated more at their peak, it is another measure of career greatness. look at my post above and try to find a howe season as good as any of those.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
Dark Metamorphosis said:
ogo, why are you so obsessed with # of awards and such? that does not determine who dominated more at their peak, it is another measure of career greatness. look at my post above and try to find a howe season as good as any of those.

Then again Mario never put the toughest player in the league on the cover of Life magazine with a severely broken nose and looking liking he'd just gone 15 rounds with Muhammed Ali.

Mario didn't get the protection Gretzky did, but he didn't have to go through what Howe, Richard, Beliveau, Mikita, Hull or Orr did either.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
CH said:
True. So you normalize for that.

Daryl Shilling did http://members.shaw.ca/hbtn/player_study/nor_points.htm Normailized Points.

Lemieux seasons come in 4th, 10th, 19th, 30th and 34th.

Howe seasons come in at 13th and 46th.

And the NHL talent level has improved since Howe's day. Lemieux scored more NORMALIZED points against better opposition.

First, saying that the NHL talent level has improved since Howe's day is fallacy. Societal Evolution makes every human being, on average, bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, more educated and better equipped than we were in the past. Saying that players were better in the 80s is not a fair comparison. If Gordie Howe's prime was during the 80s, he would have been equally bigger, faster, smarter and still have been incredibly dominant. Likewise, if Lemieux had peaked in the 50s, he would have been smaller, had more primitive equipment and dominated to the same extent he did in the 80s. Players will always be better from an evolutionary standpoint every year that passes. Are the players of the 80s bums becuase on 2050 we will be so much more advanced? You cannnot discount a player's accomplishments because of evolution. Players must be compared with how they dominated their era.

Normalized points are interesting but, they are also flawed. Were assists awarded the same way in the 60s as they were in the 80s? Were there different rules back then. Was the game played differently? Were coaching styles different? Normalizing the numbers does not account for those variables. If it was quite common to only give one assist in the 60s and in the 80s 2 assists was the norm, then we can't really compare the point totals, can we?

That is why we must look at the scoring race. Every player during any particular season plays with the same rules and variables as every other player in the league. Winning the scoring title means you are the best scorer with the same rules and era that every other player has during that season. So, the most accurate way to compare players across eras is to see how they dominated the peers that they played against.

Gordie Howe finished in the top 7 scorers in the league an amazing 20 times including 6 scoring titles with two of them by over 25% margin. Gordie finished in the top 7 goal scorers 18 times, winning 5 goal scoring crowns with 2 of them by over 50% margin and one more by over 25%. Gordie also finished in the top 7 in assists 19 times, winning the assist title twice, once by more than 25%.

That is amazing dominance!

Mario Lemieux finished in the top 7 scorers 10 times, winning six scoring titles with the biggest margin being 21%. Mario was a top 7 goal scorer 8 times, winning 3 titles and one by more than a 25% margin. Mario was a top 7 assist man 9 times, never winning a title outright but tying for the lead 3 times.

Very impressive numbers but, definitely not as impressive as what Howe accomplished.

Like I said, if Mario was healthier perhaps he could have been closer to Howe but, he wasn't. Unfortunate but that is how it played out.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
The Prodigy said:
It's a weak argument, at best. I don't judge a player's talent by looking at the box score.

And I won't even go into the way the Canadians treated Kharmalov and the other Russian (more skilled) players. The Russians weren't going for Howe's legs every time he had the puck, and the same cannot be said of the Canadians.

Weak argument or not that was Howe at 46 and Kharmalov in his prime. Kharmalov was an awesome hockey player and poetry to watch but no where close to Howe in any facet of the game when compared at their peaks...and Howe had a much longer peak.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Dark Metamorphosis said:
i just looked up goals per game in the 50s and 60s. in the 50s it was around 5, but the 60s were 5.5 to 6 goals per game. i still can't believe people are actually suggesting howe was a better offensive player than lemieux. these new goals per game numbers make mario's seasons compared to gordie's even more impressive.

mario's '87-88 season : 168 pts in 77 games @ 7.43 gpg
mario's '88-89 season : 199 pts in 76 games @ 7.37 gpg
mario's '92-93 season : 160 pts in 60 games @ 7.24 gpg
mario's '95-96 season : 161 pts in 70 games @ 6.29 gpg

i'd like to see any of gordie's seasons compare to those four.

http://www.hockey-fans.com/stats/appendix-a.php

Points per game becomes irrelevant because of era. How were assists awarded when Howe played? Was it common to see two assists per goal? What about the rules, how were they different? Coaching styles? Referees? There are so many variables that raw points per game, even with goals per game thrown in, is a flawed way to look at it.

You have to look at how they dominated their peers to really see how great they were.

Howe had 86 points in 1951. The second leading scorer had 66 points. That is a 30% margin something that only 5 players in NHL history have ever done. In 1953 he scored 95 points, second place had 71. That was a 34% margin. Those are two of the greatest scoring seasons of all time because Howe DOMINATED the rest of the league.

In Mario's best year of 1989, he had 199 points. That is an 18% margin over 2nd place Wayne Gretzky. OK, let's take Gretzky out of the equation. Yzerman had 155 points that year so Lemieux won by 28% over him. Impressive numbers but, they still do not compare to Gordie Howe.

When you look beyond the raw numbers to find the truth of what they represent, you can better understand how great a player was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ogopogo*

Guest
Dark Metamorphosis said:
ogo, why are you so obsessed with # of awards and such? that does not determine who dominated more at their peak, it is another measure of career greatness. look at my post above and try to find a howe season as good as any of those.

Look at my above post, I have documented two Howe seasons better than those.

Awards are important because one of the best ways to determine who a greater player is, is by actually watching them play. Honestly, how can you or I say that Mario is better than Gordie or vice versa, when we haven't seen Howe play? We have no idea how dominant he was.

What we need to do is look at evidence of his greatness. The evidence is provided to us by the people that voted for the awards. They saw Howe play and they voted according to what they saw. They are the only ones that can truly tell us how dominant historical players really were.

Howe finished in the top 3 voting for the Hart trophy 12 times! The people that watched Howe play every day believed that he was one of the three most valuable players in the NHL for 12 years! That is an amazing testament by eyewitnesses.

Mario, on the other hand, finished in the top 3 voting 7 times. That is still very impressive but, it pales in comparsion to what the eyewitnesses said about Gordie Howe. Again, what ifs are worthless.

Award voting is important because eyewitnesses are making their case for the greatness of a player and how he dominated. The voting, combined with intelligent analysis of the raw numbers gives us an excellent indication of how great players really are.

Howe was greater than Lemieux. If Mario was healthy, it might be a much better debate.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
Ogopogo said:
Like I said, if Mario was healthier perhaps he could have been closer to Howe but, he wasn't. Unfortunate but that is how it played out.

That is why Gordie is second only to Gretzky and who knows if Gretzky would have survived in the forties or fifties. Gordie himself was almost killed by Ted Kennedy on a hit from behind into the boards.

That said, I think Howe would have been 4th behind Orr, Lemeiux, and Gretzky (in that order) if the game was played by the rules.
 

CH

Registered User
Jul 30, 2003
865
249
Visit site
Ogopogo said:
First, saying that the NHL talent level has improved since Howe's day is fallacy. Societal Evolution makes every human being, on average, bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, more educated and better equipped than we were in the past. Saying that players were better in the 80s is not a fair comparison. If Gordie Howe's prime was during the 80s, he would have been equally bigger, faster, smarter and still have been incredibly dominant. Likewise, if Lemieux had peaked in the 50s, he would have been smaller, had more primitive equipment and dominated to the same extent he did in the 80s. Players will always be better from an evolutionary standpoint every year that passes. Are the players of the 80s bums becuase on 2050 we will be so much more advanced? You cannnot discount a player's accomplishments because of evolution. Players must be compared with how they dominated their era.

This is false. Players are better today. There is a much larger talent pool that is drawn from. In Gordie's time, essentially all the NHL players came from Canada. Today they come from many countries on earth. That was definitely true in Lemieux's time as well. With the baby boom, the number of hockey players in Canada had expanded significantly as well. Larger pool of players means better talent levels for the elite ones in the NHL.

There are other statistics that could be used to show the level of talent has incresed in the NHL. How about the number of players in the league younger than 19 (by percentage) or above 38 (by percentage). These are extreme ages where very few players will exist. If there is a shortage in the talent pool, they will tend to add players who are either very young or keep players who are very old.

Bill James uses an era adjustment in baseball sabermeterics. Its a common practise. The quality of pla improves over time. He has identified other metrics (in baseball) such as the ratio of errors to double plays and the percentage of offence provided by pitchers (both go down when the talent level increses - both have gone consistently down over time in baseball). I don't know an example of a metric like that in hockey off the top of my head - but I'd love to find one. Its largely a failing of the lack of statistics available in hockey.

Having an era adjustment does not automatically mean that the newest players will be judged the best - Bill James calls Babe Ruth the best baseball player ever. Howver, the era adjustment will prevent people like Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde or Cy Denneny from being wrongly listed in a top 10 players of all time list because their dominance in eras when there was no formal scouting system and players sometimes "made the team" by showing up at practise with no invitation and showing that they could handle the level of play is compared against times whne there was a full minor system with many scouts per team.

Simply you are flat out wrong. The people who are "experts" in sabermetrics all diagree with you.

Ogopogo said:
Normalized points are interesting but, they are also flawed. Were assists awarded the same way in the 60s as they were in the 80s? Were there different rules back then. Was the game played differently? Were coaching styles different? Normalizing the numbers does not account for those variables. If it was quite common to only give one assist in the 60s and in the 80s 2 assists was the norm, then we can't really compare the point totals, can we?

All statistics are flawed on some level, but that does not mean they should be thrown out. Instead of asking a bunch of hypothetical questions why don't you tell me why the conclusion that normalized points show quite conclusively that Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime (at least offensively) then Gordie Howe is incorrect. How do you figure some conjecture like "coaching styles" makes up that difference?

Ogopogo said:
That is why we must look at the scoring race. Every player during any particular season plays with the same rules and variables as every other player in the league. Winning the scoring title means you are the best scorer with the same rules and era that every other player has during that season. So, the most accurate way to compare players across eras is to see how they dominated the peers that they played against.

This will show us nothing of the differences between eras. Thats why normalization of statistics is a better move. They are normalized for the differences in scoring rates in different years. When you make your comparisons of how much Gordie or Mario won the scoring title you are comparing them to different things. Mario is compared to Wayne Gretzky (since Gretzky was the number 2 scorer most of the time when Mario won the scoring title). How much did Mario beat the best player of all time by? Gordie did have significant other players in his time, but NONE who compare to Gretzky.

It might be that the difference between Gordie Howe in 1952-53 was better than Ted Lindsay by a larger amount then Mario Lemieux was better than Wayne Gretzky in 1988-89 and thus won the scoring title by a larger percentage. This doesn't necessarily say Howe was better than Lemieux. A much more likely interpretation is that Gretzky is better than Ted Lindsay (I doubt anyone would want to argue that point).

Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime then Gordie Howe. He did so against a higher calibre of opposition. His higher single season point totals (normalized show it). You cannot see it because you insist on comparing players only to their opposition in their era without considering that their opposition may not be equivalent. You are assuming that Wayne Gretzky is exactly the same as Ted Lindsay in terms of his scoring ability in doing this - and that assumption is patently false.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
CH said:
This is false. Players are better today. There is a much larger talent pool that is drawn from. In Gordie's time, essentially all the NHL players came from Canada. Today they come from many countries on earth. That was definitely true in Lemieux's time as well. With the baby boom, the number of hockey players in Canada had expanded significantly as well. Larger pool of players means better talent levels for the elite ones in the NHL.

There are other statistics that could be used to show the level of talent has incresed in the NHL. How about the number of players in the league younger than 19 (by percentage) or above 38 (by percentage). These are extreme ages where very few players will exist. If there is a shortage in the talent pool, they will tend to add players who are either very young or keep players who are very old.

Bill James uses an era adjustment in baseball sabermeterics. Its a common practise. The quality of pla improves over time. He has identified other metrics (in baseball) such as the ratio of errors to double plays and the percentage of offence provided by pitchers (both go down when the talent level increses - both have gone consistently down over time in baseball). I don't know an example of a metric like that in hockey off the top of my head - but I'd love to find one. Its largely a failing of the lack of statistics available in hockey.

Having an era adjustment does not automatically mean that the newest players will be judged the best - Bill James calls Babe Ruth the best baseball player ever. Howver, the era adjustment will prevent people like Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde or Cy Denneny from being wrongly listed in a top 10 players of all time list because their dominance in eras when there was no formal scouting system and players sometimes "made the team" by showing up at practise with no invitation and showing that they could handle the level of play is compared against times whne there was a full minor system with many scouts per team.

Simply you are flat out wrong. The people who are "experts" in sabermetrics all diagree with you.



All statistics are flawed on some level, but that does not mean they should be thrown out. Instead of asking a bunch of hypothetical questions why don't you tell me why the conclusion that normalized points show quite conclusively that Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime (at least offensively) then Gordie Howe is incorrect. How do you figure some conjecture like "coaching styles" makes up that difference?



This will show us nothing of the differences between eras. Thats why normalization of statistics is a better move. They are normalized for the differences in scoring rates in different years. When you make your comparisons of how much Gordie or Mario won the scoring title you are comparing them to different things. Mario is compared to Wayne Gretzky (since Gretzky was the number 2 scorer most of the time when Mario won the scoring title). How much did Mario beat the best player of all time by? Gordie did have significant other players in his time, but NONE who compare to Gretzky.

It might be that the difference between Gordie Howe in 1952-53 was better than Ted Lindsay by a larger amount then Mario Lemieux was better than Wayne Gretzky in 1988-89 and thus won the scoring title by a larger percentage. This doesn't necessarily say Howe was better than Lemieux. A much more likely interpretation is that Gretzky is better than Ted Lindsay (I doubt anyone would want to argue that point).

Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime then Gordie Howe. He did so against a higher calibre of opposition. His higher single season point totals (normalized show it). You cannot see it because you insist on comparing players only to their opposition in their era without considering that their opposition may not be equivalent. You are assuming that Wayne Gretzky is exactly the same as Ted Lindsay in terms of his scoring ability in doing this - and that assumption is patently false.

Good points but a Canada only league "today" of 6 teams would certainly have more talent depth than the whole shebang "today" divided into 30.

I will agree that Mario was more dominant offensively in his prime than Gordie.

Any other facets of the game anyone prefer Mario? (and I'm not saying Mario wasn't capable all around)
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
CH said:
This is false. Players are better today. There is a much larger talent pool that is drawn from. In Gordie's time, essentially all the NHL players came from Canada. Today they come from many countries on earth. That was definitely true in Lemieux's time as well. With the baby boom, the number of hockey players in Canada had expanded significantly as well. Larger pool of players means better talent levels for the elite ones in the NHL.

There are other statistics that could be used to show the level of talent has incresed in the NHL. How about the number of players in the league younger than 19 (by percentage) or above 38 (by percentage). These are extreme ages where very few players will exist. If there is a shortage in the talent pool, they will tend to add players who are either very young or keep players who are very old.

Bill James uses an era adjustment in baseball sabermeterics. Its a common practise. The quality of pla improves over time. He has identified other metrics (in baseball) such as the ratio of errors to double plays and the percentage of offence provided by pitchers (both go down when the talent level increses - both have gone consistently down over time in baseball). I don't know an example of a metric like that in hockey off the top of my head - but I'd love to find one. Its largely a failing of the lack of statistics available in hockey.

Having an era adjustment does not automatically mean that the newest players will be judged the best - Bill James calls Babe Ruth the best baseball player ever. Howver, the era adjustment will prevent people like Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde or Cy Denneny from being wrongly listed in a top 10 players of all time list because their dominance in eras when there was no formal scouting system and players sometimes "made the team" by showing up at practise with no invitation and showing that they could handle the level of play is compared against times whne there was a full minor system with many scouts per team.

Simply you are flat out wrong. The people who are "experts" in sabermetrics all diagree with you.



All statistics are flawed on some level, but that does not mean they should be thrown out. Instead of asking a bunch of hypothetical questions why don't you tell me why the conclusion that normalized points show quite conclusively that Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime (at least offensively) then Gordie Howe is incorrect. How do you figure some conjecture like "coaching styles" makes up that difference?



This will show us nothing of the differences between eras. Thats why normalization of statistics is a better move. They are normalized for the differences in scoring rates in different years. When you make your comparisons of how much Gordie or Mario won the scoring title you are comparing them to different things. Mario is compared to Wayne Gretzky (since Gretzky was the number 2 scorer most of the time when Mario won the scoring title). How much did Mario beat the best player of all time by? Gordie did have significant other players in his time, but NONE who compare to Gretzky.

It might be that the difference between Gordie Howe in 1952-53 was better than Ted Lindsay by a larger amount then Mario Lemieux was better than Wayne Gretzky in 1988-89 and thus won the scoring title by a larger percentage. This doesn't necessarily say Howe was better than Lemieux. A much more likely interpretation is that Gretzky is better than Ted Lindsay (I doubt anyone would want to argue that point).

Mario Lemieux was more dominant in his prime then Gordie Howe. He did so against a higher calibre of opposition. His higher single season point totals (normalized show it). You cannot see it because you insist on comparing players only to their opposition in their era without considering that their opposition may not be equivalent. You are assuming that Wayne Gretzky is exactly the same as Ted Lindsay in terms of his scoring ability in doing this - and that assumption is patently false.

I completely disagree with virtually everything you posted. I stand by my and findings. You seem to have a lack of respect for history.

The measure of greatness is how a person/player dominates his peers. I rate Cy Denneny, Newsy Lalonde and Cycone Taylor quite high because they DOMINATED their era. Eddie Shore dominated the 20s and 30s so he is top 10. Rocket Richard and Gordie Howe owned the 50s and 60s so they are top 10s. Espo and Orr are top 15s (Orr is actually #3 because they owned the 70s. Lafleur checks in as a top 10 as well. Lemieux, Gretzky, Bourque and Jagr crack the top 20 from the modern era.

Is Edison a moron because he had no idea how to work a spreadsheet? Was the Roman empire a joke because they had no nukes? Was Henry Ford a schmuck because he did not have modern automation in his plant? That is what you are saying by saying that modern players are better than players of the past. Is Martin St. Louis better than Wayne Gretzky simply because he plays now?

What about this: Let's suppose that India and China start to take hockey VERY seriously. That is 2 billion people or 1/3 of the world's population. Theoretically, China and India could supply 1/2 the NHL's players by 2025. Does that make today's players insignificant? Are they just not that good because 1/3 of the world does not care about hockey today? That is the point you are making and I completely disagree with you.

In essence, your agument is "Gordie Howe played in the 50s and 60s. Something that happened that long ago is just crap" Sorry, Howe had all the tools and advantages of anyone in his era and he DOMINATED. He was clearly the greatest NHL player for 20 years and that is VERY significant.

Much like Babe Ruth's dominance of baseball is so amazing. He is a greater player than McGwire, Bonds or any of today's players. He DOMINATED his era by a wider margin than any baseball player ever did. That is what greatness is. Just because Jose from the Dominican never played baseball at that time, does not take away from the fact that Ruth DOMINATED the best baseball players of the time.

Discounting the accomplishments of players last century simply because the world is evolving is completely and totally wrong.

Quote Bill James as much as you like, that does not mean he is correct. Further more, how do I know that you are correctly quoting what he has said?

Using your reasoning, why should we watch today's NHL? In 20 years hockey will be so much better, today's players are a joke.

Don't let evolution cloud your understanding of greatness. GREATNESS IS HOW YOU DOMINATE YOUR PEERS.
 

CH

Registered User
Jul 30, 2003
865
249
Visit site
Ogopogo said:
GREATNESS IS HOW YOU DOMINATE YOUR PEERS.

You failed to address my points and then concluded that point which is partially true.

Of course it depends how good your peers are. If you compare me to my peers and somebody else to a different group of his peers, it does not necessarily follow that I am better because I dominate my peer group by a larger margin. It may be that the other guy has a stronger peer group.

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that the two best hockey players ever were exact contemporaries. They played at the exact same time. How would we see this? The two would combine to have more scoring title wins then anyone else, however, neither might have the most wins all time individually. Somebody else who didn't play against as good opposition might have won more scoring titles and he might have won them by larger margins then either of the two best players of all time since they were competing against each other.

Your method would get entirely the wrong results.
 

CH

Registered User
Jul 30, 2003
865
249
Visit site
Crosbyfan said:
Good points but a Canada only league "today" of 6 teams would certainly have more talent depth than the whole shebang "today" divided into 30.

I will agree that Mario was more dominant offensively in his prime than Gordie.

Any other facets of the game anyone prefer Mario? (and I'm not saying Mario wasn't capable all around)

You are correct. The simple answer (and sorry thats all I have time for right now). Is that if we are talking only about dominance over a peer group, the important parameter is how many people the peer group is chosen from. If there are more countries (and more people in Canada) producing more hockey players there will be more good hockey players. The quality of opposition (in terms of winning scoring titles by large margins) will be greater since there will be more people from which this group of top scorers is chosen. This is independant of the number of teams in the NHL. Now we can go off on a tangent discussing the differences to the NHL as a whole, but largely this is unimportant to the discussion in question.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
CH said:
You failed to address my points and then concluded that point which is partially true.

Of course it depends how good your peers are. If you compare me to my peers and somebody else to a different group of his peers, it does not necessarily follow that I am better because I dominate my peer group by a larger margin. It may be that the other guy has a stronger peer group.

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that the two best hockey players ever were exact contemporaries. They played at the exact same time. How would we see this? The two would combine to have more scoring title wins then anyone else, however, neither might have the most wins all time individually. Somebody else who didn't play against as good opposition might have won more scoring titles and he might have won them by larger margins then either of the two best players of all time since they were competing against each other.

Your method would get entirely the wrong results.

The NHL ices the best available players during every season it operates. If you are the best that the NHL can offer, you will be recognized as such. Evolution means there was inferior scouting, inferior, equipment, players were smaller, poorer skaters, poorer coaching etc. in the past. But, ALL PLAYERS HAD TO DEAL WITH THOSE SAME DISADVANTAGES. The best player in the world had the same rules as everyone else. How he dominated is equal to how any player dominated any era. Just because modern day players have advantages of size, speed, better coaching, better equipment and better scouting does not make them greater hockey players. They are taking advantage of evolution of the game. How they dominate their peers is what makes them great or not.

Using my methods, if the two greatest players in the history of hockey played at exactly the same time, they would be recognized as such. They would finish 1-2 in scoring year after year. They would be 1-2 in Hart voting year after year. The would both dominate the league and earn the accolades that come with it. They would accumulate the most points on my system and be #1 and #2. That is how it would shake out. My system awards 7 points for a scoring title (there are variables but, in essence that is how it works out) and 6 points for second. If the two greatest players of all time played at exactly the same time, there would be no problem.

As I said, the NHL ices the best available players every single season. The peer group every year is the best hockey players available. So, how a player dominates his era is paramount to determining his greatness. How can you say that the 80s had the best peer group in the history of hockey? Did you see the players of the 50s? Are you basing it on the scoring stats? It was a high scoring era, inflated scoring stats do not automatically mean that the players of the 80s were the greatest of all time.

Every player from every era had the same advantages of all players during that time. Whoever dominated to the greatest extent over his peers is the greatest hockey player of all time. The peer group every year is the same: the greatest hockey players available.

As it shakes out, Gretzky is #1, Howe is #2 and Orr is #3.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
Ogopogo said:
The NHL ices the best available players during every season it operates. If you are the best that the NHL can offer, you will be recognized as such. Evolution means there was inferior scouting, inferior, equipment, players were smaller, poorer skaters, poorer coaching etc. in the past. But, ALL PLAYERS HAD TO DEAL WITH THOSE SAME DISADVANTAGES. The best player in the world had the same rules as everyone else. How he dominated is equal to how any player dominated any era. Just because modern day players have advantages of size, speed, better coaching, better equipment and better scouting does not make them greater hockey players. They are taking advantage of evolution of the game. How they dominate their peers is what makes them great or not.

Using my methods, if the two greatest players in the history of hockey played at exactly the same time, they would be recognized as such. They would finish 1-2 in scoring year after year. They would be 1-2 in Hart voting year after year. The would both dominate the league and earn the accolades that come with it. They would accumulate the most points on my system and be #1 and #2. That is how it would shake out. My system awards 7 points for a scoring title (there are variables but, in essence that is how it works out) and 6 points for second. If the two greatest players of all time played at exactly the same time, there would be no problem.

As I said, the NHL ices the best available players every single season. The peer group every year is the best hockey players available. So, how a player dominates his era is paramount to determining his greatness. How can you say that the 80s had the best peer group in the history of hockey? Did you see the players of the 50s? Are you basing it on the scoring stats? It was a high scoring era, inflated scoring stats do not automatically mean that the players of the 80s were the greatest of all time.

Every player from every era had the same advantages of all players during that time. Whoever dominated to the greatest extent over his peers is the greatest hockey player of all time. The peer group every year is the same: the greatest hockey players available.

As it shakes out, Gretzky is #1, Howe is #2 and Orr is #3.
Doesn't your list put Mario at #9? That alone gives the list no legitimacy, because no reputable publication has ever put mario any lower than #4.
 

ProctorSilex

Guest
Can't say I've ever seen Howe play, but from highlights he didn't appear to hold a candle to Mario Lemieux.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Dark Metamorphosis said:
Doesn't your list put Mario at #9? That alone gives the list no legitimacy, because no reputable publication has ever put mario any lower than #4.

Actually, the jury is still out on Lemieux's ranking. I am waiting for the some new data from the NHL office in NY before I can make a final rating. I suspect he will end up around #4 - 7 but I can't say for sure until the NHL gets me the data that I require.

Based on your avatar, I would have to question the objectivity of your opinion on the issue.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
To further illustrate my point,

Who is the greatest 100m sprinter of all time?

Is it Asafa Powell? He is the current world record holder with a 9.77.

The 100m sprint record will be broken time after time after time after time. That is human evolution for you. Some guy in 50 years will run a 9.65. Does that make this mythical future boy the greatest sprinter of all time? No, it just makes him the benefactor of human evolution.

The greatest sprinter of all time is the one that dominates the other sprinters of his era to a greater extent than any other sprinter. It could be Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis or Ben Johnson. I don't know enough about sprinting to know who it really is. The fact is that it is not Powell. If he goes on to win Olympic gold and dominate the sport for the next 5 or 6 years, he could become the greatest. But, a guy that won race after race after race and gold medal after gold medal and held the world record with a 10.30 is far greater than a guy that splashes on to the scene with a new world record at 9.77. The new record is a result of human evolution. If Powell continues to win race after race after race, then he may be spoken in the same breath as Owens.

Dominance of one's peers is the mark of greatness. Really, was Jesse Owens crap because so many nations did not participate in the Olympics or the 100m back in 1936? No, Owens may be the greatest sprinter of all time, even though his best time was 10.30 seconds.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Offensively it was Lemieux. As I've stated before, he is the most physically blessed offensive talent ever. His combination of size, skill, strength, hockey sense and goal-scoring instincts have never been seen before or matched. He would have likely put up 100-plus points in any era. (He scored at a 100-plus point pace in 2000-01 and 2001-02, despite the lower goal totals, and the fact he was well into his 30s). He was a 150-plus point player in 1996, when scoring was at 6.3 goals per game.

All-round, though, Gordie Howe, is, IMO, the best all-round forward ever. The only reason he hit 100 points only once in the NHL was because the league played a reduced schedule at that time. He scored at a 100-point clip (pro-rated over 82 games) six other times, in an era where scoring was comparable to today's NHL. Plus, he was a feared physical player and a strong leader.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->