Who was better- Lemieux or Howe?

[reckoning]

The argument Ogopog tries to use about comparing to peer groups is relatively useless because it assumes that all peer groups are the same. This logically is NOT TRUE. There is a much larger group from which NHL players are produced today. Many more countries produce NHL players today. Caqnada produces more players today as its population and the number of people in minor hockey has increased. The minor systems and scouting systems are far more developed today then they were in the past. Does this mean that necessarily all players of today are better then players of the past? Obviously it doesn't. Of course ogopogo is arguing against this argument nobody ever made. It is true that the overall group of NHL players is better today then in the past so it was easier to dominate numerically (without adjusting for these effects). Thats why Gordie Howe may have led the NHL by a higher percentage of points in a season DESPITE Mario Lemieux being a more dominant player.

Here`s the point I made earlier: what about expansion? As the available talent pool increased so did the number of jobs. So did the overall quality of the league go up? There were only 100 players in the league in Howe`s prime; most people will claim that the 100 best players of Lemieux`s era were better on the whole, but since there were over 400 players in the NHL in Lemieuxs prime, only a small portion of his games were against the top 100. What about the players in the 300-400 range. Lemieux played against them just as much. How many of those guys would`ve been good enough to play in the 6-team league? How much of Lemieux`s success was against the guys on the lower end of that scale, that Howe never got to play against?

Lemieux was a more dominant player in his prime - as is shown by the normalized points study Daryl Shilling did

I have a ton of respect for Daryl Shilling`s research, but there is one flaw with normalized points in that post-expansion totals are overvalued. Very often it`s easier for the top players to score but the league-wide scoring rate stays low due to new expansion players who can`t score keeping the average down. For example in `92-`93 nhl scoring only increased about 5% over `91-`92, but almost every star player increased their numbers by more than that. In `92 there were only 9 100+ point getters. In `93 there were 21. Sounds like more than a small 5% increase. Two crappy expansion teams made up of guys not good enough to play the year before gave up a lot of goals, but scored little, thereby having minimal effect on the scoring rate used in Normalized points, but bringing down the talent level nonetheless.
There`s no right answer to whether the increase in available talent justified the amount of expansion we`ve seen. Either side of the argument is just opinion. The only way I can think of to measure it is by comparing the players normalized goals year to year and assuming that if the totals go up, it means the quality of opposition went down or vice versa; then thread all the years together I`m trying to work on that system now but it`s extremely time consuming (not to mention boring).

We all know many things and many different types of things that are not reflected in the statistical record. Acknowledging this, a good statistical analyst is sometimes able to reach out and draw areas of the game which were previously undocumented inside the tent, inside the focus of the statistical record. Sabermetrics is sometimes able to invent a way to correct for one or another distortion of the statistical picture

In that vein, one thing to be considered when comparing the scoring totals of two different players is the style of play the team employed. A player who is shackled by a coach who stresses defence is at a disadvantage compared to a player whose coach encourages a wide open attacking style of play. One way to test this is by looking at the teams "marginal goals for" compared to their "marginal goals saved", and see how much of their success, therefore likely their priority as well, was offence or defence.

So for the scoring title years of those two players, I checked what percentage of the teams total marginal goals were defensive goals saved as opposed to offensive goals scored. The lower the teams defensive committment, the better chances a player has to rack up points.

Detroit`s defensive committment:

`51 - 51%
`52 - 53%
`53 - 46%
`54 - 53%
`57 - 55%
`63 - 55%

Pittsburgh`s defensive committment:

`88 - 44%
`89 - 34%
`92 - 35%
`93 - 47%
`96 - 31%
`97 - 33%

Obviously Detroit players were expected to backcheck and protect the lead much more than Pittsburgh`s were. Not saying that necessarily puts Howes numbers ahead of Lemieuxs; just another factor to consider.

 

[Orr]

Mario is the most talented player to ever play the game.

Yes, more than Gretzky or Orr.

Orr is the best player of all-time, followed by Gretzky then Lemieux then Howe.

And that's the extremely short version.

 

[Pens8766]

Sorry fellas, but Mario Lemieux was the most talented player to EVER pla ythe game. More talented then Wayne, Gordie, and Bobby. No one will ever have as much skill as that man. But, he is not the best hockey player because of the many issues he faced. For example, injuries, cancer and WEAK LINEMATES. How many points would Mario in his prime have put up on the 1984 Oilers? I watched Mario put up 199 points with Rob Fricken Brown as his winger. Sorry, but Mario was the most talented hockey player ever, and was a lot better than howe.

 

[Corey]

Awhile back I did a study comparing how players performed in the last year of the Original Six era to the first year of expansion and found that when the league-wide scoring rates and games played were evened out, those players scored about 15% more in the expansion year, which would imply that the overall talent pool decreased by 15% that year.

All years are not equal, the World War II years were weaker quality-wise than the following years, obviously if there were replacement players this season the quality would drop, even though in those cases the number of teams and percentage of Canadian players would be similar.

I bring that up because in the earlier debate about whether the talent is better today than back in the 50s, expansion and its effects weren`t mentioned. Was the increase in available talent offset by the increase in available NHL jobs? Every game Howe played in his prime was against one of the six best goalies in the league, there were other 20 teams in Lemieux`s era, each with two goalies, so sometimes Lemieux was playing against the 30th or 40th best goalie in the league.



100 points is an irrelevant figure because of the differences in games played and scoring rates between the two eras. When Howe hit 100, only two other players did it (Hull and Esposito). On the other hand, in Lemieux`s MVP season in `93 over 20 other players had 100+ points, not all of them were superstars either (Janney, Juneau), so that argument weakens the case for Lemieux more than the case for Howe.



Another way to look at that is to say that some experts have said Howe was the greatest player ever; some say Gretzky, some say Orr while I`ve never heard many who actually saw them all claim Lemieux was the best ever. Unpoular/different opinions don`t necessarily make a list any less reputable.

I`m not trying to argue with you, actually I thought your comments about sabermetrics (sp) and how certain formulas in baseball could be adapted for hockey were quite interesting.



That`s the thing. I`d wager about 70% of the posters here are under 30 and therefore never saw Howe play. Probably another 20% are in their 30s (including myself) and only remember Howe as "the old guy in the WHA". I`m interested in hearing the opinions of the other 10% who are over 40 and saw enough of Howe in his prime to make a comparison. Where`s McPhee and Classic Hockey?

I saw Howe in his prime quite a few times. He was remarkable. Playing with a flat-bladed stick he could switch to shoot lefthanded. He also played defense in a number of games. He had a great body. He was tough as nails and could beat up just about any opponent, although players in those days weren't as big and well-conditioned as they are today. He could be vicious. A former Leaf Dman told me that Howe could carve your eye out with his stick blade and he did all sorts of mean things when the referee's back was turned. If you caught him with a hard check you had better avoid him for the rest of the night. He was not a blazingly fast skater. Various Canadiens could outskate him in every year of his career but that didn't matter much. He passed very well but he was not in the same league as Gretzky or Lemieux. He didn't have the seeing-eye vision of the ice that those two had (and Lemieux still has).

 

[ftyutin51]

Why must there be a thread every other week comparing 2(or more) NHL Players?!?! Can't we just appreciate what each of them did, and try not to degrade them by comparing their stats and awards!! It doesn't matter who was better, because you know there's a very little chance that a player as great as Mario Lemuiex, Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Mark Messier, etc. could beat their records, stats, etc. The only player that we all know of that could break a Gretzky record is Sidney Crosby or Alexander Ovechkin, and their only 18!!

 

[Ogopogo*]

Is that what you understood from my posts? That isn't close to what I was trying to argue.

The facts:

Gordie Howe had better longevity then Lemieux.

Lemieux was a more dominant player in his prime - as is shown by the normalized points study Daryl Shilling did.

The argument Ogopog tries to use about comparing to peer groups is relatively useless because it assumes that all peer groups are the same. This logically is NOT TRUE. There is a much larger group from which NHL players are produced today. Many more countries produce NHL players today. Caqnada produces more players today as its population and the number of people in minor hockey has increased. The minor systems and scouting systems are far more developed today then they were in the past. Does this mean that necessarily all players of today are better then players of the past? Obviously it doesn't. Of course ogopogo is arguing against this argument nobody ever made. It is true that the overall group of NHL players is better today then in the past so it was easier to dominate numerically (without adjusting for these effects). Thats why Gordie Howe may have led the NHL by a higher percentage of points in a season DESPITE Mario Lemieux being a more dominant player.

Ogopogo even seems to agree that Lemieux played with a better group of players then Howe did - at least in as much as he played against Greztky when Howe did not play against anyone as good as Gretzky (at least not in his prime - sure in 1980 they were both in the NHL).

So Mario Lemieux was a more dominant player then Gordie Howe in their primes. Mario did it against a better group of players as well. Gordie had better longevity. So you could make an argument Gordie was better, though I think that was wron but it is a plausable argument.

However, ogopogo's argument that Gordie was more dominant then mario in his prime isw flat out wrong. He only believes it because he is a poor statisitican.



The difference between a good statistical analyst and a poor statistical analyst is that a good statistical analyst ... understands this, and a bad one implicitly denies it.

A good statistical analyst, in studying the statistical record of a baseball season, asks three or four essential questions:
1) What is missing from the picture?
2) What is distorted here, and what is accurately portrayed?
3) How can we include what has been left out?
4) How can we correct what has been distorted?

We all know many things and many different types of things that are not reflected in the statistical record. Acknowledging this, a good statistical analyst is sometimes able to reach out and draw areas of the game which were previously undocumented inside the tent, inside the focus of the statistical record. Sabermetrics is sometimes able to invent a way to correct for one or another distortion of the statistical picture.

The bad statistical anaylst , ot the other hand, will assume that what the statistical tells him must be true and complete- and by making that assumption, will forfeit his ability to add anything significant to the record.

Thats a Bill James quote that explains why ogopogo has a bit to learn to do good statistical analysis.

LOL.

Actually, what this all means is that you have poor comprehension because you cannot grasp the concepts I present.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Sorry fellas, but Mario Lemieux was the most talented player to EVER pla ythe game. More talented then Wayne, Gordie, and Bobby. No one will ever have as much skill as that man. But, he is not the best hockey player because of the many issues he faced. For example, injuries, cancer and WEAK LINEMATES. How many points would Mario in his prime have put up on the 1984 Oilers? I watched Mario put up 199 points with Rob Fricken Brown as his winger. Sorry, but Mario was the most talented hockey player ever, and was a lot better than howe.

Man, do you ever have a lot of research to do.

 

[ClassicHockey]

I can't vote for one or the other because there is no valid comparison - different eras, positions, roles. And in order to make a judgment, both players have to be seen and I don't think there are very many on this site who actually saw Howe play in the 50's. All I can do is give you my thoughts on Gordie Howe as I've studied his play and results.

There is no doubt that in the 50's, Gordie Howe was a dominant player in the league. This was due to his pure athletic and hockey ability. He could do everything and do it well. When I'm watching old games from the 50's & 60's, I see that Howe, especially in the 50's, has a tremendous size advantage. I also know that he was given a wide berth - not because he was a great fighter (because he hardly ever fought) but because he had no conscience on the ice. People seem to think that Howe's rough style was a virtue. But why is that? If any other player did the hit from behind and run tactics, they would be villified. I'm still looking for Howe to actually hit someone face to face, never mind a legal bodycheck. Howe has cut and inflicted serious injury to many players and almost always in a cowardly fashion. But it worked for him as he was given more room on the ice and hence, appeared superior to many other players of the time. But was Howe really 'honest tough' or a dirty player who took advantage of smaller opponents. I think that Howe lacked class by the way he played. Yet people talk about his toughness as if its a virtue.

Howe was past his real prime in the 60's. He was still a great player but not dominant as many people think. And if you analyse 'clutch performance' in the 60's, Howe played very well in the playoffs but not outstanding enough to make a difference. Detroit was in the finals 4 times in 6 years in the 60's and did not win one Stanley Cup. It may be unfair to blame Howe because he probably was checked closely. But in Howe's whole career with Detroit - 1946-72, he did not score even one overtime playoff goal! So, was Howe really a pressure player? Maybe, but not to a great extent if you follow his career.

I think that if you want to make a comparison of who is the better player, you need to stay in the same era and compare the player against his peers. Maurice Richard would be a good candidate for comparison. And you need criteria - skill, toughness, clutch play, leadership etc. I can tell you now that in those categories alone Richard matches or surpasses Gordie Howe.

But comparing Howe to Lemieux is pointless.

I saw Howe in his prime quite a few times. He was remarkable. Playing with a flat-bladed stick he could switch to shoot lefthanded. He also played defense in a number of games. He had a great body. He was tough as nails and could beat up just about any opponent, although players in those days weren't as big and well-conditioned as they are today. He could be vicious. A former Leaf Dman told me that Howe could carve your eye out with his stick blade and he did all sorts of mean things when the referee's back was turned. If you caught him with a hard check you had better avoid him for the rest of the night. He was not a blazingly fast skater. Various Canadiens could outskate him in every year of his career but that didn't matter much. He passed very well but he was not in the same league as Gretzky or Lemieux. He didn't have the seeing-eye vision of the ice that those two had (and Lemieux still has).

 

[emmjayb]

Is that what you understood from my posts? That isn't close to what I was trying to argue.

The facts:

Gordie Howe had better longevity then Lemieux.

Lemieux was a more dominant player in his prime - as is shown by the normalized points study Daryl Shilling did.

The argument Ogopog tries to use about comparing to peer groups is relatively useless because it assumes that all peer groups are the same. This logically is NOT TRUE. There is a much larger group from which NHL players are produced today. Many more countries produce NHL players today. Caqnada produces more players today as its population and the number of people in minor hockey has increased. The minor systems and scouting systems are far more developed today then they were in the past. Does this mean that necessarily all players of today are better then players of the past? Obviously it doesn't. Of course ogopogo is arguing against this argument nobody ever made. It is true that the overall group of NHL players is better today then in the past so it was easier to dominate numerically (without adjusting for these effects). Thats why Gordie Howe may have led the NHL by a higher percentage of points in a season DESPITE Mario Lemieux being a more dominant player.

Ogopogo even seems to agree that Lemieux played with a better group of players then Howe did - at least in as much as he played against Greztky when Howe did not play against anyone as good as Gretzky (at least not in his prime - sure in 1980 they were both in the NHL).

So Mario Lemieux was a more dominant player then Gordie Howe in their primes. Mario did it against a better group of players as well. Gordie had better longevity. So you could make an argument Gordie was better, though I think that was wron but it is a plausable argument.

However, ogopogo's argument that Gordie was more dominant then mario in his prime isw flat out wrong. He only believes it because he is a poor statisitican.



The difference between a good statistical analyst and a poor statistical analyst is that a good statistical analyst ... understands this, and a bad one implicitly denies it.

A good statistical analyst, in studying the statistical record of a baseball season, asks three or four essential questions:
1) What is missing from the picture?
2) What is distorted here, and what is accurately portrayed?
3) How can we include what has been left out?
4) How can we correct what has been distorted?

We all know many things and many different types of things that are not reflected in the statistical record. Acknowledging this, a good statistical analyst is sometimes able to reach out and draw areas of the game which were previously undocumented inside the tent, inside the focus of the statistical record. Sabermetrics is sometimes able to invent a way to correct for one or another distortion of the statistical picture.

The bad statistical anaylst , ot the other hand, will assume that what the statistical tells him must be true and complete- and by making that assumption, will forfeit his ability to add anything significant to the record.

Thats a Bill James quote that explains why ogopogo has a bit to learn to do good statistical analysis.

Yeah, but let's not give Shilling's study TOO much credit, interesting as it may be. In fact, the study has no predictive validity, at least on its face. To have Cy Denneny’s 1924-25 season as the second best of all-time (normalized) when he was, in fact, SECOND HIGHEST SCORER THAT VERY SEASON (having played only one fewer game than the league leader Cecil Dye) shows that your calculations, though interesting, ultimately fail...miserably. In contrast, Gretzky won the scoring title by over 60 points (almost a point per game) over his nearest no less than five times. If that isn’t an indication of dominance in a particular era, then I don’t know what is. Similar, though less pronounced, comparison to Morenz' all-time number one year (according to Shilling).

 

[QuickDynamite]

How many people here have actually seen Howe play? Most people on this site i'm guessing are in their 20's.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Sorry fellas, but Mario Lemieux was the most talented player to EVER pla ythe game. More talented then Wayne, Gordie, and Bobby. No one will ever have as much skill as that man. But, he is not the best hockey player because of the many issues he faced. For example, injuries, cancer and WEAK LINEMATES. How many points would Mario in his prime have put up on the 1984 Oilers? I watched Mario put up 199 points with Rob Fricken Brown as his winger. Sorry, but Mario was the most talented hockey player ever, and was a lot better than howe.

Rob Brown who put up monster offensive numbers in junior and obviously had the talent to put the puck in the net?

Plus Dan Quinn who scored 30 goals even without Mario?

I would venture to say though, that Mario would have put up less points than Gretzky anyway playing with Jarri Kurri and the superstar Mike Krusheylniski...

Of course though, that's not the issue because the Mario vs. Wayne arguments have been done a million times.

I do agree with you though that Mario is the most talented player of all-time. Fact is though, there were a few guys who did more with a lot less. One of those is Howe...

The only way to look at this is Ogopogo's way. If you want to take into account Mario playing against better players, it's only fair to assume that Howe, if playing now, would have access to the new trainging, equipment and medical advances etc.

That's why comparing eras is so difficult.

That's why Ogopogp's method makes so much sense. Judge players against their peer group, it's the only fair way.

 

[Daryl Shilling]

Yeah, but let's not give Shilling's study TOO much credit, interesting as it may be. In fact, the study has no predictive validity, at least on its face. To have Cy Denneny’s 1924-25 season as the second best of all-time (normalized) when he was, in fact, SECOND HIGHEST SCORER THAT VERY SEASON (having played only one fewer game than the league leader Cecil Dye) shows that your calculations, though interesting, ultimately fail...miserably. In contrast, Gretzky won the scoring title by over 60 points (almost a point per game) over his nearest no less than five times. If that isn’t an indication of dominance in a particular era, then I don’t know what is. Similar, though less pronounced, comparison to Morenz' all-time number one year (according to Shilling).

I don't generally do this, but will anyway. Heh.

I'm not sure that Normalized Production's lack of predictive value is much of an issue since that was never its purpose. In fact, I'm not even sure how anybody could even slightly get the idea that attempting to balance out era-specific inequity could be seen as trying to be predictive. Normalized stats don't predict winning lottery numbers, either, but then that's not what it's meant to do.

For what it's worth, the old NPTS standings from over two years ago, that are on my site, are out of date with the progress of the Normalized Production system. In fact, Denneny's 1925 season on that list is a regrettable typo on my part, (he actually comes in 56th with his 1925 season). The revised top 5:

1. Morenz, 1928, 69-104-173
2. Lemieux, 1989, 81-88-169
3. Gretzky, 1985, 67-100-167
4. Gretzky, 1986, 46-120-166
5. Gretzky, 1984, 78-88-166

Daryl

 

[Chili]

Why must there be a thread every other week comparing 2(or more) NHL Players?!?! Can't we just appreciate what each of them did, and try not to degrade them by comparing their stats and awards!! It doesn't matter who was better, because you know there's a very little chance that a player as great as Mario Lemuiex, Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Mark Messier, etc. could beat their records, stats, etc. The only player that we all know of that could break a Gretzky record is Sidney Crosby or Alexander Ovechkin, and their only 18!!

I've said this a few times on here, thanks for restating it.

And how many people on this forum saw Howe in his prime? I didn't. I did see him from about 1965 on, and he was still a dominant player. Lemieux was leading the scoring race not all that long ago.

I enjoy talking about the players but these comparisons often end up stretching the truth to substaniate our own personal bias.

 

[CH]

This is an interesting post and made me think for a while.

Here`s the point I made earlier: what about expansion? As the available talent pool increased so did the number of jobs. So did the overall quality of the league go up? There were only 100 players in the league in Howe`s prime; most people will claim that the 100 best players of Lemieux`s era were better on the whole, but since there were over 400 players in the NHL in Lemieuxs prime, only a small portion of his games were against the top 100. What about the players in the 300-400 range. Lemieux played against them just as much. How many of those guys would`ve been good enough to play in the 6-team league? How much of Lemieux`s success was against the guys on the lower end of that scale, that Howe never got to play against?

I think I need to "haul out" the long version of the effects of expansion. In a steady state, the average team in the NHL adds 1 to 2 players (actually closer to 1) to its roster that are legitimate NHL players (ie will have a career long enough to draw a pension in todays NHL). There were maybe 8 such players added to the league in the original six days each year. There are maybe 40 added each year in todays league. These players exist (plus many more who could have made it but never got the shot). Most players when they first come to the NHL are bad (when compared to NHL players). They have never played in a league that is as fast. Things they could get away with in other leagues do not work here. It takes a while to learn that. To retrain yourself to play the NHL game. Of course a few exceptions exist, those guys tend to go on to play exceptional careers. There have always been overlooked players who could have made the leap to the NHL if they got their chance. Evidence of this are players who became NHL stars but were passed over at least once before entering the NHL at a more advanced age. Today Martin St Louis is one such player. He was undrafted. He was left unsigned by Calgary a few years later. Now he is a Hart trophy winner. In past years, Johnny Bower would be a prime example of one such player. It seems clear that with the number of people playing minor hockey in Canada, Europe, USA and wherever esle producing about 40 players a year who are NHL level is not too hard. They could produce more if there was an opportunity for the other players.

If the NHL expands, there is a period of 1 or 2 years where mopre players are playing who are not NHL calibre. Often in those situations scoring goes up in the league. I am NOT convinced as you claim that the talented players see larger % increases then the less talented guys. I would love to see some kind of evidence for this claim. I imagine that the best test year is 1967/68 because the NHL had doubled in size. I can look at the stats in 66/67 and again in 67/68 and I don't see any evidence for the claim. The best players in the league do not have any increases in their point totals less than the lesser guys.

After the NHL has been expanded for a couple years, any effect is gone. There is no longer a large group of "unqualified NHLers". There have been players found who were given the opportunity to play in the NHL who succeeded and now fill the rosters (of course many more were tried who failed - but that is always the case. Most players who enter the NHL try to play at that level and fail). Expand the NHL by a couple teams and in a couple years there is no discernable difference in the overall talent level of the teams. They gave players the opportunity to play and found some players to fill the extra roster spots. Those players are as good as any other NHL player. It may be counterintuitive, but with the exception of a 1-2 year period after an expansion, there is almost no expansion effect on statistics.

Of course, you could look at things backwards and argue that if we took today's NHL and suddenly condensed it into 6 teams it would be way better in average quality. Of course this is true. But this is not how things happened. If there were only 6 NHL teams today many guys who go on to legitimate NHL careers would never play in the NHL at all. They would never have the opportunity. They would never get to develop.

Now back to Mario Lemieux, since his bigger offensive seasons (in total points) occurred in 1988 and 1989 which was almost a decade since the last expansion, I would argue that expansion is not a significant factor. It is one we can neglect. It doesn't have any significant effect on Mario's level of dominace. In his prime, Mario Lemieux was more dominant then Gordie Howe. That statement stands. Expansion is a red herring.

 

[Snap Wilson]

So for the scoring title years of those two players, I checked what percentage of the teams total marginal goals were defensive goals saved as opposed to offensive goals scored.

Reck, where do you set marginal goals? I've heard a few opinions on the subject, everything from 1.5-1.5 to 0.8-1.8, etc.

 

[Ogopogo*]

When considering that none of us have seen Howe play to make this comparison, what we need to do is consider the eyewitness evidence left behind of Howe's play.

I use a stat I call the Hart index. Based on the ACTUAL voting results for the Hart trophy - WHICH IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES THAT WATCHED NHL HOCKEY EVERY DAY DURING THE SEASONS IN QUESTION - Gordie Howe has a Hart Index of 89 while Mario has a Hart Index of 50.5. That is the word from the eyewitnesses. As a point of interest, Gretzky's Hart index is 81 and Jean Beliveau has a 51. If Mario was healthy...

Point nomalization is interesting but, it does not take into account some critical variables. One example is: how were assists given out in past seasons?

Let's take a look at the 1924-25 season. The top 5 scorers in the league combined for 139 goals but only 52 assists. That is a goal % of 72.8%. Fast forward to Howe's best season of 1952-53. During the 52-53 campaign, the top 5 scorers combined for 155 goals and 190 assists for a goal % of 44.9%. And let's look at Lemieux's best season of 1988-89. The top 5 scorers combined for 323 goals and 464 assists for a goal % of 41.0%.

What does goal % tell us? Assists have been given out a lot more liberally in recent years. IN MARIO'S PRIME IT WAS EASIER TO BE CREDITED WITH AN ASSIST.

The point being that point normalization is inaccurate because Gordie Howe could not possibly accumulate as many assists as Lemieux because it was not as easy to be credited with an assist. If you look at Cy Denneny's time, it is embarrassing how many assists were given out compared to Mario's time.

The rules, the styles of play, the liberalization of assists and many other factors combine to make point normalization a flawed way of comparing players.

The most accurate way is to take a look at each individual season - ALL PLAYERS HAD THE SAME RULES TO DEAL WITH EACH YEAR - and see how a player dominated the league.

Gordie was 30% ahead of the pack in 1951 and 34% ahead of the pack in 1953. Mario's best was 18% in 1989 and 13% in 1988. Again, if we take Gretzky out of the picture for both years, Mario was ahead of #3 by 28%. Still pales in comparison to Howe.

The great players in the history of the NHL were not all born between 1960-1965. The modern era does not have the monopoly on hockey talent. Modern times simply have evolution to thank for the advances. Better equipment, coaching, health, knowledge etc. The fact is HOW YOU DOMINATE YOUR PEERS IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN HOW GREAT YOU ARE. How much better you are than the best players of your time is your legacy of greatness. If a guy could run the 100m in 9.75 while everybody else is running a 9.80, he is likely the greatest sprinter of his era. But, if in the 30s, a guy runs a 10.30 while everybody else is running a 10.50 he is far more dominant than the modern era runner.

Everybody has the same advantages or disadvantages as all players in the season they play in. Comparing how a player dominates his particular peer group is the only fair way to make an accurate comparison. If a player dominates his era by a greater % then he is the more dominant player. It is that simple.

 

[CH]

I use a stat I call the Hart index. Based on the ACTUAL voting results for the Hart trophy - WHICH IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES THAT WATCHED NHL HOCKEY EVERY DAY DURING THE SEASONS IN QUESTION - Gordie Howe has a Hart Index of 89 while Mario has a Hart Index of 50.5. That is the word from the eyewitnesses. As a point of interest, Gretzky's Hart index is 81 and Jean Beliveau has a 51. If Mario was healthy...

You must be inconsistent with yourself. You claim Gretzky is the best player of all time and then try to present some statistic where Howe ranks above Greztky.

Point nomalization is interesting but, it does not take into account some critical variables. One example is: how were assists given out in past seasons?

Point normalization does take into account how many assists are given out. Thats part of the normalization. And for the record the difference between assist rates in the 50's and 80's or 90s is not too big.

The great players in the history of the NHL were not all born between 1960-1965. The modern era does not have the monopoly on hockey talent. Modern times simply have evolution to thank for the advances. Better equipment, coaching, health, knowledge etc. The fact is HOW YOU DOMINATE YOUR PEERS IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN HOW GREAT YOU ARE. How much better you are than the best players of your time is your legacy of greatness. If a guy could run the 100m in 9.75 while everybody else is running a 9.80, he is likely the greatest sprinter of his era. But, if in the 30s, a guy runs a 10.30 while everybody else is running a 10.50 he is far more dominant than the modern era runner.

As has been explained ad naseum, this assumes all peer groups are equal. That assumption is not true. You are assuming Ted Lindsay is as good a player as Wayne Gretzky, which again is inconsistent with your other claims.


Lets apply your stupid method to something else. Movies. In the box office this weekend, Dukes of Hazzard made the most money. They made $30.6 million. Second was Wedding Crashers. They made $16.5 million. Dukes of Hazzard was 46% more dominant.

Now if we pick another weekend maybe July 15th-17th, the number one movie was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It grossed $56.2 million. Second that weekend was Wedding Crashers also. It grossed $33.9 million. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is almost 40% more dominant.

Clearly by your method, Dukes of Hazzard is the more dominant movie. It beat its peer group by a larger margin. It grossed almost half the money of the "less dominant" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in is debut weekend. And guess what? We even have the same movie Wedding Crashers in the peer group of both movies. I hope you see why your logic fails miserably.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Lets apply your stupid method to something else. Movies. In the box office this weekend, Dukes of Hazzard made the most money. They made $30.6 million. Second was Wedding Crashers. They made $16.5 million. Dukes of Hazzard was 46% more dominant.

Now if we pick another weekend maybe July 15th-17th, the number one movie was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It grossed $56.2 million. Second that weekend was Wedding Crashers also. It grossed $33.9 million. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is almost 40% more dominant.

Clearly by your method, Dukes of Hazzard is the more dominant movie. It beat its peer group by a larger margin. It grossed almost half the money of the "less dominant" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in is debut weekend. And guess what? We even have the same movie Wedding Crashers in the peer group of both movies. I hope you see why your logic fails miserably.

Ummm, this doesn't work at all because over the past couple of weeks, the entertainment industry hasn't revolutionized itself and changed dramatically.

You could simply compare these movies straight up, something which you can't do with Gordie and Mario's stats...

 

[CH]

Lets apply your stupid method to something else. Movies. In the box office this weekend, Dukes of Hazzard made the most money. They made $30.6 million. Second was Wedding Crashers. They made $16.5 million. Dukes of Hazzard was 46% more dominant.

Now if we pick another weekend maybe July 15th-17th, the number one movie was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It grossed $56.2 million. Second that weekend was Wedding Crashers also. It grossed $33.9 million. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is almost 40% more dominant.

Clearly by your method, Dukes of Hazzard is the more dominant movie. It beat its peer group by a larger margin. It grossed almost half the money of the "less dominant" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in is debut weekend. And guess what? We even have the same movie Wedding Crashers in the peer group of both movies. I hope you see why your logic fails miserably.

Ummm, this doesn't work at all because over the past couple of weeks, the entertainment industry hasn't revolutionized itself and changed dramatically.

You could simply compare these movies straight up, something which you can't do with Gordie and Mario's stats...

Right. The important thing is this DOESN'T WORK. I showed it doesn't work in a case where everyone can plainly see the result is bunk.

In the hockey case the result is also bunk, but people like ogopogo are having problems seeing this.

 

[Ogopogo*]

You must be inconsistent with yourself. You claim Gretzky is the best player of all time and then try to present some statistic where Howe ranks above Greztky.




Point normalization does take into account how many assists are given out. Thats part of the normalization. And for the record the difference between assist rates in the 50's and 80's or 90s is not too big.



As has been explained ad naseum, this assumes all peer groups are equal. That assumption is not true. You are assuming Ted Lindsay is as good a player as Wayne Gretzky, which again is inconsistent with your other claims.


Lets apply your stupid method to something else. Movies. In the box office this weekend, Dukes of Hazzard made the most money. They made $30.6 million. Second was Wedding Crashers. They made $16.5 million. Dukes of Hazzard was 46% more dominant.

Now if we pick another weekend maybe July 15th-17th, the number one movie was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It grossed $56.2 million. Second that weekend was Wedding Crashers also. It grossed $33.9 million. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is almost 40% more dominant.

Clearly by your method, Dukes of Hazzard is the more dominant movie. It beat its peer group by a larger margin. It grossed almost half the money of the "less dominant" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in is debut weekend. And guess what? We even have the same movie Wedding Crashers in the peer group of both movies. I hope you see why your logic fails miserably.

You are entertaining if nothing else.

The fact that Howe can be ahead of Gretzky in one stat category but Gretzky wins the overall race shouldn't be shocking to you. I have Gretzky as the 5th leading goal scorer of all time . He still ends up #1 overall. When the NHL furnishes me with the additional information I seek, this ranking may change anyway.

Again, you either fail to read my posts or fail to understand them. Either way, your argument that Ted Lindsay and Wayne Gretzky are equals is completely irrelevant. If you actually read my posts you might understand that.

Your movie analogy is flawed. Let me explain to you how it really works.

My NHL analysis is a year to year analysis not a week to week analysis like you did with your movies. Week to week anyone can rack up a lot of points and be the player of the week. One week is far to small of a test sample to provide any kind of accuracy whatsoever.

My method is more like this:

The top grossing movies of all time are:

1. Titanic (1997) $600 million
2. Star Wars (1977) $461 million
3. Shrek 2 (2004) $437 million
4. ET (1982) $433 million
5. Star Wars Episode 1 (1999) $431 million
48. War of the Worlds (2005) $225 million
56. Back to the Future (1985) $210 million
64. Batman Begins (2005) $196 million
78. Grease (1978) $181 million

Now, when you look at that list, it is VERY obvious something is wrong. Much like looking at the all time scoring list in the NHL, many players that are near the top don't belong.

The problem with movies is that these are real dollars. We have to account for inflation and the fact that a movie ticket is now $7-$15 when it was $2-$5 only 20 years ago. There is no way that older movies have a chance to be at the top of this list because the value of a dollar is not what it used to be. Honestly, Shrek 2 the 3rd biggest movie of all time???? War of the Worlds in the top 50? Unless you adjust for the obvious flaws, this list is useless.

Now, let's look at the list adjusted for inflation:

1. Gone with the Wind
2. Star Wars
3. The Sound of Music
4. ET
5. The Ten Commandments
6. Titanic
20. Star Wars Episode 1
27. Shrek 2
29. Grease
57. Back to the Future

War of the Worlds and Batman Begins are nowhere to be found in the top 100.

So, my methods are more like saying that Gone With the Wind grossing $10 million at the box office in 1939, beat the #2 movie The Wizard of Oz which grossed $6 million, by 67%. That is more impressive than 2004 when Shrek 2 beat Spiderman 2 by $436 million to $373 million because that was only by 17%. Greatness is year to year not week to week.

Inflation has made the dollars worth less today so the $436 million of Shrek 2 tells us virtually nothing in comparison to the 1939 dollars. My methods equalize the eras much like this.

So, when you see what the numbers really mean, it gives you greater understanding as to how great NHL players were. My methods do exactly that.

I don't think you are reading my posts because you certainly do not understand what I am doing.

 

[Corey]

Retrospective statistical analyses are meaningless. They're for baseball fanatics. Howe played for the Red Wings when they were dominant and he always had great linemates. Yet when the Canadiens reinforced themselves with top players in the mid to late 1950s Howe was never on a Cup-winning team again.

Sure, Lemieux didn't have his longevity, but he came close to all of Howe's scoring records very quickly despite years off for recovery from cancer, back problems, and retirement. If Howe were playing today the closest comparison would be with Jarome Iginla, excerpt that Iginla isn't nearly as dirty and is a better skater, although not as vcersatile or as good a stickhandler.

 

[Corey]

Retrospective statistical analyses are meaningless. They're for baseball fanatics. Howe played for the Red Wings when they were dominant and he always had great linemates. Yet when the Canadiens reinforced themselves with top players in the mid to late 1950s Howe was never on a Cup-winning team again.

Sure, Lemieux didn't have his longevity, but he came close to all of Howe's scoring records very quickly despite years off for recovery from cancer, back problems, and retirement. If Howe were playing today the closest comparison would be with Jarome Iginla, excerpt that Iginla isn't nearly as dirty and is a better skater, although not as versatile or as good a stickhandler.

 

[Chili]

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates

.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Retrospective statistical analyses are meaningless. They're for baseball fanatics. Howe played for the Red Wings when they were dominant and he always had great linemates. Yet when the Canadiens reinforced themselves with top players in the mid to late 1950s Howe was never on a Cup-winning team again.

Sure, Lemieux didn't have his longevity, but he came close to all of Howe's scoring records very quickly despite years off for recovery from cancer, back problems, and retirement. If Howe were playing today the closest comparison would be with Jarome Iginla, excerpt that Iginla isn't nearly as dirty and is a better skater, although not as vcersatile or as good a stickhandler.

This is why the debate. I don't think anyone is claiming Gordie had more natural talent (gifted though he was) than Mario, just that he was better all around and/or better career.
I think career wise is a slam dunk for Gordie (at this point but Mario has a long way to go on that one) but better all around in prime is debatable, mostly because, even in his prime Mario had problems and Gordie was both gifted and game every night.
Someone mentioned Gordie had Mahovlich and Delvecchio in the sixties. Yes, these guys were awesome players and certainly Gordie benefitted from playing with them.
But look at it another way. Both these guys were in there primes, when Gordie was in what would be for anyone else their "twilight years", and Gordie was head and shoulders above them, not just on his reputation but his play on the ice.

That said I would absolutely love to see Mario put in a healthy year at 40 and win the scoring race. That would be amazing because Gordie was only third.

 

[chooch*]

"The fact is HOW YOU DOMINATE YOUR PEERS IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN HOW GREAT YOU ARE."

How do you define "domination"?

Winning a scoring race by 60 points? Thats nonsense.

How about dominating the game of hockey?

I was rewatching the Challenge Cup Game 1 the other day - the best of 1979 NHL v. Soviets Nationals. One player thoroughly dominated the play and totally stood out and thats in a game with the best in the word (even the swedes suited up for the NHL).

That player, Lafleur, and Mario are the only players who have "dominated" in the past 30 years.

You can take all the Hart votes and scoring titles in run and gun divisions and they dont mean "domination".

Gretzky never dominated the play in games and neither did Bossy or Dionne (both of whom basically sucked in the game I rewatched) or Trottier or Sittler or Perrealt etc.

Just one game, i know, but it certainly confirmed what I remember.