Gordie Howe's offensive ceiling

[VanIslander]

When you died, if God said you had one chance to live again and you had to choose a hockey player to play for your reincarnation.

Who would you choose over Gordie Howe?

(Richard for maniac play? Hasek for unbelievable stops? Does Gretzky have the intensity? Orr the health reliability?)

 

[wetcoast]

Threads like this one usually turn into some version of “let’s shit on Gordie Howe largely because he’s a fossil.”

Howe could have out-produced his competition by 1000% and it would not matter to some people.

His era gets attacked (nobody specifies if that would be the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, or the early-80s, so it must be all 5).

The “small O6 league” gets attacked (newsflash: Howe played the last 11 seasons of his pro career post-expansion and during a period when there were more professional NHL/WHA teams than at any point in history).

The absence of non-Canadians gets attacked (nobody can name more than 2 or 3 Euros who could have played in the NHL during the 1950s, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good narrative).

Of course, the goaltending “during Howe’s day” gets attacked, the lack of player size and strength gets attacked, and the supposedly “slow game” gets attacked. If none of those stick, the final fallback position is that Howe’s style of play wouldn’t even be allowed today and he’d live in the box or on the suspension list.

It’s all just so tiresome.

Wondering why you are using the word attatcked when it's context.

People might disagree and no one is arguing the non Canadians during Howe s time nor do they ever so this is a strawman.

It was nearly 100% all Canadians with literally zero influence from either coastal region as well.

The context is that hockey has evolved and the NHL now has (and has had since the 90's ) a very high elite level of elite players in top positions across the board since then so it's a different context.

For what it is worth Howe is the 3rd best hockey player of all time and it's a fairly large gap to #4 be it Mario or anyone else.

 

[wetcoast]

When you died, if God said you had one chance to live again and you had to choose a hockey player to play for your reincarnation.

Who would you choose over Gordie Howe?

(Richard for maniac play? Hasek for unbelievable stops? Does Gretzky have the intensity? Orr the health reliability?)

Gretzky...because of Janet of course.

 

[Dingo]

Gretzky...because of Janet of course.

id probably be Robitaille, if we are going that direction.

 

[VanIslander]

Gretzky...because of Janet of course.

Go directly to hell. Do not pass go.

 

[Iapyi]

I go with Option 4. I could see any option but #1 as a strong possibility.

I would also echo the sentiment of the posters who say that Mario should not be lumped in with Gretzky. Gretzky was clearly a tier above every other player in history.

Please go start your own thread to discuss this opinion as was asked in the OP. Thanks in advance.

Thank you very much. The poster you quoted with this post is clearly attempting to threadjack/OT.

 

[Iapyi]

Threads like this one usually turn into some version of “let’s shit on Gordie Howe largely because he’s a fossil.”

Howe could have out-produced his competition by 1000% and it would not matter to some people.

His era gets attacked (nobody specifies if that would be the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, or the early-80s, so it must be all 5).

The “small O6 league” gets attacked (newsflash: Howe played the last 11 seasons of his pro career post-expansion and during a period when there were more professional NHL/WHA teams than at any point in history).

The absence of non-Canadians gets attacked (nobody can name more than 2 or 3 Euros who could have played in the NHL during the 1950s, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good narrative).

Of course, the goaltending “during Howe’s day” gets attacked, the lack of player size and strength gets attacked, and the supposedly “slow game” gets attacked. If none of those stick, the final fallback position is that Howe’s style of play wouldn’t even be allowed today and he’d live in the box or on the suspension list.

It’s all just so tiresome.

Thank you so much for this post. It outlines the narrow mindset of so many "fans" who can't think beyond their own personal bias.

 

[MadLuke]

There is no argument for this statistically. That you have listed no other players from before 1990, I am assuming you are biased towards modern players.

For the poll though, Option 4 would be the choice.

I would say that yes, those player std deviation among the top 10 of their time was higher and that without starting to argue that their top 10 was better (that in part included maybe fully by the large std dev you see in Howe time anyway)

Imagine thinking the top10 in a worldwide superleague is equal to being top10 in a small local league which the NHL undoubtedly was in the 50s.
Imagine thinking some random guy called "Paul Ronty" was equal to Pavel Bure.

I am no statistician but I think the fact that Paul Ronty is not equal to Pavel Bure do show up by him scoring only 67% of the points of the number 2 while Bure is above 80%, which lead to an higher standard deviation and the reason why Howe score I did is lower than Jagr score.

In terms of % behind the #1/2 scorers, a player who finished 10th in scoring in Jagr-Crosby-McDavid's era is statistically the same as a player who finished 5th in the O6.

In terms of % behind the #1/2 scorers, a player who finished 5th in scoring in Jagr-Crosby-McDavid's era is statistically the same as a player who finished 3rd in the O6.

I think you need to adjust your numbers to reflect this.

That fact is backing in (in part if not fully) here, that why I am using the stddev above average number, which make a player playing in a less debt talent era having to outscore the average much more to separate himself than in a packed field.

I am not sure I need to adjust my numbers even more, has Jagr-McDavid-Crosby score higher (by just a tiny little margin of error type, but still higher) than Howe with the current one without having to dominate the average by the same amount already, because the top 10 scorer is much stronger in theirs era.

 

[Overrated]

I go with Option 4. I could see any option but #1 as a strong possibility.

I would also echo the sentiment of the posters who say that Mario should not be lumped in with Gretzky. Gretzky was clearly a tier above every other player in history.



Thank you very much. The poster you quoted with this post is clearly attempting to threadjack/OT.

if you adjust that 199 point season (it was a slightly lower scoring year than what the early to mid 80s showed) Mario's PPG for that year goes above every single Gretzky's season

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think that it's possible he was as good offensively as Gretzky and Lemieux before his injury in 1954-55.

But I think it's more likely that he was just a bit below them.

So do I vote for #1 or #2? This is about "ceiling"

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He was a top-5 scorer for 20 consecutive f*****' seasons.

Then he jumped to the WHA to make more coin.

The NHL ceiling was too low to showcase his talents to the fullest.

He came out of retirement into the WHA to play with his sons.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This may sound like a foolish way to think of things but to me, if the top 30 offensive players ever were placed in one league on separate teams with exactly equal team support, I'd expect Gretzky to finish first in scoring, Lemieux to finish second if he plays enough games, and then probably Howe. But I'm a lot more confident in Gretzky and healthy Lemieux finishing first and second than I am that Howe finishes third. I am confident that Howe would have a better season outside of offence than anyone who might finish ahead of him.

If it were a six team league and all the best defensemen ever were included also, and the equipment was the same for everyone and the teams balanced (Orr on a different team), I'm not so sure Gretzky and Mario would outscore Gordie period.

 

[VanIslander]

He came out of retirement into the WHA to play with his sons.

Yes, (after 20 years of top-5 production in the NHL and a year removed) he immediately scored 100 points in the WHA and was the 1st team all star.

Bowman said Howe was the perfect hockey player because he had it all: the feet, the hands and the brains.

Years later, 49-year-old Howe led the Whalers in scoring with 96 points in 76 games, though the team lost the cup final.

 

[blogofmike]

if you adjust that 199 point season (it was a slightly lower scoring year than what the early to mid 80s showed) Mario's PPG for that year goes above every single Gretzky's season

Nope.

Using hockey reference adjusted points:

AdjPts Per Game
Gretzky 84 - 2.20
Lemieux 89 - 2.17

And that's without any accounting for the 89 Pens having an extra 2 PP chances per game over the Oilers, which is huge since Lemieux never touched Gretzky as an even strength scorer.

Most ES Points in a Season
Gretzky 82 - 147
Gretzky 85 - 146
Gretzky 86 - 143
Gretzky 84 - 135
Gretzky 83 - 132
Gretzky 87 - 124
Gretzky 81 - 104
Lafleur 77 - 104
Gretzky 91 - 103
Lemieux 89 - 102

I wouldn't say peak Howe had Gretzky's level of dominance over his peers, but it was as impressive as any other player in history. Howe's 70 ES points in 70 games was possibly the highest total of the pre-expansion era (Boston's low PP goal counting may be what put Herb Cain officially at 74 in a WW2 impacted 1945 season.)

 

[TheEye]

If it were a six team league and all the best defensemen ever were included also, and the equipment was the same for everyone and the teams balanced (Orr on a different team), I'm not so sure Gretzky and Mario would outscore Gordie period.

GREATNESS CONFIRMED

Gretzky certainly doesn't run on iron. When his blood was tested near the end of last season, he was found to be close to anemia. Yet there he was playing with a bunch of guys like Lumley and Kurri and Callighen—talented players but hardly stars—and taking us to scoring heights never imagined. Along the way this nearly anemic wunderkind-next-door shattered Rocket Richard's mark of 50 goals in 50 games, probably the most hallowed record in hockey. It had stood since 1945 and had been equaled only once, by Bossy in 1980-81. Gretzky, who sets up many more goals than he scores, many more than Richard or Bossy ever set up, got his 50th goal last season in his 39th game. Afterward, Richard, who seldom praises modern players, said, "I have now seen Gretzky enough to say that in whatever decade he played, he would've been the scoring champion."

That sure is a lot of ifs......but in this case, I'll still chose to believe in Maurice Richard's opinion over yours.

 

[daver]

I think that it's possible he was as good offensively as Gretzky and Lemieux before his injury in 1954-55.

But I think it's more likely that he was just a bit below them.

So do I vote for #1 or #2? This is about "ceiling"

What throws a bit of cold water on this is the fact that after 53/54, other players started hitting his peak numbers (Beliveau, Moore).

Yes, these were players on the powerhouse Habs team but the '50 to '54 Wings were the 2nd best team of the decade.

Yes, league GPG went up in the 2nd half of the 50's, again perhaps influenced by the Habs (the 57/58 version scored an unusually high amount of goals). Or any other statistical anomalies given it was a six team league (the 53/54 Hawks scored an unusually low amount of goals).

Howe, IMO, put up one season that was untouchable by his direct era peers (53/54). His other Art Ross wins during his peak are arguably gettable by peak Beliveau, Hull and Mikita.

Wayne and Mario's multiple peak seasons were even more untouchable than Howe's one peak season.

I am not against the argument that Wayne, Orr and Mario's numbers are a bit inflated due to the era they played in (when the league expanded five fold) but not nearly enough to overcome the clear statistical superiority they have over Howe.

It can be argued that Crosby (on a per game basis), McDavid's first six years, and Jagr's 7 year peak, all give Howe a run for his money when examined under the same metric. Obviously, raw numbers and scoring placements clearly place him front of Crosby and McDavid, and longevity of prime place him clearly ahead of Jagr.

 

[Overrated]

Nope.

Using hockey reference adjusted points:

AdjPts Per Game
Gretzky 84 - 2.20
Lemieux 89 - 2.17

And that's without any accounting for the 89 Pens having an extra 2 PP chances per game over the Oilers, which is huge since Lemieux never touched Gretzky as an even strength scorer.

Most ES Points in a Season
Gretzky 82 - 147
Gretzky 85 - 146
Gretzky 86 - 143
Gretzky 84 - 135
Gretzky 83 - 132
Gretzky 87 - 124
Gretzky 81 - 104
Lafleur 77 - 104
Gretzky 91 - 103
Lemieux 89 - 102

I wouldn't say peak Howe had Gretzky's level of dominance over his peers, but it was as impressive as any other player in history. Howe's 70 ES points in 70 games was possibly the highest total of the pre-expansion era (Boston's low PP goal counting may be what put Herb Cain officially at 74 in a WW2 impacted 1945 season.)

OK you are right hockey reference puts Gretzky's 83-84 above Lemieux's 88-89 year. They however put Lemieux's 95-96 even above that.

 

[bobholly39]

Hesitated between options 3 and 4, and I eventually voted 3. Top after Gretzky and Lemieux, but not a huge gap above the field. But - I could also see him not be at the top.

'Peak McDavid' last season paced for ~150 points. Unique division format, and short season, so let's see next year how he fares and maybe put that into proper context, but there's a very good chance that season ends up being as amazing as it looks on the surface.
Crosby in 2010-2011 was fantastic
Jagr has seasons up there.

Probably a couple more.

This may sound like a foolish way to think of things but to me, if the top 30 offensive players ever were placed in one league on separate teams with exactly equal team support, I'd expect Gretzky to finish first in scoring, Lemieux to finish second if he plays enough games, and then probably Howe. But I'm a lot more confident in Gretzky and healthy Lemieux finishing first and second than I am that Howe finishes third. I am confident that Howe would have a better season outside of offence than anyone who might finish ahead of him.

To steal your premise, and add to my point. If we take the top 30 players of all-time and put them at even settings and said "go" - I'd bet:

1. Gretzky scores most points. In fact if you repeat that season 10x in a row (imagine no ageing) - he tops scoring all 10x. Or at least, is super consistent at the top, with Mario possibly topping him a few times.

2. Lemieux is a bit of a wildcard. Very, very close to Gretzky at the top. He might even top him a few times if we ran this 10x- possibly by a good bit once or twice. But less consistent. Consistently above anyone else, but if Gretzky were to hit ~205-210 every year, Lemieux likely goes from ~180 to 220, ups and downs. Probably has most goals though.

3. Howe is most likely to finish 3rd - but any of Crosby, McDavid, Jagr could top him. Don't think Ovechkin or Lafleur quite have that overall offense to be there too at that level, nor Esposito. Don't know if I'm forgetting anyone else obvious, but those are the 3 names that come to mind about possibly topping Howe at their absolute bests.

Howe is also talented enough offensively that if Lemieux has one of his 'down/inconsistent' years and barely scratches 180 points, and if Howe has his absolutely best of the best ever season - Howe could maybe top/pace that.

 

[blogofmike]

OK you are right hockey reference puts Gretzky's 83-84 above Lemieux's 88-89 year. They however put Lemieux's 95-96 even above that.

True, but that's a year where his per games are helped by intentionally sitting out back to backs on the road on top of 1996 already being highly overvalued in adjusted points with 6 guys "scoring" over 110. That's more players over 110 than any other season in history and giving 6 guys credit for equalling or surpassing McDavid's 2017 and 2018 Art Rosses. Being better than McDavid is a pretty high opinion to have of 1996 Ron Francis.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

GREATNESS CONFIRMED
Gretzky certainly doesn't run on iron. When his blood was tested near the end of last season, he was found to be close to anemia. Yet there he was playing with a bunch of guys like Lumley and Kurri and Callighen—talented players but hardly stars—and taking us to scoring heights never imagined. Along the way this nearly anemic wunderkind-next-door shattered Rocket Richard's mark of 50 goals in 50 games, probably the most hallowed record in hockey. It had stood since 1945 and had been equaled only once, by Bossy in 1980-81. Gretzky, who sets up many more goals than he scores, many more than Richard or Bossy ever set up, got his 50th goal last season in his 39th game. Afterward, Richard, who seldom praises modern players, said, "I have now seen Gretzky enough to say that in whatever decade he played, he would've been the scoring champion."
That sure is a lot of ifs......but in this case, I'll still chose to believe in Maurice Richard's opinion over yours.

Can't blame you for that.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

id probably be Robitaille, if we are going that direction.

Charlie Simmer?

 

[Nathaniel]

Howe was losing to Moore among other players. Lemieux and Gretzky could miss 30 games and the Art Ross was still theirs. It's not close imo. Lemieux and Gretzky would battle it out year by year and leave every other player in the dust. Jagr who is one of the top offensive players of all time couldn't come close to lemieux. That tells you all you need to know

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What throws a bit of cold water on this is the fact that after 53/54, other players started hitting his peak numbers (Beliveau, Moore).

Yes, these were players on the powerhouse Habs team but the '50 to '54 Wings were the 2nd best team of the decade.

Yes, league GPG went up in the 2nd half of the 50's, again perhaps influenced by the Habs (the 57/58 version scored an unusually high amount of goals). Or any other statistical anomalies given it was a six team league (the 53/54 Hawks scored an unusually low amount of goals).

Howe, IMO, put up one season that was untouchable by his direct era peers (53/54). His other Art Ross wins during his peak are arguably gettable by peak Beliveau, Hull and Mikita.

Wayne and Mario's multiple peak seasons were even more untouchable than Howe's one peak season.

I am not against the argument that Wayne, Orr and Mario's numbers are a bit inflated due to the era they played in (when the league expanded five fold) but not nearly enough to overcome the clear statistical superiority they have over Howe.

It can be argued that Crosby (on a per game basis), McDavid's first six years, and Jagr's 7 year peak, all give Howe a run for his money when examined under the same metric. Obviously, raw numbers and scoring placements clearly place him front of Crosby and McDavid, and longevity of prime place him clearly ahead of Jagr.

The lack of acknowledgement of Howe's injury in 54-55 - an injury that brought him from dominating league scoring for 4 straight years at a level never seen again until Gretzky, to barely beating out Dutch Reibel and Red Sullivan on a PPG basis (for that year) - is really apparent in the "Howe's early 50s peak was overrated because Beliveau later joined the league" argument.

I know Howe only missed 6 games in 54-55, but his scoring tanked: 1954-55 NHL Skater Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com. That was the only year someone other than Howe led the Red Wings in scoring for something like 20 consecutive seasons. Howe rebounded somewhat in later years, but was never the same.

I wish I had better proof that Howe's 54-55 injury slowed him down permanently, but it sure looks like it did.

I mean, I think Howe got more relative help from his teammates (including not having to face peak Sawchuk for 20% of his games) than Lemieux or even Gretzky did, which is why I think he wasn't quite on their level offensively. But the "but Beliveau" argument against Howe is frankly ridiculous.

 

[daver]

I know Howe only missed 6 games in 54-55, but his scoring tanked: 1954-55 NHL Skater Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com. That was the only year someone other than Howe led the Red Wings in scoring for something like 20 consecutive seasons. Howe rebounded somewhat in later years, but was never the same.

I wish I had better proof that Howe's 54-55 injury slowed him down permanently, but it sure looks like it did.

I mean, I think Howe got more relative help from his teammates (including not having to face peak Sawchuk for 20% of his games) than Lemieux or even Gretzky did, which is why I think he wasn't quite on their level offensively. But the "but Beliveau" argument against Howe is frankly ridiculous.

He certainly was in the playoffs. There is no indication that he wasn't as good in the playoffs after his injury than he was before.

And it isn't just "but Beliveau", it is "but Hull" and "but Mikita" who also had peak seasons that matched Howe's best (save for 52/53).

Placing him just below Wayne/Mario is overrating him, IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He certainly was in the playoffs. There is no indication that he wasn't as good in the playoffs after his injury than he was before.

And it isn't just "but Beliveau", it is "but Hull" and "but Mikita" who also had peak seasons that matched Howe's best (save for 52/53).

Placing him just below Wayne/Mario is overrating him, IMO.

So what is the explanation for why older Maurice Richard suddenly started keeping pace with Gordie Howe, after getting blown away by him previously?

Why did Howe not lead his own (less stacked) team in scoring by the margins he used to?

I'm assuming you are using Howe's linemate Ted Lindsay as a standard #2 when you say others had seasons similar to Howe's 4 year peak? I'm skeptical as to whether Lindsay puts up those totals in a more normal situation. (If we are to, in fact, take Lindsay's totals at face value, then he was vastly underrated on this board's ranking project).