Gordie Howe's offensive ceiling

[Nathaniel]

You use the word "raw" incorrectly. When you have 64 imaginary points, I think you have to say projected domination.

When you have 12 more points than the second leading scorers with 24 less games played. Raw domination can only be used. If howe missed 24 games In any of his big years you think he wins by that or heck even wins?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

When you have 12 more points than the second leading scorers with 24 less games played. Raw domination can only be used. If howe missed 24 games In any of his big years you think he wins by that or heck even wins?

Yes, in any of his 1st 4 Ross wins.

1951: 86 points, 20 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 30.3%
1952: 86 points, 17 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 24.6%
1953: 95 points, 24 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 33.8%
1954: 81 points, 14 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 20.0%

Btw, in those 4 seasons, 2nd place was Rocket Richard, Ted Lindsay, Ted Lindsay and Rocket Richard in order. No knock on Pat Lafontaine...but there's a bit more oomph behind beating Richard and Lindsay by such margins

 

[blogofmike]

When you have 12 more points than the second leading scorers with 24 less games played. Raw domination can only be used. If howe missed 24 games In any of his big years you think he wins by that or heck even wins?

He could have missed 19 games in 1953 and won the Ross, but that's against his own linemate who may have been boosted a little by playing with Howe.

He could have won the Ross on a tiebreaker vs Richard if he missed the last 24 games, even if it was a 70 game season.

NHL Stats

 

[Nathaniel]

Yes, in any of his 1st 4 Ross wins.

1951: 86 points, 20 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 30.3%
1952: 86 points, 17 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 24.6%
1953: 95 points, 24 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 33.8%
1954: 81 points, 14 more than 2nd. Beat 2nd by 20.0%

Btw, in those 4 seasons, 2nd place was Rocket Richard, Ted Lindsay, Ted Lindsay and Rocket Richard in order. No knock on Pat Lafontaine...but there's a bit more oomph behind beating Richard and Lindsay by such margins

Okay now take out 24 games and he wins 0

 

[Nathaniel]

He could have missed 19 games in 1953 and won the Ross, but that's against his own linemate who may have been boosted a little by playing with Howe.

He could have won the Ross on a tiebreaker vs Richard if he missed the last 24 games, even if it was a 70 game season.

NHL Stats

Tie breaker? 12 points and a tie breaker are completely different thing

 

[blogofmike]

Tie breaker? 12 points and a tie breaker are completely different thing

You're trying to look at it in a way the benefits Lemieux.

It's a 70 game season, not an 84 game season. It's easier to make up for lost games in a longer season.

To look at it the other way, Howe could have beaten Richard on a tiebreaker after 46 games. Lemieux would have 118 points after 46 games in 1993 and been nowhere near an Art Ross. Lemieux would have been outside the top 10.

But that's unfair to Lemieux in the same way that looking at games missed is unfair to Howe.

It's also why Gretzky a level beyond. In 1984 Gretzky would have won the Ross 42 games in (beating Howe 1953 despite the league having fewer games to catch Howe), meaning he could have won the Ross by missing 38 games (with Gretzky finishing #1 and Lemieux not making the Top 10, despite Lemieux 1993 playing a larger share of the season than Gretzky would have.)

 

[UseTheBoards]

Hot take. Gordie adapts to the style of play better than Mario and uses his size/skill to set up his office in front of the net making high scoring plays in high danger areas. I know Mario would go there too, but Gordie would simply overwhelm him in terms of his ability to do it with impunity. Wayne stays ahead because of his playmaking and use of his office.

Edit- basically if the league started again today I would expect the 'greatest players' rankings to look like this in 50 years.
Wayne + Bobby
-
Gordie + Mario + Jagr
-
-
-
Everyone else.

 

[daver]

Bumping this thread as Howe's relative dominance is being questioned in the other thread.

 

[daver]

Here is what we know statistically:

Howe

By age 21, he had gave notice he was a potential star with Top 3 points/PPG finishes and an impressive playoff in 1949. Ages 22 to 25 saw him hit levels never seen before in terms of statistical domination over his peers, most notably in 52/53. Ages 26 to 41 saw him effectively match Beliveau's offensive numbers who was aged 23 to age 38.

His peak playoff run is in 54/55. One can argue it is inferior to Beliveau's peak playoff run but his other best playoff runs are clearly superior to Beliveau's.


Beliveau

His peak season in 55/56 is statistically similar to Howe's 53/54 season in terms of dominance vs. #5, #10, #20 (and Howe's 50/51 and 51/52 season). He has another dominant PPG in 58/59 but not as impressive as 55/56 while missing a few games and on one the most offensively potent Habs team of the era. I would say it is a clear tier below his 55/56 season and thus can be concluded that, in terms of per game proction, he had ONE season that matched Howe's #2. #3 and #4 seasons.

His playoff peak playoff run happened the same year and is similar to Howe's peak, argubly superior.

I think it can be argued that like Beliveau, Mikita (66/67) and Hull (65/66) also put up ONE season that matched Howe's #2, #3, and #4 season. but did not get close to that level again, and that Mikita put up a peak playoff run that matches Beliveau and Howe.


For those who want to argue that despite an obvious difference in statistical dominance, Howe was on the same tier as Beliveau offensively based on their head to head production from 1955 onwards, the most obvious question to answer is:

How can you explain that Howe's 53/54 season, argubly #4 best of his career, matches Beliveau's lone peak season a mere two years later?

There were many of the same players in the Top Ten scoring/PPG (min. 40 games) in 53/54 that were in the Top 10 Top Ten scoring/PPG (min. 40 games) in 55/56:

Beliveau
Geoffrian
Richard
Lindsay
Olmstead
Riebel

What evidence shows that shows the league was "better" in 55/56 compared to 53/54?

 

[Staniowski]

Of the players I've seen play (which is just about everybody since 1950):

Gretzky and Lemieux are easily the 2 best scorers.

I'd say the next best are (in chronological order) Makarov, Jagr, McDavid.

I don't think Howe would outscore any of those 5 players.

I basically agree with what I wrote a few years ago.

More specifically, though, I'd say Lemieux is the best scorer ever, Gretzky #2, and Howe not in the top 10.

Still agree with Makarov, Jagr, and McDavid. If they aren't the next three after Lemieux and Gretzky, they are very close. There's several others, including Kucherov and MacKinnon, who are fairly close.

 

[solidmotion]

I basically agree with what I wrote a few years ago.

More specifically, though, I'd say Lemieux is the best scorer ever, Gretzky #2, and Howe not in the top 10.

Still agree with Makarov, Jagr, and McDavid. If they aren't the next three after Lemieux and Gretzky, they are very close. There's several others, including Kucherov and MacKinnon, who are fairly close.

does anybody from the O6 make your list?

 

[Staniowski]

does anybody from the O6 make your list?

I don't have a list. As mentioned, I think Lemieux and Gretzky are the two best scorers, and Makarov, Jagr, and McDavid are perhaps the next three (in some order), but certainly among the top 7 or 8.

You would expect little representation among O6 players given it's only 25 years, and only about half of that was decently strong. So 12 years out of hockey history is not very much. And the depth of talent is much greater post-O6.

 

[daver]

I don't have a list. As mentioned, I think Lemieux and Gretzky are the two best scorers, and Makarov, Jagr, and McDavid are perhaps the next three (in some order), but certainly among the top 7 or 8.

You would expect little representation among O6 players given it's only 25 years, and only about half of that was decently strong. So 12 years out of hockey history is not very much. And the depth of talent is much greater post-O6.

Four of your Top 5 played in a 25 year period.

 

[Staniowski]

Four of your Top 5 played in a 25 year period.

Yes, a MUCH more talent-rich period.

 

[solidmotion]

Yes, a MUCH more talent-rich period.

so to be clear, you just don't think that howe, hull, beliveau et al were very talented? what is this based on?

 

[overpass]

For those who want to argue that despite an obvious difference in statistical dominance, Howe was on the same tier as Beliveau offensively based on their head to head production from 1955 onwards, the most obvious question to answer is:

How can you explain that Howe's 53/54 season, argubly #4 best of his career, matches Beliveau's lone peak season a mere two years later?

Performance within team context, especially depth at the position

1953-54 Wings RWs
Gordie Howe - 81 points
Other Wings RWs - 59 points (Prystai 27, Dineen 25, Stasiuk 7)

1955-56 Habs Cs
Beliveau - 88 points
Other Habs Cs - 84 points (Richard 40, Mosdell 30, Leclair 14)

Based on the above, it's likely that Beliveau outscored Howe despite playing less ice time in these seasons.

Beliveau may well have peaked statistically in 55-56 in part because it was the weakest season for centre depth behind him. Henri was a 19 year old rookie at a time when teenagers could rarely make the league. Mosdell was 33 and in his final full season.

Henri scored 50+ points in the next 11 seasons, and Backstrom and Goyette emerged as Montreal's #3 and #4 centres, both of whom peaked as top 10 scorers in the league when given the chance. Montreal's whole team was built around strength down centre for most of Beliveau's prime. It's not surprising that Beliveau was less dominant in the scoring race while playing 20 minutes or less per game.

And if you look at those Detroit rosters and their lack of RW depth (next to non-existent between Prystai/Leswick and F.Smith/MacGregor), it looks very likely that Howe was playing 25 or more minutes per game.

 

[Staniowski]

so to be clear, you just don't think that howe, hull, beliveau et al were very talented? what is this based on?

On the contrary, I think Howe, Beliveau, and Hull were very talented players. Of the three, I especially like Howe's game.

 

[JackSlater]

Performance within team context, especially depth at the position

1953-54 Wings RWs
Gordie Howe - 81 points
Other Wings RWs - 59 points (Prystai 27, Dineen 25, Stasiuk 7)

1955-56 Habs Cs
Beliveau - 88 points
Other Habs Cs - 84 points (Richard 40, Mosdell 30, Leclair 14)

Based on the above, it's likely that Beliveau outscored Howe despite playing less ice time in these seasons.

Beliveau may well have peaked statistically in 55-56 in part because it was the weakest season for centre depth behind him. Henri was a 19 year old rookie at a time when teenagers could rarely make the league. Mosdell was 33 and in his final full season.

Henri scored 50+ points in the next 11 seasons, and Backstrom and Goyette emerged as Montreal's #3 and #4 centres, both of whom peaked as top 10 scorers in the league when given the chance. Montreal's whole team was built around strength down centre for most of Beliveau's prime. It's not surprising that Beliveau was less dominant in the scoring race while playing 20 minutes or less per game.

And if you look at those Detroit rosters and their lack of RW depth (next to non-existent between Prystai/Leswick and F.Smith/MacGregor), it looks very likely that Howe was playing 25 or more minutes per game.

My sense of Beliveau, in terms of his stature and reception from people of the time, is that people generally looked beyond his raw numbers and figured that he could score more but focused on what the team needed. Obviously he was on a very talented team, but losing minutes to the league's clear best number two centre in Richard doesn't help with scoring. Does help with winning obviously.

I was actually going to make a thread on the views on Beliveau and Mikita in the 1960s, because Mikita was obviously more productive but my sense is that even in the 1960s Beliveau was held in higher regard.

 

[jigglysquishy]

My sense of Beliveau, in terms of his stature and reception from people of the time, is that people generally looked beyond his raw numbers and figured that he could score more but focused on what the team needed. Obviously he was on a very talented team, but losing minutes to the league's clear best number two centre in Richard doesn't help with scoring. Does help with winning obviously.

I was actually going to make a thread on the views on Beliveau and Mikita in the 1960s, because Mikita was obviously more productive but my sense is that even in the 1960s Beliveau was held in higher regard.

I've been pouring over the newspapers in prep for the dmen project. Trying to do every playoff game of every 1910-2005 defenseman.

In terms of contemporary opinion, Beliveau over Mikita is very very clear. Mikita doesn't get a lot of love in game reports or just general newspaper discussion. Certainly behind Hull by quite a bit, but also behind Beliveau and Howe. Overall, if you just had newspaper reports and not stats, you'd probably judge Henri Richard ahead of Mikita too.

When Beliveau retires the media in general calls him the greatest centre of all time. Neither Esposito or Mikita get that level of praise.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I've been pouring over the newspapers in prep for the dmen project. Trying to do every playoff game of every 1910-2005 defenseman.

In terms of contemporary opinion, Beliveau over Mikita is very very clear. Mikita doesn't get a lot of love in game reports or just general newspaper discussion. Certainly behind Hull by quite a bit, but also behind Beliveau and Howe. Overall, if you just had newspaper reports and not stats, you'd probably judge Henri Richard ahead of Mikita too.

When Beliveau retires the media in general calls him the greatest centre of all time. Neither Esposito or Mikita get that level of praise.

One thing to note from studying Baseball, a much more easy game to dissect on an analytical (pitcher vs. batter, and use weighting formulas essentially) level, including through the historical archives by just checking box scores is that contemporary reporters had A LOT of power in terms of shaping narratives, which didn't always pass the "sniff test" when analyzed more empirically, as there were a lot of biases, petty feuds that would go into establishing the "meta" so to speak around particular players.

Don't have a great sense of how well that applies outside of Baseball that aren't as straightforward to breakdown analytically. Just a passing musing.

 

[JackSlater]

I've been pouring over the newspapers in prep for the dmen project. Trying to do every playoff game of every 1910-2005 defenseman.

In terms of contemporary opinion, Beliveau over Mikita is very very clear. Mikita doesn't get a lot of love in game reports or just general newspaper discussion. Certainly behind Hull by quite a bit, but also behind Beliveau and Howe. Overall, if you just had newspaper reports and not stats, you'd probably judge Henri Richard ahead of Mikita too.

When Beliveau retires the media in general calls him the greatest centre of all time. Neither Esposito or Mikita get that level of praise.

Interesting, that's generally my sense of things from the time. This is obviously a tangent separate from this thread, but there is often a clear distinction between how players were perceived, even in the media, and award voting. Mikita has two Harts, four Art Ross trophies in five years if I recall correctly, and I'm not sure that more than a very small minority really ever considered him the best player in the sport. The thread creator will enjoy this but I'd say it applies to Crosby in a positive way. Forsberg is another who had best player in the sport support that goes beyond award recognition. Sometimes you get Gretzky who gets every award and is also widely believed to be the best, but sometimes not.

I believe that the NHLPA polls also give insights into this.

 

[jigglysquishy]

One thing to note from studying Baseball, a much more easy game to dissect on an analytical (pitcher vs. batter, and use weighting formulas essentially) level, including through the historical archives by just checking box scores is that contemporary reporters had A LOT of power in terms of shaping narratives, which didn't always pass the "sniff test" when analyzed more empirically, as there were a lot of biases, petty feuds that would go into establishing the "meta" so to speak around particular players.

Don't have a great sense of how well that applies outside of Baseball that aren't as straightforward to breakdown analytically. Just a passing musing.

Ya it's not a perfect system, but I do think expands beyond raw award voting and numbers.

Montreal having multiple in depth French language newspapers go a long way. Having reporters outside the NHL cities helps. NY and Boston having bad coverage, Chicago having okay, and Detroit relying on Windsor isn't good.

In general, Montreal has tremendous coverage and picks up trends early. They're the first newspapers to boost Kelly. They're years early on Harvey.

In general, the defer to veterans. But it's always nice to see non usual suspects get big praise. Like Lemelin getting way more praise than Bourque in the 1988 Bruins run.

 

[overpass]

Beliveau's impact on the league went far beyond the stats. His combination of size and skill made him nearly impossible to beat in a matchup. When he entered the league, there were checking wingers who could match up against Howe and Richard, but nobody who could stop Beliveau.

The reaction around the league was maybe eve bigger than the reaction to Lindros in the 90s.

George Armstrong was supposed to be Toronto's answer to Beliveau, but he was too slow. Chicago thought Eric Nesterenko would be their man, but he wasn't skilled enough to play C. It wasn't until the 1960s when the Leafs got Kelly and Keon and the Hawks got Bill Hay that anyone could stop Beliveau. (The Hawks were helped by a dirty hit from Jack Evans that concussed Beliveau). The key move for the Leafs dynasty was targeted directly at Beliveau, and involved trading for an elite defenceman and moving him to C.

Even in the mid to late 1960s, the Habs repeatedly beat the Hawks because Beliveau dominated Mikita in their playoff matchup. Bobby Hull later said the Hawks lost because coach Billy Reay wouldn't adjust and kept sending out Mikita against Beliveau. All at the same time that Mikita was winning scoring titles and Hart trophies.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Even in the mid to late 1960s, the Habs repeatedly beat the Hawks because Beliveau dominated Mikita in their playoff matchup. Bobby Hull later said the Hawks lost because coach Billy Reay wouldn't adjust and kept sending out Mikita against Beliveau. All at the same time that Mikita was winning scoring titles and Hart trophies.

But if they swapped teams is Chicago with Beliveau beating Montreal with Mikita? That’s always the impossible to answer million dollar question.

 

[rmartin65]

Ya it's not a perfect system, but I do think expands beyond raw award voting and numbers.

Montreal having multiple in depth French language newspapers go a long way. Having reporters outside the NHL cities helps. NY and Boston having bad coverage, Chicago having okay, and Detroit relying on Windsor isn't good.

In general, Montreal has tremendous coverage and picks up trends early. They're the first newspapers to boost Kelly. They're years early on Harvey.

In general, the defer to veterans. But it's always nice to see non usual suspects get big praise. Like Lemelin getting way more praise than Bourque in the 1988 Bruins run.

You touch on this, but I'd like to really footstomp it- getting multiple sources from multiple locations is also important when going through the papers.

Say a Montreal paper seems to really like Player X- that's great. What about the other Montreal papers? What about the Ottawa paper(s), the Quebec City paper(s), etc? The true greats are the ones who are getting praise across the board, not just from one paper or city.

I'm excited to read what you have collected for the top dman project (even if I am still on the fence on participating). Your work during the goalie project was incredibly valuable and informative.