Yeah I feel the same way when I watch Ovechkin's rookie goal against the Coyotes.
How good of a goal scorer is Gordie Howe?
- Thread starter TheBig08
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
can anybody find mike bossy goals and highlights, I cant find any
i dont know what bro was thinking, had no reason being that far out of the net.
Can yhall also go look at the new tread i posted its called "patrik laine"
i dont know what bro was thinking, had no reason being that far out of the net.Can yhall also go look at the new tread i posted its called "patrik laine"
The Panther
Registered User
A highlight of a goal being scored generally doesn't make the goaltending look good.
Meanwhile, here's the flawless playoff goaltending of today:
most of them were unlucky, alot of them the goalie hit it in theirselves or just did something stupid instead of making the simple save like at 3:22 he could have easily stopped that he was just being stupid and waited to the last second, only a few were they beat on a shot for example 0:16 , also shots like those barley go in, alot more frequent back then.
Last edited:
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,614
- 13,145
lol, a ya but…
being injured isn’t Hull’ fault, regardless of that, Hull is ahead of Bure, on all lists.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I don't get the impression that you're very familiar with "back then" based on comments so far...
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
you should also go check out my patrik laine thread its in the national league talk disscusions. you seem to know a good bit bout hockey wanna know what you think about it
I consider Howe a top-5 goal scorer of all time, and his peak is very underrated. Notably, from 1950-51 to 1953-54, only four other players scored half the number of goals that he did.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,407
- 15,496
Until I started studying hockey history, my impression was Maurice Richard was the better goal scorer by a clear margin. Sure, Howe had a higher career total, but that didn't necessarily prove anything. Mike Gartner had a higher career total than Mario Lemieux.
It didn't take me long to start questioning that notion. What immediately stood out is both men won five goal-scoring titles. (In fact, Howe led the league in goals five times under "normal" circumstances; one of Richard's titles came during WWII, when talent was depleted). And through 18 seasons, they scored nearly the same number of goals (Richard was up 544-540). Howe's immense longevity helped him push his career totals even higher, but he didn't need freakish longevity to surpass Richard's total. Howe had almost as many years in the top three in goals as Richard had in the top ten (12 vs 13) - yes, part of that is a reflection of longevity, but it isn't like Richard had a short career (he retired 2nd all-time in games played).
I think the general perception that Richard's a better goal scorer than Howe is due to a combination of factors (from weakest to strongest):
Good marketing - when Richard died in 2000, the NHL introduced the Rocket Richard trophy (a statistical award, going to the player(s) who scored the most goals in a season). It's likely that this has influenced fans who are, say, 30 and younger (since goalscoring has been synonymized with Richard's name). But I don't find this explanation compelling, because the perception that Richard was the better goalscorer predated Richard's death.
"50 goals in 50 games" - most hockey fans know that Richard was the first player to score 50 goals in 50 games. Anyone who's studied pre-expansion hockey knows that this took place when the league was depleted, as most players had joined the armed forces during WWII, and Richard's competition was predominantly minor leaguers. (Just two years later, Richard scored 45 goals in 60 games against a full-strength league, and this is generally considered a more impressive accomplishment). But most casual fans don't know this, and Richard has a "signature" goalscoring factoid, while Howe doesn't. (People are easily impressed by round numbers, and pretend that 50 goals is significantly more impressive than 49, or that 501 goals are significantly more impressive than 498).
Specialization - Howe was a better playmaker by a wide margin, and also better defensively. The men were rivals on the ice (though, as Howe discussed in his biography, they eventually became friends in retirement). There may have been an attempt, even subconsciously, to exaggerate Richard's goalscoring ability in order to make this a more compelling rivalry. If Richard wasn't clearly the better goal scorer, what else did he have?
Sniper vs shooter - we only have SOG data for his final season, but by all accounts, Richard was a sniper. He scored many of his goals on breakaways, and was known for his accuracy. Howe was clearly a volume shooter. (We have SOG data starting in 1960; over the next eight seasons, from ages 31 to 38, he was first or second in shots on goal each year). Just as we've seen with Ovechkin, perhaps some criticized Howe's goalscoring ability because he "needed" to take so many shots. (I've explain before why I disagree with this reasoning, but it's conceivable that this was an argument against him).
Playoffs - I think this is the strongest argument in favour of Richard. He's probably the 2nd or 3rd greatest playoff performer in NHL history, and that's almost entirely on the strength of his goalscoring. He outscored Howe 82-68, despite Howe having played in 25 more games. (That's 0.62 vs 0.43 GPG - a huge difference). The counterargument is Howe had several deep playoff runs before he entered his prime, which dragged down his average (Richard didn't play in the postseason until he was 22, and the league was depleted during those first two runs, where he scored more than goal per game). But even if you play around with which years to include, Richard comes out ahead. (Plus, Richard remained the all-time leader until the mid 1980's, which is incredible considering the playoffs were only two rounds back then). He's still 8th today, 64 years after his final game.
Richard was pretty clearly the better goal-scorer in the playoffs, but I think the reputational gap (at least among casual fans) is exaggerated. Someone would have to place a heavy emphasis on the postseason, and little to no emphasis on consistency and longevity, for Richard to rank higher. (I'm not saying that can't be done, but it should be applied consistently - someone that ranks Richard above Howe would probably rank Bossy relatively high, and Hull and Ovechkin relatively low).
It didn't take me long to start questioning that notion. What immediately stood out is both men won five goal-scoring titles. (In fact, Howe led the league in goals five times under "normal" circumstances; one of Richard's titles came during WWII, when talent was depleted). And through 18 seasons, they scored nearly the same number of goals (Richard was up 544-540). Howe's immense longevity helped him push his career totals even higher, but he didn't need freakish longevity to surpass Richard's total. Howe had almost as many years in the top three in goals as Richard had in the top ten (12 vs 13) - yes, part of that is a reflection of longevity, but it isn't like Richard had a short career (he retired 2nd all-time in games played).
I think the general perception that Richard's a better goal scorer than Howe is due to a combination of factors (from weakest to strongest):
Good marketing - when Richard died in 2000, the NHL introduced the Rocket Richard trophy (a statistical award, going to the player(s) who scored the most goals in a season). It's likely that this has influenced fans who are, say, 30 and younger (since goalscoring has been synonymized with Richard's name). But I don't find this explanation compelling, because the perception that Richard was the better goalscorer predated Richard's death.
"50 goals in 50 games" - most hockey fans know that Richard was the first player to score 50 goals in 50 games. Anyone who's studied pre-expansion hockey knows that this took place when the league was depleted, as most players had joined the armed forces during WWII, and Richard's competition was predominantly minor leaguers. (Just two years later, Richard scored 45 goals in 60 games against a full-strength league, and this is generally considered a more impressive accomplishment). But most casual fans don't know this, and Richard has a "signature" goalscoring factoid, while Howe doesn't. (People are easily impressed by round numbers, and pretend that 50 goals is significantly more impressive than 49, or that 501 goals are significantly more impressive than 498).
Specialization - Howe was a better playmaker by a wide margin, and also better defensively. The men were rivals on the ice (though, as Howe discussed in his biography, they eventually became friends in retirement). There may have been an attempt, even subconsciously, to exaggerate Richard's goalscoring ability in order to make this a more compelling rivalry. If Richard wasn't clearly the better goal scorer, what else did he have?
Sniper vs shooter - we only have SOG data for his final season, but by all accounts, Richard was a sniper. He scored many of his goals on breakaways, and was known for his accuracy. Howe was clearly a volume shooter. (We have SOG data starting in 1960; over the next eight seasons, from ages 31 to 38, he was first or second in shots on goal each year). Just as we've seen with Ovechkin, perhaps some criticized Howe's goalscoring ability because he "needed" to take so many shots. (I've explain before why I disagree with this reasoning, but it's conceivable that this was an argument against him).
Playoffs - I think this is the strongest argument in favour of Richard. He's probably the 2nd or 3rd greatest playoff performer in NHL history, and that's almost entirely on the strength of his goalscoring. He outscored Howe 82-68, despite Howe having played in 25 more games. (That's 0.62 vs 0.43 GPG - a huge difference). The counterargument is Howe had several deep playoff runs before he entered his prime, which dragged down his average (Richard didn't play in the postseason until he was 22, and the league was depleted during those first two runs, where he scored more than goal per game). But even if you play around with which years to include, Richard comes out ahead. (Plus, Richard remained the all-time leader until the mid 1980's, which is incredible considering the playoffs were only two rounds back then). He's still 8th today, 64 years after his final game.
Richard was pretty clearly the better goal-scorer in the playoffs, but I think the reputational gap (at least among casual fans) is exaggerated. Someone would have to place a heavy emphasis on the postseason, and little to no emphasis on consistency and longevity, for Richard to rank higher. (I'm not saying that can't be done, but it should be applied consistently - someone that ranks Richard above Howe would probably rank Bossy relatively high, and Hull and Ovechkin relatively low).
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,513
- 6,044
I think first one to reach 500 goals and the size of the gap at retired first are 2 factors.
When Richard retired he had 544 RS goals + 82 playoff goals for 626 goals in the nhl.
No one had 500 at the time, Howe the closest at 446+37 for 483
When Howe retired in 1971, was there not a notion that Bobby Hull was the best if not Richard already installed ? Richard had the chance to retire the goal king.
I think Howe-Beliveau-Richard are much closer than one initial reflex, at least in terms of result goal scored, how much distraction and energy spent at doing other things than scoring goals could have been different enough for the better goalscorer to have a deflated goal count, when Forsberg wanted to score or was put in a situation to do it, he was really good at it, but did not score that much goals.
I think one of the best Richard argument, is when they played in the same league, prime Howe versus old Richard.
Say from Howe 21 years old season (49-50) when he got fully going until Richard 35 years old season in 1957
goal per game, playoff included
Howe....: .561
Richard.: .545
Beliveau: .540
Is there much doubt that prime Richard could have outscored him by a little if 28-35 Richard was so close ? Would 21-28 Richard score 5% more goals ? Could be a case of clear but close. Same with Beliveau, that old Richard keeping up fine versus young prime Beliveau.
When Richard retired he had 544 RS goals + 82 playoff goals for 626 goals in the nhl.
No one had 500 at the time, Howe the closest at 446+37 for 483
When Howe retired in 1971, was there not a notion that Bobby Hull was the best if not Richard already installed ? Richard had the chance to retire the goal king.
I think Howe-Beliveau-Richard are much closer than one initial reflex, at least in terms of result goal scored, how much distraction and energy spent at doing other things than scoring goals could have been different enough for the better goalscorer to have a deflated goal count, when Forsberg wanted to score or was put in a situation to do it, he was really good at it, but did not score that much goals.
I think one of the best Richard argument, is when they played in the same league, prime Howe versus old Richard.
Say from Howe 21 years old season (49-50) when he got fully going until Richard 35 years old season in 1957
goal per game, playoff included
Howe....: .561
Richard.: .545
Beliveau: .540
Is there much doubt that prime Richard could have outscored him by a little if 28-35 Richard was so close ? Would 21-28 Richard score 5% more goals ? Could be a case of clear but close. Same with Beliveau, that old Richard keeping up fine versus young prime Beliveau.
Sentinel
Registered User
If you go by peak, the top 3 are Gretzky, Lemieux, and Hull Jr.
If you go by consistency, the top 3 are Ovechkin, Hull Sr, and Esposito
If you go by career totals, it's Gretzky, Ovechkin, and Howe.
There is no case for Bossy to be even in the top 5.
Gretzky / Ovechkin
Lemieux / Howe / Hull Sr / Esposito
Hull Jr / Bossy / Richard
Bure
If you go by consistency, the top 3 are Ovechkin, Hull Sr, and Esposito
If you go by career totals, it's Gretzky, Ovechkin, and Howe.
There is no case for Bossy to be even in the top 5.
Gretzky / Ovechkin
Lemieux / Howe / Hull Sr / Esposito
Hull Jr / Bossy / Richard
Bure
Staniowski
Registered User
Howe was an excellent goal-scorer, and I like his goal-scoring a lot. It was enabled by his great hockey sense and positioning, which gave him many good opportunities, and his hard shot, and nifty plays in close.
But there's no good argument that he's one of the 10-best ever. Almost everybody who saw them play thought Rocket was better (and he was), and Hull and Esposito were certainly better.
And there have been too many great goal-scorers in the past fifty years.
But there's no good argument that he's one of the 10-best ever. Almost everybody who saw them play thought Rocket was better (and he was), and Hull and Esposito were certainly better.
And there have been too many great goal-scorers in the past fifty years.
ovi has so many shot because he has the ability to create chances to get shots off whether hes using his speed to fly past defenders or getting open on the left circle or his little changes in angles. To be a good goal scorer one of the things you need is the ability to create chances to get shots off.
The Panther
Registered User
You often have weird takes, and this is yet another one.
-- Howe's goals finishes: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5 (top-3 for twelve seasons)
-- He held most goals (career) record for 30 years
There is obviously a VERY good argument that he's top 10. There's also a strong arrgument that he's top five.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,407
- 15,496
Just in case my comment wasn't clear - I agree with you. Generating shots on goal is unquestionably a good thing. I was (essentially) trying to brainstorm the arguments against Howe, and that would be one of them.
Staniowski
Registered User
I understand the argument using his goal-scoring numbers and finishes. I just don't think it's a good argument.
Gordie was always a very good goal-scorer, and he did it for a long time. But, at or near his best, I don't see him among the 10-best. Maurice Richard and Bobby Hull were better, among guys who had significant overlap. They had better goal-scoring instincts and desire than Howe.
And many others since then.
