Rank These Goat Talents by Team Success

[GMR]

I don't discount it, the Red Wings had a legit dynasty with Howe. I'm just saying if we are going solely on the purpose of this thread I think you have to say Howe certainly had the opportunity to win more Cups than Orr. Definitely more time. There were anywhere from 12-18 teams during Orr's career. Both players could have won more Cups, but I think if you had to pick one to penalize more it is Howe.

Fair enough, but I thought this thread was talking about actual team accomplishments. Thus, the reasons for why Player A won more Cups than Player B aren't as relevant.

 

[Crosby2010]

Fair enough, but I thought this thread was talking about actual team accomplishments. Thus, the reasons for why Player A won more Cups than Player B aren't as relevant.

I guess you give Orr the benefit of the doubt here because he won more Cups per season per se. And the Bruins only missed the playoffs in his 1st year and that was it. Did it with more teams and less time. Could go either way of course. Howe didn't win after age 27, but made the Cup final 5 times afterwards.

 

[authentic]

Played less than a game on one of those cup win, terrible injury game 1.

More of a 3 win in 17 playoff run in 19 seasons really (if we stop counting after the 1966 playoff), winning it a bit less 1/6 of the time.

If we talk only about cups, Lemieux-Jagr winning 2 times when they did.... could have an argument over him.

Howe did lead (not co-lead) a cup winning teams in points a single time in his career, 1955 with one more point than Lindsay. Not sure about Richard, I think also once in 1958 (while it did in goals scored at least a couple of others times)

This is reinforcing to me (along with your recently posted adjusted playoff points thread) that my opinion of McDavid ahead of Howe for peak may be correct. Keeping in mind Howe’s overall game but also keeping in mind todays talent pool and strength of competition.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Taking into consideration how often they won, how often they choked, how good their teams were

Beliveau -> best player on 2 different dynasties.
Richard

Gretzky
Orr -> Boston was awful for like a decade before him
Howe -> His wings imploded in the 60s due to bad management
Lemieux -> bad choke jobs in 93,96, health held him back, like Orr completely rebuild a failed franchise
Crosby

Jagr
Hull / Ovechkin, Ironically 2 of the best goal scorers ever, who choked many times and won 1 cup each.



Mcdavid's career isn't close to over yet so I won't rank him. As it stands I would put him above Hull/Ovechkin. The oilers are a 2 man show.

Maybe I would swap Howe and Orr.

 

[daver]

I guess you give Orr the benefit of the doubt here because he won more Cups per season per se. And the Bruins only missed the playoffs in his 1st year and that was it. Did it with more teams and less time. Could go either way of course. Howe didn't win after age 27, but made the Cup final 5 times afterwards.

Ironically, you can argue that Howe was a better playoff performer during the Wing's four SCF losses in the '60s than he was during their four Cups.

 

[Crosby2010]

Ironically, you can argue that Howe was a better playoff performer during the Wing's four SCF losses in the '60s than he was during their four Cups.

Yeah quite possibly. Certainly not Howe's fault the Wings didn't win after 1955. 15 points in 11 games in 1961. 16 points in 11 games in 1963. 19 points in 14 games in 1964. Even 12 points in 10 games in 1956. 1966 he had 10 points in 12 games. So the blame is not at Howe's doorstep.

 

[daver]

Yeah quite possibly. Certainly not Howe's fault the Wings didn't win after 1955. 15 points in 11 games in 1961. 16 points in 11 games in 1963. 19 points in 14 games in 1964. Even 12 points in 10 games in 1956. 1966 he had 10 points in 12 games. So the blame is not at Howe's doorstep.

On the other hand, you can point to him playing just one game in the Wings 1950 Cup win.

Beliveau and Howe look a lot closer when just looking at their playoff resumes (which is reflected in the HOH rankings of playoff performers). One can point to Beliveau, like Howe, being a bit player in one Cup win, and being one part of the Habs four decades dominance.

I think the comparing of playoff success by the 06 era players vs. post 1990 players is tricky.

 

[Staniowski]

Orr -> Boston was awful for like a decade before him

The Bruins were also awful during Orr's rookie season, '66-'67.

It's more accurate to say they were awful for many years before the arrival of their top 3 centres - Esposito, Stanfield, Sanderson - in '67-'68. They, along with Orr, transformed the team.

Without these centres, Boston no doubt would've continued to struggle.

 

[Gorskyontario]

The Bruins were also awful during Orr's rookie season, '66-'67.

It's more accurate to say they were awful for many years before the arrival of their top 3 centres - Esposito, Stanfield, Sanderson - in '67-'68. They, along with Orr, transformed the team.

Serge Savard said the biggest reason for Bostons turnaround was Bobby Orr. No doubt the Penguins would have continued to flounder without Stevens, Francis, Jagr, Samuelsson ect.

 

[Staniowski]

Serge Savard said the biggest reason for Bostons turnaround was Bobby Orr. No doubt the Penguins would have continued to flounder without Stevens, Francis, Jagr, Samuelsson ect.

Everybody agrees Orr was the single most important reason for Boston's turnaround. But Esposito was a fairly close second. And the combined group that started in Orr's second season was crucial. Without that group, Orr and the Bruins may have missed the playoffs for a while.

 

[Crosby2010]

On the other hand, you can point to him playing just one game in the Wings 1950 Cup win.

Beliveau and Howe look a lot closer when just looking at their playoff resumes (which is reflected in the HOH rankings of playoff performers). One can point to Beliveau, like Howe, being a bit player in one Cup win, and being one part of the Habs four decades dominance.

I think the comparing of playoff success by the 06 era players vs. post 1990 players is tricky.

Howe is very underrated as a playoff performer, I think. Often forgotten to be honest. Maybe because he played so long and won his Cups earlier. But he's got 160 points, good for 23rd all-time. This is despite playing in a lower scoring era where nearly all of his career was a maximum of two playoff rounds. I do rank Beliveau higher as a playoff performer, but yeah not by much. It's close. He's the only Original 6 player with more playoff points at 176. To me it isn't just the raw number but the amount of great playoff runs. Howe had plenty of those. When we think of Bobby Hull or Stan Mikita we still think about very good playoff performers. And Howe had more success than them. It probably is hard to find 10 playoff performers better than Howe.

 

[daver]

Howe is very underrated as a playoff performer, I think. Often forgotten to be honest. Maybe because he played so long and won his Cups earlier. But he's got 160 points, good for 23rd all-time. This is despite playing in a lower scoring era where nearly all of his career was a maximum of two playoff rounds. I do rank Beliveau higher as a playoff performer, but yeah not by much. It's close. He's the only Original 6 player with more playoff points at 176. To me it isn't just the raw number but the amount of great playoff runs. Howe had plenty of those. When we think of Bobby Hull or Stan Mikita we still think about very good playoff performers. And Howe had more success than them. It probably is hard to find 10 playoff performers better than Howe.

Not in the HOH.

I doubt very many people take anyone over him for the playoffs other than other members of the Big 4 or a goalie.

He was more important to the Wings during their their run at the top '49 to '56 (#1 in points, goals and PPG) than Beliveau was to the Habs in their first run '55 to '60 (#2 in goals, #3 in points, #2 in PPG).

Beliveau certainly was impressive in the Habs 2nd run but Howe was argubly more impressive in the Wings 2nd run of SCFs.

 

[Crosby2010]

Not in the HOH.

I doubt very many people take anyone over him for the playoffs other than other members of the Big 4 or a goalie.

He was more important to the Wings during their their run at the top '49 to '56 (#1 in points, goals and PPG) than Beliveau was to the Habs in their first run '55 to '60 (#2 in goals, #3 in points, #2 in PPG).

Beliveau certainly was impressive in the Habs 2nd run but Howe was argubly more impressive in the Wings 2nd run of SCFs.

I'd have to put the Rocket ahead of him playoff wise. And since you mentioned goalies I'd say Roy. Overall I feel Beliveau in the playoffs was better too, but I agree it can be debated. Beliveau has the first ever Conn Smythe, and for sure another one in 1956 if it existed. Probably the best player on two different dynasties, that's hard for Howe to beat I think.

So for playoffs alone, Gretzky, Rocket, Roy, Beliveau for sure. You could say Messier. I'd probably choose Lemieux for a playoff run over Howe, but I don't know if Lemieux was in the playoffs enough times to unseat Howe. And you can say the same about Orr.

So for my money, you could argue Howe is the 6th best playoff performer of all-time, at least by my rough count.

 

[BadgerBruce]

I don't discount it, the Red Wings had a legit dynasty with Howe. I'm just saying if we are going solely on the purpose of this thread I think you have to say Howe certainly had the opportunity to win more Cups than Orr. Definitely more time. There were anywhere from 12-18 teams during Orr's career. Both players could have won more Cups, but I think if you had to pick one to penalize more it is Howe.

Respectfully disagree.

The Bruins during much of Orr’s career are seen as a “what could have been” team, winning two Cups when they should have won four in the early-1970s. They are even the first established/O6 team to lose in the finals to an expansion team (Flyers in ‘74). Honestly, despite two Cups, that Orr/Esposito led team is often viewed as a major underachiever.

The Red Wings, on the other hand, were never even once the SC favourite after their 1955 finals win over the Habs. Nevertheless, even after Jack Adams systematically destroyed the dynasty team’s roster, Howe led the team to the finals 5 times in 11 seasons (‘56-‘66, when Howe was 28-38 years old). For his career, the Wings lost in the finals 7 times (twice to the late-40s Leafs dynasty, twice to the 60s Leafs dynasty, twice to separate Habs dynasties, and once to the Bobby Hull led Hawks).

 

[Crosby2010]

Respectfully disagree.

The Bruins during much of Orr’s career are seen as a “what could have been” team, winning two Cups when they should have won four in the early-1970s. They are even the first established/O6 team to lose in the finals to an expansion team (Flyers in ‘74). Honestly, despite two Cups, that Orr/Esposito led team is often viewed as a major underachiever.

The Red Wings, on the other hand, were never even once the SC favourite after their 1955 finals win over the Habs. Nevertheless, even after Jack Adams systematically destroyed the dynasty team’s roster, Howe led the team to the finals 5 times in 11 seasons (‘56-‘66, when Howe was 28-38 years old). For his career, the Wings lost in the finals 7 times (twice to the late-40s Leafs dynasty, twice to the 60s Leafs dynasty, twice to separate Habs dynasties, and once to the Bobby Hull led Hawks).

Okay, that's fair enough. Orr and Esposito I will agree would have looked better and like less party animals (the Bruins in general I would say) with another Cup in either 1971 or 1974.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Esposito missed games 3-5 when they lost to the Rangers in 1973. Now, they lost the first two games while, he was there, but it's still a big loss.

In 1971 Orr and Esposito had a great series against Montreal and still lost. Dryden played out of his mind and Montreal had otherworldly depth.

Not that it's an excuse, but it's not like they lost unreasonably. 1975 is a different story, but ya.

 

[Overrated]

The Canada Cup isn't relevant if you're going to discount the Original 6 because of lack of competition. The Canada Cup was 6 teams, with Finland/United States being overmatched. Orr played his career in the 70's where expansion teams were also frequently overmatched. Howe played in a six team league with Montreal having several dynasties and Toronto having their 60's dynasty. Yeah, there weren't many teams, but it's difficult to win more than 4 Cups in a league full of other dynasty teams with loaded rosters.

If you want to compare Ovechkin's competition versus Howe's, that's one thing, but Orr's competition wasn't much tougher IMO.

1970s Sweden was also not very good and the Soviets didn’t send in their top two lines. That means only the CSSR were somewhat solid.

 

[Gerulaitis]

The Original Six players will have an unfair advantage here.

It was much easier to win trophies back in the day

 

[daver]

The Original Six players will have an unfair advantage here.

It was much easier to win trophies back in the day

More like the Habs players have an unfair advantage. Howe won a decent amount of Cups in comparison to his peers all-time but somewhat disappointingly in comparison to his O6 Habs peers, and Hull notably won only once.

I would not take Beliveau over Howe for a playoff run based on their on their relative team success but Beliveau vs. Hull is tricky as Hull, like Beliveau, kept up his regular season level of play in terms of production, in the playoffs while Mikita notably did not outside of 1962. The Hawks were well positioned to win more Cups but fell short.

How fair is it that for many, Beliveau gets rated higher than Hull despite an inferior regular season resume and a clearly lower goalscoring ceiling, based on his Cup wins?

Is Hull like McDavid? A GOAT talent for a franchise that didn't have the pieces in place for team success?

Or did Beliveau have an "it" factor that, or other other attributes like 2-way play, that was more conducive to his team winning?

 

[Gorskyontario]

Mikita notably did not outside of 1962.

Because the Habs would match Beliveau against Mikita, and Beliveau consistently dominated him.

 

[MadLuke]

Beliveau gets rated higher than Hull despite an inferior regular season resume

Is that a big gap (if any) ?

Beliveau has 7 Top 3 points finish, scored more points in the nhl playing in average in a lower scoring era.

Even if we take into account he never had to play against MTL and Hull did, despite playing until 39 in the nhl he had an higher adjusted for defense faced PPG than Bobby Hull (just a bit, but considering Hull leave at 33-34 that impressive).

And while not Bobby Hull obviously, Beliveau scored goals like a Dionne-Sakic-Jagr type among the best that are not great, in his prime (55-61) he did outgoal everyone by a clean margin.

It was much easier to win trophies back in the day

A bit like it is much easier to win a gold at the Olympics than a cup... because it is a smaller teams tourney.

If you are good enough to make team Canada
And if you are Canadians

Otherwise it can get arguably harder quick and the average cup winner is not a better more dedicated athlete with a better career than the average Olympics gold winner, when the best player goes to the tourney.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Chicago only finished in 1st one time.

1959-60 through 1967-68

3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 4th

They probably didn’t win with their best team but probably really only one more cup realistically. The teams better situated geographically always had way more depth while Chicago had big star power.

The Wings finished in first seven years in a row 1948-49 through 1954-55 and again in 1956-57 while finishing in second in 1947-48 and 1958-59 before declining in the 60s.